NationStates Jolt Archive

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but I found it an interesting article, especially since none of the press coverage of Al Gore's recent promotional tour for his movie has included any mention of controversy or claims of shady evidence being used. That is, at least not in any of the major press coverage on the cable or broadcast news networks, which I watch regularly. This article:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

..is recent and addresses Al Gore's claims specifically. Now, this isn't really my issue, and I don't claim to have any expertise in judging the evidence here, but I figured that some here would, so I ask: has anyone actually seen any news coverage of Gore's recent campaign that questioned the veracity of his claims? And, to anyone who's studied these things with reasonable depth, what do you think of the evidence/counter evidence here?

I've not heard anything negative about his documentary/film.
Maybe the anti-global-warming crew are just working extra hard and many hours of overtime to come up with their own film to counter it?

He’s an alarmist trying to get back into politics. Nothing more.

Al Gore's a bit of a doom prophet, isn't he?

He'd be taken more seriously if he used correct science.

Well, my geology professor, who spent the better part of class advocating reductions in fossil fuel usage and worrying about global climate change, watched Mr. Gore's movie. He came away saying that the conclusions were reasonably correct, although the timetable Mr. Gore talks about in the movie is quite accelerated. I can't exactly link to his lecture, so you'll have to take my word on this one.

although the timetable Mr. Gore talks about in the movie is quite accelerated.
Does it happen to fall nicely into the next election cycle?

Al Gore's a bit of a doom prophet, isn't he?

He'd be taken more seriously if he used correct science.
He’s an alarmist trying to get back into politics. Nothing more.

Put your heads back in the sand. Nothing to see here...

I have a question about one of the quotes from a scientist in that article... see if anyone here can answer it for me.


Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"


Is it not possible that the CO2 levels built up to such a massive degree that it overheated everything, water levels rose, making the planet more reflective of the sun's energy, and got colder? Or another thing I've heard is that it's possible that a giant ice sheet might break off in the heat, float up north or south, and super cool the usually warm waters, dropping global temperatures. So, under either of these situations, the CO2 levels wouldn't drop off immediately, but would still be high, even as the earth was cooling, but would eventually drop down to lower levels again.
I dunno, I'm not a climatologist. But I get REALLY edgy when people start trying to "prove" things with correlational data. Just because it happened to be icy with high CO2 levels doesn't actually prove anything...

Eh, Al Gore is a bit too pessessimistic for me. He's just like the guy that stand on the street corner ranting about how the world will end. Except he has money so he rants on the big screen.

Put your heads back in the sand. Nothing to see here...
I resent that. I do not deny Global Warming, but I think Gore’s motives are painfully obvious.

Lets all be fair to Mr. Gore. He can't be an embarrassment to science, the man invented the internet! :D

6,000 years ago, the earth was even warmer than it is now. The earth's temparatures do tend to rise and fall naturally... but I'm not exactly what you would call a scientist.

Disapointingly enough, the article makes the same sins it accuses the movie of. It makes a vague claim of consensus and then makes unlinked cause and effect models that in the description sound almost ancedotal.

The site for climatecrisis.net doesn't have links either. Looks like we should take peoples claims on both sides and look them up yourselves. But if you live in a city I invite you to look up. Chances are the sky isn't supposed to look like that. Unless you want to ignore your eyes, too.

I resent that. I do not deny Global Warming, but I think Gore’s motives are painfully obvious.

Resent it all you want. Painfully obvious? Gore has been out of politics for six years, but has been an environmentalist all his political life.

You want an embarrassment to science? How about that unevolved monkey occupying the oval office? In the Bush White House science has become a dirty word. Bush has replaced official publications on the science of climate change with drafts from utility lobbyists, trashed uncomfortable data on stem cell research, vets scientific advisory panel positions for political supporters, and continues to attempt to shoehorn religion into public school disguised as science.

No wonder 20 Nobel laureates warned that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented".

But you think one private citizen, with a movie about what could be the greatest danger to the planet since the appearance of hominids is the embarrassment?

Oh, those silly Republicans should at least try to disguise the fact that they're trying to bring down civilization. It's all this GOP nonsense that will lead only to fiery armageddon.

But if you vote Democrat, all that can change! Yes, Democrats will put a stop to global warming! Democrats would have prevented 9/11, the Bird Flu, and Hurricane Katrina as well! But you goddamned smug Rebublicans think that these natural disasters, terrorist attacks, diseases, and President Bush are entirely unrelated.

