NationStates Jolt Archive

It should come as no surprise that dirtbags abound (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/) in the world of industry lobbyists. Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth deals with global warming and with the issue of burning fossil fuels. So what does the energy industry do? They hire shills like the folks from the National Center for Policy Analysis to compare Al Gore to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels.
That’s the problem. If I thought Al Gore’s movie was as you like to say, fair and balanced, I’d say, everyone should go see it. But why go see propaganda? You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels’ films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t go see Al Gore’s films to see the truth about global warming.It should be no surprise that this interview took place on Fox News--you can see the video of the interview at the link above.

He was comparing them in context, though. He wasn't calling Gore a Nazi.

Is the spelling mistake in the title a satirical typo or a mistake?

Well, look on the bright side. The very fact that it got blasted on Fox News is going to make non-Fox-beleivers wonder what Fox makes such a fuss about it.

I'm surprised no one has invoked Godwin's Law yet.

He was comparing them in context, though. He wasn't calling Gore a Nazi.
Does that somehow make it better? He's comparing Gore's work on the environment to the work Goebbels did to make one of the most murderous regimes in history look good. I don't think it matters one bit how you compare them--it's still a heinous act.

Is the spelling mistake in the title a satirical typo or a mistake?
Spelling mistake? What did I miss?

He was comparing them in context, though. He wasn't calling Gore a Nazi.

Technically true, but your failure to speak out about the evil of puppy squashing makes your comment objectively pro-puppy squashing, Greater Alemannia

Maybe we should stick those lobbyists in a room full of CO2 and make them find out what global warming is all about.

Spelling mistake? What did I miss?
Well, unless there is another oil company, I presumed you meant Shell.

But go with the delibarate satire - it's quite a good one. :p

Does that somehow make it better? He's comparing Gore's work on the environment to the work Goebbels did to make one of the most murderous regimes in history look good. I don't think it matters one bit how you compare them--it's still a heinous act.

No, he's not. He could have easily compared Gore's film to asking Mao for an objective opinion on communism. The only reason you're making a big deal is because he used Nazism as an example. He's not comparing Gore's film to Nazism; he's using Nazism as an example to question the film's objectivity.

Well, unless there is another oil company, I presumed you meant Shell.

But go with the delibarate satire - it's quite a good one. :p
shill--One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

The major supporter of the group this lobbyist works for is Exxon/Mobil. You might try clicking a link once in a while.

shill--One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

The major supporter of the group this lobbyist works for is Exxon/Mobil. You might try clicking a link once in a while.
psst...I was agreeing with you/pointing that out.

No, he's not. He could have easily compared Gore's film to asking Mao for an objective opinion on communism. The only reason you're making a big deal is because he used Nazism as an example. He's not comparing Gore's film to Nazism; he's using Nazism as an example to question the film's objectivity.

So why isn't Gore objective? Does he own a wind turbine company? Is he in the pocket of the nuclear power industry?

So why isn't Gore objective? Does he own a wind turbine company? Is he in the pocket of the nuclear power industry?

I assume that he's not.

I assume that he's not.

Well if I assume that Micheal Jordan isn't objective then when he says "Nike shoes are great," can I fairly respond, "Would you go to a rapist for advice on what shoes to wear?" After all, I never called him a rapist.

Well if I assume that Micheal Jordan isn't objective then when he says "Nike shoes are great," can I fairly respond, "Would you go to a rapist for advice on what shoes to wear?" After all, I never called him a rapist.

MJ's status as a rapist has no effect on his objectivity relative to footwear.

It should come as no surprise that dirtbags abound (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/) in the world of industry lobbyists. Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth deals with global warming and with the issue of burning fossil fuels. So what does the energy industry do? They hire shills like the folks from the National Center for Policy Analysis to compare Al Gore to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels.
It should be no surprise that this interview took place on Fox News--you can see the video of the interview at the link above.
All politics contains anymore is hyperbole. It happens on the right and it happens on the left. Anyone that doesn't share your view of how things are is either a Nazi or an idiot. I guess that applies to public relations, as well. Certainly the Sierra Club and other eco-fanatical groups have said unkind things about the energy industry.

This is just the result of dumbing down the population. When more people get their news from Comedy Central than from a paper, well, what do you expect?

All politics contains anymore is hyperbole. It happens on the right and it happens on the left. Anyone that doesn't share your view of how things are is either a Nazi or an idiot. I guess that applies to public relations, as well. Certainly the Sierra Club and other eco-fanatical groups have said unkind things about the energy industry.

This is just the result of dumbing down the population. When more people get their news from Comedy Central than from a paper, well, what do you expect?
The scary thing is that in some cases, Comedy Central has given a more nuanced and accurate version of a news story than the news media has.

The scary thing is that in some cases, Comedy Central has given a more nuanced and accurate version of a news story than the news media has.
But they only emphasize the parts, or stories, that have a punchline. That's certainly a different kind of bias, but it probably is a bias, all the same.

Real news is boring, I admit that.

It should come as no surprise that dirtbags abound in the world of industry lobbyists.

I think he is calling people who make Nazi comparisons dirtbags, not any particular political side.

Just because someone didn't technically lie, doesn't mean they're not engaging in dirtbag like behaviour.

I think he is calling people who make Nazi comparisons dirtbags, not any particular political side.

Just because someone didn't technically lie, doesn't mean they're not engaging in dirtbag like behaviour.
That's absolutely the case, although I also tend to consider industry lobbyists dirtbags in general.

You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels’ films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t go to an oil company lobbyist to find out the truth about global warming.

You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels’ films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t go to an oil company lobbyist to find out the truth about global warming.