This is all, very clearly, a vast, right-wing conspiracy to help bring about the End of Days. But if you want answers, just look at the peak of Mt. Kilamanjaro.

But if you live in a city I invite you to look up. Chances are the sky isn't supposed to look like that. Unless you want to ignore your eyes, too.


Dude! Its all blue and stuff with an enormous bright yellow ball in it!

When did this horrible thing happen??

Resent it all you want. Painfully obvious? Gore has been out of politics for six years, but has been an environmentalist all his political life.
Not a rational one. He has ever been an alarmist.
No wonder 20 Nobel laureates warned that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented".

But you think one private citizen, with a movie about what could be the greatest danger to the planet since the appearance of hominids is the embarrassment?
I happen to think both are embarrassments. Also, I don't think hominids are a danger to the planet. Just because we change some stuff aroun doesn't mean we've harmed it, and I have my doubts as to whether Global Warming will actually be such a terrible thing. Climates have been rising for the past hundred years, and it has been a time of great advancement for humanity on nearly every front.

He’s an alarmist trying to get back into politics. Nothing more.

Candidate, please pick one issue to yell about. Choose from the following:

1. Guns are bad!
2. Our wasteful lifestyle a) dooms us b) is immoral c) is unpatriotic d) will fry the Earth!
3. The Muslims (Commies) are coming!
4. Someone is thinking about making nukes!
5. It's the economy, stupid!
6. I'm tough on crime!

Dude! Its all blue and stuff with an enormous bright yellow ball in it!

When did this horrible thing happen??
http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre/web_mod/la_basin/smog.jpg
I understand, though. Sand keeps your head warm.

He’s an alarmist trying to get back into politics. Nothing more.

Then refute his evidence.

Then refute his evidence.

I could start with the studies from Germany that even if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether immediately, the temperature would continue to rise for the next 200 years.

I think we're going to run out of oil, and start killing each other, long before the planet really gets hot enough to worry about from global warming.

So in that sense, it's just being alarmist about something.

I have a question about one of the quotes from a scientist in that article... see if anyone here can answer it for me.



Is it not possible that the CO2 levels built up to such a massive degree that it overheated everything, water levels rose, making the planet more reflective of the sun's energy, and got colder? Or another thing I've heard is that it's possible that a giant ice sheet might break off in the heat, float up north or south, and super cool the usually warm waters, dropping global temperatures. So, under either of these situations, the CO2 levels wouldn't drop off immediately, but would still be high, even as the earth was cooling, but would eventually drop down to lower levels again.
I dunno, I'm not a climatologist. But I get REALLY edgy when people start trying to "prove" things with correlational data. Just because it happened to be icy with high CO2 levels doesn't actually prove anything...

450 million years ago, if I recall, was also an era of extremely high volcanism, which accounts for the CO2 AND the particulates in the air that keep sunlight from reaching the earth, rather than trapping it.

This is a case of a "scientist" giving an incomplete picture, which is NOT the case with current climate change theory, because the process of peer review has attempted to refute it for about a decade now without weakening the case for Climate Change.

I could start with the studies from Germany that even if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether immediately, the temperature would continue to rise for the next 200 years.

I think we're going to run out of oil, and start killing each other, long before the planet really gets hot enough to worry about from global warming.

So in that sense, it's just being alarmist about something.

So lets kill two birds with one stone AND STOP FUCKING USING OIL!

http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre/web_mod/la_basin/smog.jpg
I understand, though. Sand keeps your head warm.

Ya, seriously. Keep your head there if you like it.
I mean, anyone who's flown over a major city knows that the smog and emissions are constantly there, whether you see can see them from your homes or not.

Not a rational one. He has ever been an alarmist.

Prove it.

I could start with the studies from Germany that even if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether immediately, the temperature would continue to rise for the next 200 years.

I think we're going to run out of oil, and start killing each other, long before the planet really gets hot enough to worry about from global warming.

So in that sense, it's just being alarmist about something.

When do you think we'll run out?

So lets kill two birds with one stone AND STOP FUCKING USING OIL!

Patience. It's running out now, and long before it's truly exhausted, we'll be killing each other in the streets.

When do you think we'll run out?
It's going to be untenable sometime within the next 20 years.

I predict that the untenable aspect of things will cause worldwide war on a scale that no one can imagine. And this time, in the end, no one will have the staying power to achieve victory, and the resources will dwindle, so it will last hundreds of years.