But do you go to someone who is against the 'evil oil companies' for the truth about global warming? I think maybe he is saying Gore is biased against the oil companies, not for something else. So it would still stand to reason that his film is probably not very objective (if you agree with the "shill".)

*note: I'm not saying the film is biased, or that Gore is biased. I'm merely saying the Shill's statement, based on what he believes, is not unreasonable.

These guys are all politicians and lobbyists, and all have special political financial interests in regard to this issue. Gore's take is as politicized as any other viewpoint; the truth of global warming should be learned from respectable scientific journals and studies, not the film of a politician or the account of a lobbyist.

Watching Gore on global warming is just like watching Michael Moore on corporations, tobacco CEOs on cigarette safety, or Ann Coulter on liberals. They all have a political agenda to push, so take anything they say with a grain of salt.

These guys are all politicians and lobbyists, and all have special political financial interests in regard to this issue. Gore's take is as politicized as any other viewpoint; the truth of global warming should be learned from respectable scientific journals and studies, not the film of a politician or the account of a lobbyist.

Watching Gore on global warming is just like watching Michael Moore on corporations, tobacco CEOs on cigarette safety, or Ann Coulter on liberals. They all have a political agenda to push, so take anything they say with a grain of salt.
I'm sorry, but that's utter bullshit. Gore has a lot more credibility on the issue of global warming that Moore or Coulter have on anything.

One big problem with saying that the North Pole melting would flood the world: If you stick an ice cube in a glass and then fill it with water to the rim and let the cube melt, does the glass overflow? If you didn't know before you do now; all the ice in the artic circle is floating because there's no land there for it sit on.

I do plan to see the movie even though I disagree with it because I don't believe I can judge it fairly until after I have seen it.

You know, over the weekend I was listiening to a radio station, who's singnal keeped geting jamed by the way, how the movie the oil companies are puting out shows this guy saying how the interior of Iceland is geting thicker ice. I terns out the resion he said that was happaning was becuse the world's ice supply was melting, resalting in more rain, resalting in more ice. Thay edited the part whare he explained the resion for the thick ice and only put the part about the thicker ice in the movie, however.
Republicans, cant live with them and you cant... live with them.

"Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy."

I don't doubt for a second that the planet is getting warmer. It has warmed in the past century or so by about 1 degree. The part I have difficulty believing is that people are to blame. This planet is a giant, ancient thing. It has not always looked the way it does now. Few people realize how difficult it would be to destory the planet by design, it'd be nearly impossible to do it accidentally.

One big problem with saying that the North Pole melting would flood the world: If you stick an ice cube in a glass and then fill it with water to the rim and let the cube melt, does the glass overflow? If you didn't know before you do now; all the ice in the artic circle is floating because there's no land there for it sit on.

I do plan to see the movie even though I disagree with it because I don't believe I can judge it fairly until after I have seen it.

1) Ice is more dense, so its possible the glass will in fact overflow.

2) Most of the ice is below sea level, but a good amount is above it as well, which will cause sea waters to rise several feet.

3) We are about due for another ice age, so I guess global warming is a good thing!

He was comparing them in context, though. He wasn't calling Gore a Nazi.

That is ridiculous. He is using Gore and Nazi in the same statement and comparing Gore's beliefs on global warming to Goebbels efforts in Nazi Germany. Comparing the two is slanderous and insulting.

I'm sorry, but that's utter bullshit. Gore has a lot more credibility on the issue of global warming that Moore or Coulter have on anything.
Okay, but is he more credible than a number of scientists that doubt global warming. Gore doesn't have any greater standing than any other activist. He's an excellent figurehead for a movement, but that's about it.

Atcually no, the glass will never overflow. You can try this yourself if you don't believe me. If anything the water will go down because some of it evaporates. And if ice were more dense, it would sink. Normal ice floats. If your ice is sinking I'd stop drinking that water. Water ice is an abnormality. Most of the time when something goes from liquid to solid it gets more dense and the solid lump will sink. Water is...different, like Dan Hibiki. HADO--...ken.

And Gore is something of a facist. Most politicians and people who belong to a political party are just because they're trying to force their beliefs and whatnot on others.

1) Ice is more dense, so its possible the glass will in fact overflow.

2) Most of the ice is below sea level, but a good amount is above it as well, which will cause sea waters to rise several feet.

3) We are about due for another ice age, so I guess global warming is a good thing!
Look up the famous Archimedes principle and report back.

Density only determines how much is submerged.

Okay, but is he more credible than a number of scientists that doubt global warming. Gore doesn't have any greater standing than any other activist. He's an excellent figurehead for a movement, but that's about it.
Is there a single scientist in the field not connected to the energy industry who dispute global warming? Not likely. The independent research scientists who study this are in agreement--notice I didn't say activist scientists; I said independent research scientist in this field.

Is there a single scientist in the field not connected to the energy industry who dispute global warming? Not likely. The independent research scientists who study this are in agreement--notice I didn't say activist scientists; I said independent research scientist in this field.
Well the USGS says the Earth throws out more junk every year than we puny hoo-monz do. But what do geologists know about climate? I mean they're only the ones who pull the records of past climate out of the ground

It should come as no surprise that dirtbags abound (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/) in the world of industry lobbyists. Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth deals with global warming and with the issue of burning fossil fuels. So what does the energy industry do? They hire shills like the folks from the National Center for Policy Analysis to compare Al Gore to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels.
It should be no surprise that this interview took place on Fox News--you can see the video of the interview at the link above.
Reminds me of when moveon.org compared Bush to Nazis during the election cycle of 2004. Looks like the right comparison was made this time.

No, he's not. He could have easily compared Gore's film to asking Mao for an objective opinion on communism. The only reason you're making a big deal is because he used Nazism as an example. He's not comparing Gore's film to Nazism; he's using Nazism as an example to question the film's objectivity.
That's bollocks, that is. You (and the spokesman) know just how emotive the word 'Nazi' is, let making any comparison and/or analogy is going to be.
That spokesman knew full well what such a comment would do: It would immediately push all the emotive buttons on the simple-minded audience who watches Fox:
OMG!! Gore is a Nazi! Fox said so!

Ironically, this spokesman is more guilty of following Goebels dictums than Gore. A well-placed inuendo and he has an instant negative opinion of Gore - one he can self-righteously claim wasn't what he had in mind at all. And Gore complaining just makes him look whiny and get "ohhh....maybe he does have something to hide. Why else would he complain so much?" reaction.



I'm just totally amazed and dumbfounded that Fox would let a comment like that pass unchallenged. Gosh. It's almost like they're against liberals or something.

Well the USGS says the Earth throws out more junk every year than we puny hoo-monz do. But what do geologists know about climate? I mean they're only the ones who pull the records of past climate out of the groundNone of which contradicts my point.

Look--you post a statement like that as though global warming believers disbelieve that the earth goes through normal heating and cooling cycles. We don't. What we're saying is that humans are making this cycle worse by throwing all this extra shit into the air, and that it's causing climate change. Now, if you want to keep up this simplistic look at the situation, then address that part of it at least.

Well the USGS says the Earth throws out more junk every year than we puny hoo-monz do. But what do geologists know about climate? I mean they're only the ones who pull the records of past climate out of the ground
Yes, and the Earth has developed a rather nice feedback system to cope with what the Earth throws out. Our shit is extra and above what the Earth can cope with, which is why it's bad. Understand?

Reminds me of when moveon.org compared Bush to Nazis during the election cycle of 2004. Looks like the right comparison was made this time.
Fuck you, you fucking liar. Moveon made no such comparison, and only lying douchebags still make that claim. A couple of people entered ads into a Moveon contest, and Moveon removed them from the contest. That's a big fucking difference from saying that Moveon compared Bush to Hitler.

Fuck you, you fucking liar.

Need anything more be said? Friendly tip: Calm down

Need anything more be said? Friendly tip: Calm down
It doesn't concern you, not unless you're making the same bullshit claim. Here's my return tip: Answer the questions put to you above.

Where is your indignation everytime Bush is compared to Hitler?

Need anything more be said? Friendly tip: Calm down
Geez. Nazz needs to take a chill pill.
I think supporting a Bush* has really upset him, more than he'll admit (even to himself).


*http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11018200&postcount=21

While I do believe that Godwin's takes over the lobbyists retarded argument, I do think that he wants to say that Gore is a propagandist, not a Nazi. But, regardless, the lobbyist brought in Nazis. His argument is invalidated, Gore wins by default.

Is there a single scientist in the field not connected to the energy industry who dispute global warming? Not likely. The independent research scientists who study this are in agreement--notice I didn't say activist scientists; I said independent research scientist in this field.
I wasn't trying to argue the existence of global warming. I was just impugning Mr. Gore's credentials as a expert on the subject.

All things considered, humankind _may_ have actually had a small effect on the planet's climate. Nibbling around the edges to reduce this effect is probably not worth the effort. Figuring out how to live with the results of a warmer climate is probably more appropriate.

Where is your indignation everytime Bush is compared to Hitler?
You ever see me do it? You ever see me support it? No. I have, in fact, called out people who have done it in the past. It doesn't happen all that often, however, because it's over the top and unnecessary. If you can prove that I've supported it in the past, then by all means, go ahead--here's your shot to take me down.

I might add that the President commissioned a multi-part study on global warming, while it has only had one of the parts reported so far, has turned up substantial evidence that there is global warming, and that humans are having an impact on it in some way.

I might add that the President commissioned a multi-part study on global warming, while it has only had one of the parts reported so far, has turned up substantial evidence that there is global warming, and that humans are having an impact on it in some way.
I remember when that was announced. Rush Limbaugh just about had an aneurysm on the air.

If it is the truth and this is the situation it can hardly be called subjective simply because it favours one sides proposed course of action.

Well call me a heretic because I'm going against your religion. When people have no mythology to live their lives by they just start spewing a bunch of crap from their mouths in an attempt to make up new myths.

The whole of humanity may be something special and every person may be unique but as a great entity once said, "To be blunt, you're not that important."

Technically true, but your failure to speak out about the evil of puppy squashing makes your comment objectively pro-puppy squashing, Greater Alemannia
I'm sick of anti-pupy squashing nazis like you. If I want to squash my puppies I'll squash them.

Fuck you, you fucking liar. Moveon made no such comparison, and only lying douchebags still make that claim. A couple of people entered ads into a Moveon contest, and Moveon removed them from the contest. That's a big fucking difference from saying that Moveon compared Bush to Hitler.
No different from claiming that the Oil company person compaired Gore to a Nazi. :upyours:

No different from claiming that the Oil company person compaired Gore to a Nazi. :upyours:
Duh--he fucking did. Follow the link, watch the video. Or you could just read the transcript.

No different from claiming that the Oil company person compaired Gore to a Nazi. :upyours:

Did you miss the actual report?

I suppose Al Gore can be a bit biased, sometimes. The only issue where I fully trust his opinion is the threat of ManBearPig. I'm super super serial.

I'm sorry, but that's utter bullshit. Gore has a lot more credibility on the issue of global warming that Moore or Coulter have on anything.

But he still has a political agenda to push, which means that regardless of his knowledge on the subject the things he says will be influenced by politics. I for onedon't doubt global warming, but I do know that the facts regarding it should be obtained from as impartial a source as possible, not a film by an activist and politician regardless of how much he knows about it.