Lets all be fair to Mr. Gore. He can't be an embarrassment to science, the man invented the internet! :D

A stupid untruth. What's more, the untruthfulness of your "joke" has been pointed out to you several times, and yet you keep presenting it as if you were "clever".

In other words, you are incapable of learning. Go Away.

I could start with the studies from Germany that even if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether immediately, the temperature would continue to rise for the next 200 years.

I think we're going to run out of oil, and start killing each other, long before the planet really gets hot enough to worry about from global warming.

So in that sense, it's just being alarmist about something.

It's not just about oil. It's about complete disdain for resources and waste.
Wildlife isn’t deteriorating at an increasing rate in various places worldwide simply because it’s “natural”.

It's going to be untenable sometime within the next 20 years.

I predict that the untenable aspect of things will cause worldwide war on a scale that no one can imagine. And this time, in the end, no one will have the staying power to achieve victory, and the resources will dwindle, so it will last hundreds of years.

good grief.......that's a bleak picture. I guess I should learn how to shoot pretty soon ay?

good grief.......that's a bleak picture. I guess I should learn how to shoot pretty soon ay?
Good question.

Think of how old you might be when the SHTF.

http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre/web_mod/la_basin/smog.jpg
I understand, though. Sand keeps your head warm.
http://www.academiapalmeiras.com.br/foto32.jpg
HA! I counter your random uncited and completely non sequitur image with one of my own!

Now, can we move from anecdotal to empirical data, please?

Good question.

Think of how old you might be when the SHTF.


gee -thanks for the reminder. I'll be 52 in 20 years. Ugh.


Do you foresee an alternate ending to this crisis or do you feel it's beyond repair?

gee -thanks for the reminder. I'll be 52 in 20 years. Ugh.


Do you foresee an alternate ending to this crisis or do you feel it's beyond repair?

We're already past the peak. It was predicted for 2001-2003, and it happened right on time.

From here on out, world oil production will gradually, and then more precipitously fall. That, and demand will still continue to rise until it becomes obvious and countries fight each other for what's left.

Actually, I think Gymoor is trying to teach us this lesson:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/suitability.jpg

what ever you say about gore, global warming IS real and dangerous, he may have exagerated a bit but we do need to do something.

We're already past the peak. It was predicted for 2001-2003, and it happened right on time.

From here on out, world oil production will gradually, and then more precipitously fall. That, and demand will still continue to rise until it becomes obvious and countries fight each other for what's left.

Or...
Alternative energy sources are used.
I know, I know... Oil is our friend. We war for oil now, because humans are stupid, and dependent on the black stuff.
Personally, I'm looking forward to water powered cars. Those things look neat!

what ever you say about gore, global warming IS real and dangerous, he may have exagerated a bit but we do need to do something.

No, long before then the oil will run low, and everyone in the world will be at war.

So, instead of worry about how you'll have to wear a t-shirt and shorts in the Last Days, you should get one of these:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/M41.jpg

Prove it.
Ack! Logical fallacy alert!

Those claiming the existance of something have the burden of proof. Attempts to change the burden of proof are one of the classical logical fallacies.

Actually, I think Gymoor is trying to teach us this lesson:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/suitability.jpg

Ha! That has to be you on the left/back.;)

http://www.academiapalmeiras.com.br/foto32.jpg
HA! I counter your random uncited and completely non sequitur image with one of my own!

Now, can we move from anecdotal to empirical data, please?
That's the Los Angeles sky line.

Should we look at Houston (http://www.utexas.edu/research/ceer/texaqs/images/hazy_downtown_view.jpg)?
How about Hangzhou, China? (http://cai.blogware.com/_photos/Smog.jpg)
Maybe the EPA (http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=static.consumer) assessments of air quality, or todays Air Quality Index (http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.national)...which no doubt you will note "There sure are a lot of green circles there, where's the doom and gloom?" It's in the triangles, the squares and the places away from things like a coastal breeze and active enviromental protection.

But go ahead, think that you have no effect. Think that I just made up smog with a google image search. Think it's a coincidence that it happens in populations centers with industry. Think it's normal for some cities to have to include this in thier weather reports so that some people know they shouldn't go outside and breath the air.