Dosuun Wrote:
One big problem with saying that the North Pole melting would flood the world: If you stick an ice cube in a glass and then fill it with water to the rim and let the cube melt, does the glass overflow? If you didn't know before you do now; all the ice in the artic circle is floating because there's no land there for it sit on.

I do plan to see the movie even though I disagree with it because I don't believe I can judge it fairly until after I have seen it.

Ugh, you are simply misunderstanding the pricipal of sea level rise, We are not talking about Sea-ice floating on the Artic ocean! We are talking about Ice-Sheets on land, locked up in Permafrost, the 3 main landmasses in question being Canada, Greenland and Siberia. That is the Ice, that if melted, will rise sea levels, and if you don't think it will happen then all I can say is you know very little about this topic indeed.

Dosuun Wrote:
"Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe.

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy."

I don't doubt for a second that the planet is getting warmer. It has warmed in the past century or so by about 1 degree. The part I have difficulty believing is that people are to blame. This planet is a giant, ancient thing. It has not always looked the way it does now. Few people realize how difficult it would be to destory the planet by design, it'd be nearly impossible to do it accidentally.

Again another idiotic statement, No Environmentalist has ever Talked about the Earth being "Destroyed" Physically!
Of-course we could not Destroy the Earth it is a vast piece of Rock and Metal, No one is talking about Global Warming Blowing up the Earth you Moron!
What Environmentalist are Talking about is the Destruction of that Very Fragile piece of the Earth, it's life!
Now obviously Global Temperature rises will adversely affect all life on Earth, by Destroying Ecosystems, Extinction of thousands or Millions of Species, and of-course affecting Human Civilization.
Whether or not you believe it is being caused by Humans (Which of-course Scientist are practically unanimous in saying it is), you cannot deny the overwhelming Evidence that it would be bad, and is something to be prevented.

So let me get this straight, if theres overwhelming evidence then i's wrong?
God what a country! Can we send blair over? He's more popular with you than us.

Imperiux Wrote:
So let me get this straight, if theres overwhelming evidence then i's wrong?
God what a country! Can we send blair over? He's more popular with you than us.
I'm sorry I don't understand this post, is it Directed at me?

What is an "i's"? And what does Tony Blair have to do with anything?

It should come as no surprise that dirtbags abound (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/) in the world of industry lobbyists. Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth deals with global warming and with the issue of burning fossil fuels. So what does the energy industry do? They hire shills like the folks from the National Center for Policy Analysis to compare Al Gore to Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels.
It should be no surprise that this interview took place on Fox News--you can see the video of the interview at the link above.
If they'd done it on the Internet, we could all just say "Godwin!"

What is an "i's"? And what does Tony Blair have to do with anything?
I think he meant "it's"

Ugh, you are simply misunderstanding the pricipal of sea level rise, We are not talking about Sea-ice floating on the Artic ocean! We are talking about Ice-Sheets on land, locked up in Permafrost, the 3 main landmasses in question being Canada, Greenland and Siberia. That is the Ice, that if melted, will rise sea levels, and if you don't think it will happen then all I can say is you know very little about this topic indeed.
When ice sits on land the weight crushes/carves out a really big pothole for it to sit in. That means that the ice on land sinks into the land a little bit. If you don't believe that then take a look at where I'm from. The land of 10,000 lakes is proof of what large glaciers and ice sheets do. When they melt their water goes into the holes they made. If Greenland melted it would turn into a giant lake. If the Siberian tundra melted it would turn into a bunch of lakes. If Canada melted it would get more lakes. I wouldn't want to swim in these lakes, not because there'd be anything wrong with the water, but because they'd still be pretty cold.

Saying that if all the ice melted so many cities would flood is like saying a spoonful of neutronium would weight several tons. While technically true, the stuff would decompress and revert to regular matter if removed from it's environment. Showing us manipulated photos of what would happen if sea-levels raised by so much is the same thing. Yes, technically true but it wouldn't happen like that. Since they started keeping records sea levels have barely risen. 1 degree F or a centimeter over a century isn't exactly what I'd call the apocolypse.

But let's all set aside that most geologists, physicists, engineers, and chemists don't agree with their meteorologist and climatologist friends on this and say that everyone's in agreement.

This is about as dumb as saying we were destroying the ozonosphere with CFC's (should be ClFC's) even though ozone is an unstable molecule to begin with and that it's a process of O2 and O3 breaking down and reforming in a never ending cycle that keeps the sun off our backs.

Did you ever think that maybe the reason so few are willing to speak out against this is because those that have have been met with discrimination, hatred, and even violence? Don't believe that last part? 3 letters for you: E-L-F

"IF YOU BUILD IT
WE WILL BURN IT!"

I think he meant "it's"


When ice sits on land the weight crushes/carves out a really big pothole for it to sit in. That means that the ice on land sinks into the land a little bit. If you don't believe that then take a look at where I'm from. The land of 10,000 lakes is proof of what large glaciers and ice sheets do. When they melt their water goes into the holes they made. If Greenland melted it would turn into a giant lake. If the Siberian tundra melted it would turn into a bunch of lakes. If Canada melted it would get more lakes. I wouldn't want to swim in these lakes, not because there'd be anything wrong with the water, but because they'd still be pretty cold.

Saying that if all the ice melted so many cities would flood is like saying a spoonful of neutronium would weight several tons. While technically true, the stuff would decompress and revert to regular matter if removed from it's environment. Showing us manipulated photos of what would happen if sea-levels raised by so much is the same thing. Yes, technically true but it wouldn't happen like that. Since they started keeping records sea levels have barely risen. 1 degree F or a centimeter over a century isn't exactly what I'd call the apocolypse.

But let's all set aside that most geologists, physicists, engineers, and chemists don't agree with their meteorologist and climatologist friends on this and say that everyone's in agreement.

This is about as dumb as saying we were destroying the ozonosphere with CFC's (should be ClFC's) even though ozone is an unstable molecule to begin with and that it's a process of O2 and O3 breaking down and reforming in a never ending cycle that keeps the sun off our backs.

Did you ever think that maybe the reason so few are willing to speak out against this is because those that have have been met with discrimination, hatred, and even violence? Don't believe that last part? 3 letters for you: E-L-F

"IF YOU BUILD IT
WE WILL BURN IT!"

What a half-educated bit of horseflop. Sea levels have risen and fallen in the past. The record is there. Yes the weight of ice pushing down on the land may cause the land to subside a bit, but the ice is still above sea level and it will still flow into the ocean. Most of the carving of land by ice is caused by glaciers on the move, causing lakes and fjords and whatnot, not by yhe wieght of the ice causeing a depression.

Saying that ice contained in glaciers on SLOPES and MOUNTAIN PEAKS would stay where it is if it melts is just plain silly.

Also, when water is in it's liquid form, it responds to thermal expansion. The amount is barely measurable in a small amount, such as a pot of boiling water, but since there is so much water on the surface of the planet, even a tiny expansion causes a measurable rise in water level.

Finally, if you don't believe that water levels are rising, just go ask the residents of Tuvalu.

Yes, there is a natural process for the formation and destruction of ozone, but that process works on a GEOLOGICAL time scale. When we add chemicals to the atmosphere that works on a human scale, we are upsetting the balance. The Earth reacts in it's own time, not ours.

Yes, 1 degree farenheit over a century sounds like a small number, but you forget a few things.

1) That 1 degree is an average. Some locations have warmed much more. Some locations have actually cooled. There's be little or no problem is the rise in heat was uniform, but weather is too chaotic for such a phenomenon.

2) You are thinking that the Earth's ecosystem is geared to react to man's contribution. In the past, the Earth's ecosystem has only had to react to singular events, such as volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes, or to cyclical events, such as the tilt of the Earth's axis, variations in the Sun's output and larger weather cycles. It has never had to react to a steady (actually increasing,) and novel input such as man.

Your assertion that most geologists, physicists, engineers, and chemists don't agree is an unsubstantiated lie. The fact is that the great majority of the scientific community is in consensus. Global warming is real and man has a hand in it.

The point is not that man is adding more CO2 than other sources, it's that he's adding CO2 on top of all other sources. It doesn't matter how much weight is on a set of balancing scales, it only takes a little weight to upset the balance.

Imperiux Wrote:

I'm sorry I don't understand this post, is it Directed at me?

What is an "i's"? And what does Tony Blair have to do with anything?

Can you please stop capitalizing random words? It's extremely irritating.

@Dosuun
Ok I can see you have simply been listening to some Pseudoscience on these Issues and ignoring the Mountains of Evidence and Literally Millions of actual Scientist studying and talking about this stuff on a daily basis. Do you really think they are all wrong and you are right? If you do, then you are really not worth talking to.

So you don't believe in Global Warming or Ozone Layer depletion?, Let me guess you've read some book by some pseudo-scientist crackpot and have taken all of his cornball theories onboard.
Next you'll be telling me that Evolution is a scam and the Illuminati are behind it all, but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you did.:rolleyes:

DrunkenDove Wrote:
Can you please stop capitalizing random words? It's extremely irritating.

Eh... no, it's just a habit of mine. Sorry. lol;)

I see. Anything that a Democrat says is good, honest, and true. Anything that anyone says that's critical of a Democrat, or critical of a Democrat position, is by definition crap, and coming from the mouth of a liar, shill, or worse.

Oh, and Al Gore is the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi.

Can you please stop capitalizing random words? It's extremely irritating.

wHy Does it bOthEr yoU?

Eh... no, it's just a habit of mine. Sorry. lol;)

Fair enough.

wHy Does it bOthEr yoU?

*Shudders*

I see. Anything that a Democrat says is good, honest, and true. Anything that anyone says that's critical of a Democrat, or critical of a Democrat position, is by definition crap, and coming from the mouth of a liar, shill, or worse.

Oh, and Al Gore is the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi.

Now that's what I call quality misrepresentation. Kudos.

I see. Anything that a Democrat says is good, honest, and true. Anything that anyone says that's critical of a Democrat, or critical of a Democrat position, is by definition crap, and coming from the mouth of a liar, shill, or worse.

Oh, and Al Gore is the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi.

Wow, are you even CAPABLE of thinking outside the terms of Democrat vs. Republican/My team is better than yours/ra ra ra?

Get that partisan bullshit out of your mind and start looking at issues based on their individual merits.

Who do we want to determine and shape the kind of society we want to live in? Oil companys or politicans?

I don't know bout the rest of you but I prefer politicians.

Who do we want to determine and shape the kind of society we want to live in? Oil companys or politicans?

I don't know bout the rest of you but I prefer politicians.


Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

Still, at least we have some modicum of power over politicians. The same can not be saiud about mullti-billion dollar industries that provide a commodity that our society is dependent upon.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

Still, at least we have some modicum of power over politicians. The same can not be saiud about mullti-billion dollar industries that provide a commodity that our society is dependent upon.
Exactly. Now... while I don't necessarily agree with extreme-socialist policies such as the nationalisation of energy sources... perhaps in light of our conclusion, they might make some sense to people who would otherwise lash out against it.

Still, at least we have some modicum of power over politicians. The same can not be saiud about mullti-billion dollar industries that provide a commodity that our society is dependent upon.

We're only "dependent" on it because it's still cheap; oil is no longer an abundant source of energy (we use 1 barrel to produce 5 now, compared to 30 barrels for each 1 in the 70's and 100:1 in the 1940's) and is many times worse than wind, solar, or any other alternatives. I think the oil companies should be worried about their product's continued slide in to obsolesence...the days of the Seven Sisters may be numbered if they don't start to diversify.