But go ahead, think that you have no effect. Think that I just made up smog with a google image search. Think it's a coincidence that it happens in populations centers with industry. Think it's normal for some cities to have to include this in thier weather reports so that some people know they shouldn't go outside and breath the air.
Oh, I'm not stating it has no effect. What I'm saying is: site! Throw up that EPA list, chuck out studies! I'd welcome that. Don't just post a picture and count on the fallacy of Small Samples to work for you.

And yes, smog is nasty. The Browning of Asia is disgusting, caused by the mass industrialization of India/China. In an amusing fact, more of LA's smog now comes from the winds from China than from LA itself. However, those nations are going through an economic revolution, and lets see you get them to stop developing?

Oh, I'm all for green tech. Efficiency is a national defense need, not just ecological.

But don't try to prove arguments with smoke and mirrors. (And as a note, my air quality index is pretty nice, so I can't check mine.)

Well, my geology professor, who spent the better part of class advocating reductions in fossil fuel usage and worrying about global climate change, watched Mr. Gore's movie. He came away saying that the conclusions were reasonably correct, although the timetable Mr. Gore talks about in the movie is quite accelerated. I can't exactly link to his lecture, so you'll have to take my word on this one.

Really? My geology proffesor says and I quote " He's just another whackjob who's trying to steal credit for somebody else's idea". And the whole class laughed. And we did a poll to see who believes in global warming and it was 76 to 21 against the global warming theory.

Oh, I'm not stating it has no effect. What I'm saying is: site! Throw up that EPA list, chuck out studies! I'd welcome that. Don't just post a picture and count on the fallacy of Small Samples to work for you.

And yes, smog is nasty. The Browning of Asia is disgusting, caused by the mass industrialization of India/China. In an amusing fact, more of LA's smog now comes from the winds from China than from LA itself. However, those nations are going through an economic revolution, and lets see you get them to stop developing?

Oh, I'm all for green tech. Efficiency is a national defense need, not just ecological.

But don't try to prove arguments with smoke and mirrors. (And as a note, my air quality index is pretty nice, so I can't check mine.)
Sorry, I was under the impression that we had a base understanding and I wouldn't be in the position of having to prove the existance of smog.

Really? My geology proffesor says and I quote " He's just another whackjob who's trying to steal credit for somebody else's idea". And the whole class laughed. And we did a poll to see who believes in global warming and it was 76 to 21 against the global warming theory.

Science Magazine analyzed a total of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming between 1993 and 2003. Number that challenged the consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activity: zero. Scientists don't debate whether global warming is occurring, or even that it's caused by humans. Only politicians do.


Or idiotic geo profs.

Sorry, I was under the impression that we had a base understanding and I wouldn't be in the position of having to prove the existance of smog.
Ooh! Nice try for a Red Herring, but DENIED.

It's not the existance of smog that needs proving, but the direct correllation between smog and THE END OF TIMES. An attempt to prove this with a picture of said smog is Small Sample Size and Begging the Question. So, the burden of proof is on you: prove that CO2 pollution as caused by mankind is the DIRECT cause of a deadly climate change.

Science Magazine analyzed a total of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming between 1993 and 2003. Number that challenged the consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activity: zero. Scientists don't debate whether global warming is occurring, or even that it's caused by humans. Only politicians do.


Or idiotic geo profs.
Now this is something to work with! :) Numbers!

Now, could you link this?

Ooh! Nice try for a Red Herring, but DENIED.

It's not the existance of smog that needs proving, but the direct correllation between smog and THE END OF TIMES. An attempt to prove this with a picture of said smog is Small Sample Size and Begging the Question. So, the burden of proof is on you: prove that CO2 pollution as caused by mankind is the DIRECT cause of a deadly climate change.
Actually, no. What we have is a base misunderstanding of my initial arguement. It was that whether or not you believed the larger issue of climate change, we do affect the air we breath and that is evidenced by smog. That was the chore of my statements and felt that to do that I didn't have to establish the existance of smog. So thank you for you English 1A review of fallacies, but in the future make sure you are not confusing a single argument with others being made.

Now this is something to work with! :) Numbers!

Now, could you link this?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.


Oh, and the author of the article is in the pay of big oil (and a PR guy), what a surprise.

Disapointingly enough, the article makes the same sins it accuses the movie of. It makes a vague claim of consensus and then makes unlinked cause and effect models that in the description sound almost ancedotal.
The article attacked a movie claiming that claims global warming is a world-shattering disaster. You defend the movie by refuting the article on unfounded claims. Solid, but your position is declared in a post.