Even better, America's favorite hydrocarbon, gasoline, actually requires 22%more energy to make than it produces. Hell, even corn-based ethanol is energy positive and that's hardly an end-all panacea.

So why isn't Gore objective? Does he own a wind turbine company? Is he in the pocket of the nuclear power industry?
It's because he's super cereal. When you're that cereal about a subject, you can't be objective.

1) Ice is more dense, so its possible the glass will in fact overflow.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHA. Now see, that's funny.

I am predicting that no one will read this before putting the whole thing in a quote box and calling me stupid. I will really be suprised if anyone does read this before dismissing it. And Free Gaels, what the hell is the illuminati?
---
Let me explain how the ozone layer works. It's basically all oxygen atoms, some are paired while still others have a third tagged on. When O2 is hit by those harmful UV rays or an arc like lighting it splits the O2 into 2 O's. These are extremely reactive and will latch onto just about anything even if they can't hold on for very long. Now when there's just other oxygen around, like in the ozone layer you end up with those stray O's grabbing onto other, stable O2's, creating an unstable molecule called ozone which is O3. If left alone it would eventually fall apart but being so high up and being exposed to so much energy in the form of radiation from the sun most of it gets split anyway. 3 O2's will turn into 2 O3's when one gets split and combines with the other 2, got it? Now the way that CFC's are suposed to destroy the ozone layer is really just adding another step to this whole process. When a ClFC gets up there, it splits like the oxygen and the Cl starts running around grabbing stray oxygen atoms. After it has a pair it lets them go and starts this all over again. Seems pretty destructive except these new O2's will just get split by the sun again and the 2 free O's will end up attached to 2 O2 forming a pair of O3. So it's not really doing anything except adding another step to a never ending cycle. That's why I said what I did about ozone depletion. Of course no one here will believe me, they'll probably just quote what I said and tell me it's wrong and that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Guess what, my dad gave me his college chemistry books when I was in the 6th grade and I read them cover to cover.
---
As for Tuvalu, it's a low lying island with no surrounding shelf to protect it from changes in sea levels. And it's not like the residents there are helping matters by tearing up their coast (if you don't trust me on that I got it from the SPAGC). Do you know how much 40 cm is? 15-3/4". That's the most sea levels could possibly rise in the next century according to the 20-40 cm estimate. If that's enough to sink the island I wouldn't want to live there even if sea levels were stable.
---
If you were take a look at the temp graphs they all show a very zoomed in view. The base is often starting out at just below the lowest recorded temp and only goes a little beyond the highest. Put a ball bearing under a microscope it'd look like the surface of the moon but it feels smooth when you touch it.
---
“How Many Species Exist? The question takes on increasing significance as plants and animals vanish before scientists can even identify them.”

Well how do you know somethings gone if you didn't know it was there to begin with? Granted that it's probably true that some species die out before we can take a picture and start disceting a few for study but you don't know how many that is because you didn't have anything to start with other than a belief.
---
"We simply cannot afford to gamble ... by ignoring it. We cannot risk innaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climatic instability are acting irresponibly. The indicitaions that our climate will soon change for the worse are too starong to be reasonably ignored."
Lowell Ponte, 1978

Can anyone tell me what he was talking about? Anyone? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't global warming.
---
Most of the 'evidence' for global warming, especially human caused, is based on estimations and speculation. Somebody tells us what the weather will be like 50-100 years from now and it ends up in these kind of debates as evidence for global warming. Newsflash numbnuts! Ordinary water is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. And it's much more abundant in nature. G-A-S-P! Our evil technology must be to blame. Oh and Bush. Let's not forget about him because he's the devil. We must protect the world from evil republicans with their evil.
---
I believe that evolution is the best thing we've got right now. It's not perfect but nobody has come up with a better theory yet so it's the one we go with.
---
There is no natural balance. That is a myth. The world is constantly changing. Balance would suggest stability.
---
Tell me, do you think Bird flu is going to kill everyone? Do you remember SARS? Do you remember Y2K? Or any of the other false alarms? It's not a grand conspiracy, just some people trying to swindle everyone around them.
---
Will anyone even read this before dismissing me as a crackpot, a retard, and an evil brainwashed servant of the anti-Gore? (I say anti-Gore because you seem to worship him more than you do a carpenter whole lived 2000 years ago that can't m&m's because they'd fall through his hands)

Maybe we should stick those lobbyists in a room full of CO2 and make them find out what global warming is all about.
Why not just use Zyklon B?

Yes, there is a natural process for the formation and destruction of ozone, but that process works on a GEOLOGICAL time scale. When we add chemicals to the atmosphere that works on a human scale, we are upsetting the balance. The Earth reacts in it's own time, not ours.
Actually, the ozone holes will be gone in about 50 years as long as we don't spray any more CFC's around. The extra solar radiation caused more thunderstorms which are what generate most of the ozone. Thus the reverse lightning strikes are generating more ozone allowing the gap to be closed.

Pesticides? That's no fun. Use Halon 1211 or 1301.

It's because he's super cereal. When you're that cereal about a subject, you can't be objective.

Hey, you watch Southpark, you must be smart! Get your own material. That wasn't even a particularly funny episode.

Actually, the ozone holes will be gone in about 50 years as long as we don't spray any more CFC's around. The extra solar radiation caused more thunderstorms which are what generate most of the ozone. Thus the reverse lightning strikes are generating more ozone allowing the gap to be closed.

Exactly. So man did have an effect, and removing that effect has helped to remedy the situation.

Also, you should bone up on the different effect ozone has on the upper atmosphere and the lower atmosphere.

Guess what, my dad gave me his college chemistry books when I was in the 6th grade and I read them cover to cover.
It must be soo difficult being that intelligent. Wow. Reading a college chemistry book in grade 6. I'm impressed. Man, school life must have been tough on someone so gifted.
Of course I read Plato's republic when I was 3. And I could play 'Stairway to Heaven' when I was 12. Robert Plant didn't even write it til he was 23.

No, he's not. He could have easily compared Gore's film to asking Mao for an objective opinion on communism. The only reason you're making a big deal is because he used Nazism as an example. He's not comparing Gore's film to Nazism; he's using Nazism as an example to question the film's objectivity.


Thats understood, but you are missing the greater point. It is psychological. Whenever people insist on squashing detractors, it is easy to use a NAZI comparison to equate whatever they are arguing against to bolster their argument. Nazi = Evil. Stupid people hear that and say "really? Then Al Gore must be a nazi! So no matter what he says I'm agianst it now". Thats how it works.

The Oil lobbyists will do and say anything to protect their bloated bank vaults. Al Gores film might be a bit slanted if not alarmist, but its not far from the truth, and as the title says, its an inconvenient one for the oil companies.

I'm sorry, but that's utter bullshit. Gore has a lot more credibility on the issue of global warming that Moore or Coulter have on anything.


Why is he Gore any more credible?

Why is he Gore any more credible?

It's not that Gore himself is more credible, but the hard data he presents is more credible.

Unlike Moore, he doesn't edit for effect.

Unlike Coulter, he doesn't make shit up and make ridiculous strawman arguments.

At least on this issue he doesn't.

Why is he Gore any more credible?
He is no more credible when speaking about Global Warming than he is about Campaign Reform, i.e. not at all.

---
"We simply cannot afford to gamble ... by ignoring it. We cannot risk innaction. Those scientists who say we are merely entering a period of climatic instability are acting irresponibly. The indicitaions that our climate will soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored."
Lowell Ponte, 1978

Can anyone tell me what he was talking about? Anyone? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't global warming.
---


My guess, judging by the timeframe would have to be entry into the next ice age (even thiugh we are still in the currebt one). If he had said weather and mentioned war instead of climate my guess would have been nuclear winter.

He is no more credible when speaking about Global Warming than he is about Campaign Reform, i.e. not at all.

Nice what proclamations one can make when one doesn't have to worry about things like scientific data.

Nice what proclamations one can make when one doesn't have to worry about things like scientific data.
Scientific data--that's just for us folk who live in the reality-based community.

Nice what proclamations one can make when one doesn't have to worry about things like scientific data.
Nice what crap AL Gore can spew when he doesn't have to worry about the Press calling him out on his hypocrisy.

What next, we gonna have moron.org calling America Naziz for not goosestepping in line to Algore's message?

Not Bad was not that far off. Lowell Ponte was talking about something called global cooling. Back in the 70's everyone agreed that the planet was cooling rapidly since the 40's and people were to blame. Then in the 80's, when things started warming up and there was a sudden switch. Now everyone agreed that the world was warming and people were to blame. What happened to all the mountains of evidence in support of global cooling? Much of it was quickly forgotten or dismissed as flawed. Can you believe everyone used to think that we were going to cause the next ice age and ruin the planet? What fools we were.

This is why I have trouble believeing in global warming today. 30 years ago it was cooling, then 15-20 years ago it turned to warming, and recently all weather, hot or cold is being blamed on us. And by us I mean U.S. China pours out more garbage than we do yet they get a free pass. Why? Could it be this whole thing is politically motivated? No, that can't be it. Why would the environmentalists (who happen to be fairly violent folks with an annoying tendancy to set fire to houses) lie?

Oh, and did you know that we're running out of space even though we have developed (including farms) less than 5% of this country? Yeah all that fly-over between NY and LA is just a space-time distortion. It's very complicated and technical.

Never look back, it distracts from the now...that and everything looks bad if you remember it.

Not Bad was not that far off. Lowell Ponte was talking about something called global cooling. Back in the 70's everyone agreed that the planet was cooling rapidly since the 40's and people were to blame. Then in the 80's, when things started warming up and there was a sudden switch. Now everyone agreed that the world was warming and people were to blame. What happened to all the mountains of evidence in support of global cooling? Much of it was quickly forgotten or dismissed as flawed. Can you believe everyone used to think that we were going to cause the next ice age and ruin the planet? What fools we were.

This is why I have trouble believeing in global warming today. 30 years ago it was cooling, then 15-20 years ago it turned to warming, and recently all weather, hot or cold is being blamed on us. And by us I mean U.S. China pours out more garbage than we do yet they get a free pass. Why? Could it be this whole thing is politically motivated? No, that can't be it. Why would the environmentalists (who happen to be fairly violent folks with an annoying tendancy to set fire to houses) lie?

Oh, and did you know that we're running out of space even though we have developed (including farms) less than 5% of this country? Yeah all that fly-over between NY and LA is just a space-time distortion. It's very complicated and technical.

Never look back, it distracts from the now...that and everything looks bad if you remember it.

And doctors at one point thought that bleeding a patient would cure them...I guess that discredits modern medicine.

Aeronautical engineers failed repeatedly to break the sound barrier....I guess that means it hasn't been broken.

See, that's the thing about science. It learns from it's mistakes. Something you should look into, perhaps.

How about you look at current data, bolstered by ice cores and satellite imagery instead of looking at pre-space age science to discredit the science of today, mmmkay?

Yes, scientists were wrong in the past...and scientists, using new and better data, show exactly how they got it wrong.

But hey, don't let that stop you. Nothing like an already-made-up mind to advance science, huh?