The site for climatecrisis.net doesn't have links either. Looks like we should take peoples claims on both sides and look them up yourselves.
Agreed.

But if you live in a city I invite you to look up. Chances are the sky isn't supposed to look like that. Unless you want to ignore your eyes, too.
Here it is. This statement links the defense of the movie position (mankind is killing ourselves with global warming) to smog. This inference then establishes that smog is proof for the movie, and there proof towards the disaster.

This is where the fallacy lies, in the link between smog and disaster. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying take more time with your arguments, and don't link two different arguments (article was unscientific -and- smog is disaster) together.

/hijack, retires to cave

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Now this is solid! Paragraph two in particular, with highlights for emphasis. K-stan stamp of approval!

Next time someone gets going on global warming, drop that on them! If I was going to argue against global warming, that argument would stop me cold while I performed research.

The article attacked a movie claiming that claims global warming is a world-shattering disaster. You defend the movie by refuting the article on unfounded claims. Solid, but your position is declared in a post.


Agreed.


Here it is. This statement links the defense of the movie position (mankind is killing ourselves with global warming) to smog. This inference then establishes that smog is proof for the movie, and there proof towards the disaster.

This is where the fallacy lies, in the link between smog and disaster. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying take more time with your arguments, and don't link two different arguments (article was unscientific -and- smog is disaster) together.

/hijack, retires to cave
They where in fact seperate thoughts, the first two on the article and the third on the notion that we cannot effect the enviroment.

I actually didn't so much defend the movie even as assess the article, especially when you take the second statement with it-in effect saying that both sources needed to be examined.

And again, the last was in response to the notion that we have no effect by make it a direct and what I thought would be obvious effect. I actually make no claim to the global factor in the argument you quoted.

Ack! Logical fallacy alert!

Those claiming the existance of something have the burden of proof. Attempts to change the burden of proof are one of the classical logical fallacies.

Yup. And that person was asserting that Gore was an alarmist who used bad science. So I asked them to prove their assertion. You know, by actually adding something substantial to the debate. A critique that actually included...oh, I dunno, facts.

I love it when people throw out "logical fallacy," like they know what it means.

You beleive your experts, and I'll believe mine. In my opinion, Al Gore is just another crazy in a sandwich board predicting an apocalypse that if it comes, will leave him just as surprised as the rest of us.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Wow. Al must be a serious threat if they are attacking him already. Must mean the repubs don't have anybody to run in 08.

But if you live in a city I invite you to look up. Chances are the sky isn't supposed to look like that. Unless you want to ignore your eyes, too.

Er... like what? Most days in Chicago I wake up to either a blue sky or a cloudy one, usually the latter. Is either of these something I ought to be worried about?

Er... like what? Most days in Chicago I wake up to either a blue sky or a cloudy one, usually the latter. Is either of these something I ought to be worried about?
Catch up with the rest of the class before raising your hand...

Sorry, I was under the impression that we had a base understanding and I wouldn't be in the position of having to prove the existance of smog.
ahh...there is your mistake. you assumed a base level of intelligence. silly CToaN.


oh, and Kaukolastan, we all know the logical fallacys. And most of the accusations about these fallacies you have made are incorrect. For example, Undelia made the claim that Al Gore was alarmist. Gymoor said "prove it". Undelia made the assertation, therefore having the burden of proof, and Gymoor made no fallacy. Really, rather than throwing out words that every senior in high school knows, you could try to join the discussion. Screaming "OMG LOGICAL FALLACY! LOLZ" just gets obnoxious.



and it looks like Sarkhaan forgot his happy pills again...mreh.

Catch up with the rest of the class before raising your hand...

Ah, I see. It's fortunate that I only had to turn to the second page to find that, because if I'd had to go any farther, I probably would have lost interest. Anyway, thanks for the picture illustrating what happens when you put a city in a valley.

You beleive your experts, and I'll believe mine. In my opinion, Al Gore is just another crazy in a sandwich board predicting an apocalypse that if it comes, will leave him just as surprised as the rest of us.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Who has more scientific weight, AAAS or 'junkscience.com'. Hmm.

I resent that. I do not deny Global Warming, but I think Gore’s motives are painfully obvious.

I would disagree.

Maybe he's being alarmist because there is something to be alarmed by

I think the trend towards everything needing to be in moderation ignroes the fact that there are some things to be alarmed by

I would disagree.