Oh, and "Global Cooling" Theory was a fringe theory, not held by the overwhelming consensus of the time. But hey, nothing like indulging in revisionist history to bolster your bogus argument.

What I was trying to show you is that people were wrong before and jumped behind a bad theory as though it were fact. Anyone who said otherwise was a heretic and was shunned. Most of the research conducted on global warming today has a conclusion before any experimentation starts. Most of the 'research' takes place in computer models. When someone comes upon a large gap in data, they fill it in with guesses. People manipulate results for money. If you were told to find an expensive, inefficient, environmentally friendly solution to a problem and then everyone found out that it didn't exist you'd be out of a job. I have trouble believeing in something after hearing so many false alarms.

In science, you're supposed to ask questions. What's going on? How is it happening? How did you figure this out? We have the answers to the first two with global warming but when someone asks the third they usually get a strange look as though they've done something wrong. With a little effort you can usually find out that it's all computer modeling and that when those models don't line up with reality there are two responses: 1) the environmentalists (that set fire to houses) are saving us and we need to thank Al Gore and his ilk or 2) the evil oil companies and republicans held back information or gave us inaccurate data flawing our prescious model. So it comes down to the left is good or the right is bad. It always comes down to that.

Al Gore is not a man of science. He's a defender of the faith. But let's trust him anyway because he invented the internet. And the telephone. And the TV. And the turnip. And the wheel too.

What I was trying to show you is that people were wrong before and jumped behind a bad theory as though it were fact. Anyone who [said otherwise was a heretic and was shunned.

Again, Global Cooling was never a consensus view. You are distorting History.




Most of the research conducted on global warming today has a conclusion before any experimentation starts. Most of the 'research' takes place in computer models. When someone comes upon a large gap in data, they fill it in with guesses.

Who told you that? DO they give examples of these "guesses" or do they just expect you to take it on faith that they are there? Do they address specifics?

Such practices do not pass peer review usually. One's findings must be strenuously supported. Models must be supported by immense amounts of hard data such as found in satellite imaging and ice cores.

People manipulate results for money.

You mean, like, the Oil companies?


If you were told to find an expensive, inefficient, environmentally friendly solution to a problem and then everyone found out that it didn't exist you'd be out of a job. I have trouble believeing in something after hearing so many false alarms.

That's the great thing about the scientific community. There are so many people out there with so many different approaches that if your research is flawed, it's quickly found out and your findings are tossed aside. It's a dog eat dog world. The fact is that it is the Oil Companies and their cohorts whose findings are regularly dismantled these days.

In science, you're supposed to ask questions. What's going on? How is it happening? How did you figure this out? We have the answers to the first two with global warming but when someone asks the third they usually get a strange look as though they've done something wrong. With a little effort you can usually find out that it's all computer modeling and that when those models don't line up with reality there are two responses: 1) the environmentalists (that set fire to houses) are saving us and we need to thank Al Gore and his ilk or 2) the evil oil companies and republicans held back information or gave us inaccurate data flawing our prescious model. So it comes down to the left is good or the right is bad. It always comes down to that.

Your confusing fringe fanatics with mainstream science here. One would be laughed out of the laboratory is one did not support one's findings and display one's methodology. Good papers show methodology and the raw data.

Al Gore is not a man of science. He's a defender of the faith. But let's trust him anyway because he invented the internet. And the telephone. And the TV. And the turnip. And the wheel too.

Neither are you a man of science. So how about you actually study the work of men of science and see where their conclusions lead you? Time and again, you'll find that the overwhelming consensus of scientific thought (as opposed to how it was in the 1960's,) leads to the conclusion that global warming is real and that man is contributing it. Dissenting opinions are not ignored, but are responded to thoughtfully. The same cannot be said for the other side of the coin. The anti-Global Warming thinktanks repeatedly ignore findings and use incomplete data to bolstrer their position. When this is pointed out, they do not retract their findings, they simply ignore the criticism. The reverse it NOT true.

It really is as simple as that. One side (the deniers,) indulge in junk science. The other side does not. This does not mean that proponents of Climate Change are 100% correct. Part of good science is never being 100% sure of anything. There is no certainty in science beyond the most basic of premises.

Get this into your head. Science has always been wrong in the past. But when you put science up against any other method, guess which turns out to be right more often? Science is ever-evolving, ever-refining. That is why it has the capability of being more nearly true.

In science, you're supposed to ask questions. What's going on? How is it happening? How did you figure this out? We have the answers to the first two with global warming but when someone asks the third they usually get a strange look as though they've done something wrong. With a little effort you can usually find out that it's all computer modeling and that when those models don't line up with reality there are two responses: 1) the environmentalists (that set fire to houses) are saving us and we need to thank Al Gore and his ilk or 2) the evil oil companies and republicans held back information or gave us inaccurate data flawing our prescious model. So it comes down to the left is good or the right is bad. It always comes down to that.
[/sarcasm]

Seems like you had your answer before you started typing.....

Here's a VERY simple exercise. Find an article critical of global warming. Do a google search on the researcher in question and the findings said researcher reached. Odds are you'll find a researched and carefully crafted response. Now see if there is a response to that rebuttal. Odds are you won't find it.

Time after time, the trail ends with the pro-Climate Change position. It's as simple and as clear as that.

For example, there is the infamous "hockey stick" which was the original Climate Change stance. The Climate Change skeptics poke holes in it. In turn, that response is dissected and rebutted. After that...nothing. The skeptics had no further response.

Nice what crap AL Gore can spew when he doesn't have to worry about the Press calling him out on his hypocrisy.

This sounds familiar to me, oh yeah...

"Your car is a rusty hunk of junk metal.'
"yeah.. well.. well... your mom is a rusty hunk of junk metal."