Maybe he's being alarmist because there is something to be alarmed by
If you're alarmed about one thing, you might ask yourself if you should be alarmed about something else that is more imminent.

We're running out of oil, for example. And long before the oil completely runs out, we'll all be killing each other for the last gallon of gas or last mouthful of food.

And that will happen long before global warming does anything big enough to really harm us all.

Plus, it will solve the global CO2 emission problem.

Shouldn't you be worried about the upcoming civil war in every country?

Who has more scientific weight, AAAS or 'junkscience.com'. Hmm.
You don't get how this works. See, these days we have to "teach the debate." We have to have "balance." If you think that the Earth orbits the Sun, and I think the Earth orbits a giant ham sandwich, we both should get equal time and consideration. Doesn't matter if you have things like "fact" or "evidence" on your side, because I'M ENTITLED TO MY OPINION. By pointing out my lack of facts, you are OPPRESSING ME. You are being a vicious, cruel, hateful person, and you're trying to silence the debate just to get your way.

You don't get how this works. See, these days we have to "teach the debate." We have to have "balance." If you think that the Earth orbits the Sun, and I think the Earth orbits a giant ham sandwich, we both should get equal time and consideration. Doesn't matter if you have things like "fact" or "evidence" on your side, because I'M ENTITLED TO MY OPINION. By pointing out my lack of facts, you are OPPRESSING ME. You are being a vicious, cruel, hateful person, and you're trying to silence the debate just to get your way.

Your opinion about the ham sandwich will, I am sure, get you a topflight job in either the housekeeping or food service industries.

The nonbelievers will say "its a natural cycle"

The truth is its about 10 times worse now than the natural cycle is used to.

Your opinion about the ham sandwich will, I am sure, get you a topflight job in either the housekeeping or food service industries.
The Darwinists are constantly trying to silence Ham Sandwichism, even though it's a perfectly respectable pile of bullsh--I mean, a perfectly respectable theory. They're just scared of anybody who challenges their position. Scientists are notorious for never debating things or acknowledging criticism, after all. You are clearly one of them, and are trying to silence anybody who doesn't go along with worshiping your God of Science.

Well, I will not be broken. No amount of criticism, no pile of evidence, and no paltry collection of facts will sway me from my conviction that the Earth is orbitting a giant ham sandwich. And, as we all know, the truthiness of a belief is based entirely upon how strongly people believe in it...so I WIN, you Darwinist pigs!!!

You don't get how this works. See, these days we have to "teach the debate." We have to have "balance." If you think that the Earth orbits the Sun, and I think the Earth orbits a giant ham sandwich, we both should get equal time and consideration. Doesn't matter if you have things like "fact" or "evidence" on your side, because I'M ENTITLED TO MY OPINION. By pointing out my lack of facts, you are OPPRESSING ME. You are being a vicious, cruel, hateful person, and you're trying to silence the debate just to get your way.

The Darwinists are constantly trying to silence Ham Sandwichism, even though it's a perfectly respectable pile of bullsh--I mean, a perfectly respectable theory. They're just scared of anybody who challenges their position. Scientists are notorious for never debating things or acknowledging criticism, after all. You are clearly one of them, and are trying to silence anybody who doesn't go along with worshiping your God of Science.

Well, I will not be broken. No amount of criticism, no pile of evidence, and no paltry collection of facts will sway me from my conviction that the Earth is orbitting a giant ham sandwich. And, as we all know, the truthiness of a belief is based entirely upon how strongly people believe in it...so I WIN, you Darwinist pigs!!!

I want to give you a medal.

I want to give you a medal.
I refuse to acknowledge the existence of medals. You are obviously another dupe of the Darwinists, who have convinced you to believe in the empirical reality of things like "metal."

You are all pitiful sheep, blindly following "facts" and "logic." You are willfully blind to the pure reality of The Sandwich. I will pray for you.

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of medals. You are obviously another dupe of the Darwinists, who have convinced you to believe in the empirical reality of things like "metal."

You are all pitiful sheep, blindly following "facts" and "logic." You are willfully blind to the pure reality of The Sandwich. I will pray for you.

That's funny, I talk to the Sandwich every day, and it never said anything about you.

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of medals. You are obviously another dupe of the Darwinists, who have convinced you to believe in the empirical reality of things like "metal."

You are all pitiful sheep, blindly following "facts" and "logic." You are willfully blind to the pure reality of The Sandwich. I will pray for you.
My currency is The Sandwich. (It really is, and has been since I started this thing. Check it out, I ain't lie 'n.

That's funny, I talk to the Sandwich every day, and it never said anything about you.
Do not mock the Sandwich. You can't pick on somebody else's beliefs, no matter how silly or crackbrained or--I mean, you can't mock my beliefs because that's called being intolerant. So there.

Then refute his evidence.
Why would I refute facts? As I have said before, global warming is happening. It is a fact, and Al Gore is doing nothing to de-politicize this fact. He knows that he is a controversial figure, yet he puts his face on a documentary about an issue he supposedly cares deeply about, knowing full well that half the country will immediately dismiss what he has to say. He isn’t an environmentalist, he’s a politician, and he wants back in.

I would disagree.

Maybe he's being alarmist because there is something to be alarmed by

I think the trend towards everything needing to be in moderation ignroes the fact that there are some things to be alarmed by
Nothing that we can change without causing more harm than good, or didn't you learn anything from south park? Any remotely viable 'solutions' would involve killing off more than half of the worlds population. Are YOU prepared to push the button? If not then quit your bitching.

I reckon science is more embarassing to Al Gore than vice versa

I think Al Gore spreads the right message and is reasonably correct about Global Warming. But he should have known that when he came out with this movie that the topic of conversation would be mostly about him and not Climate Change.

Nothing that we can change without causing more harm than good, or didn't you learn anything from south park? Any remotely viable 'solutions' would involve killing off more than half of the worlds population. Are YOU prepared to push the button? If not then quit your bitching.
I tend not to make policy, political, or global decisions about science, society, or whatever else really based on episodes of South Park...

I tend not to make policy, political, or global decisions about science, society, or whatever else really based on episodes of South Park...
A lot of it seems better than what we get from our government in any administration.

A lot of it seems better than what we get from our government in any administration.

And hence the ultimate reason for the existence of Bush apologists:

Greatly lowered expectations.

But still, your basic premise is solid.

This administration<Other administrations<Southpark<Widely debated, thoroughly supported Hard Core science.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but I found it an interesting article, especially since none of the press coverage of Al Gore's recent promotional tour for his movie has included any mention of controversy or claims of shady evidence being used. That is, at least not in any of the major press coverage on the cable or broadcast news networks, which I watch regularly. This article:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

..is recent and addresses Al Gore's claims specifically. Now, this isn't really my issue, and I don't claim to have any expertise in judging the evidence here, but I figured that some here would, so I ask: has anyone actually seen any news coverage of Gore's recent campaign that questioned the veracity of his claims? And, to anyone who's studied these things with reasonable depth, what do you think of the evidence/counter evidence here?

Unfortunately, the website you've posted from includes links to drivel like this anti-leftwing rant (http://www.stoptheism.com/Default.asp?M=24&T=161) right from their front page. I'm having trouble - a great deal of trouble - with the veracity of your sources.

Lets all be fair to Mr. Gore. He can't be an embarrassment to science, the man invented the internet! :D

No, he didn't. He said he sponsered the initiative and he did.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

http://www.academiapalmeiras.com.br/foto32.jpg
HA! I counter your random uncited and completely non sequitur image with one of my own!

Now, can we move from anecdotal to empirical data, please?

You need evidence of pollution in cities (which is what he's talking about)? Are you seriously suggesting that no problem with air pollution in cities exists?

Ack! Logical fallacy alert!

Those claiming the existance of something have the burden of proof. Attempts to change the burden of proof are one of the classical logical fallacies.

Gore did offer proof and the article does little to refute it. It makes vague suggestions how the scientists Gore uses are not entirely climatoligists and suggests vague proportions but it does not mention anything about how many of Gore's scientists are reliable or are in the 'right' field. Amusingly, the article appears to fairly clearly admit that some of Gore's scientists are quire reliable and are experts in the field.

You beleive your experts, and I'll believe mine. In my opinion, Al Gore is just another crazy in a sandwich board predicting an apocalypse that if it comes, will leave him just as surprised as the rest of us.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition

Uh-huh, nothing biased there. Junkscience is a notoriously unreliable site that denies not just global warming but evolution and pretty much anything that the far right wing and big business don't like.

I've not heard anything negative about his documentary/film.
Maybe the anti-global-warming crew are just working extra hard and many hours of overtime to come up with their own film to counter it?

Oh, they already released that movie (http://dukesofhazzard.warnerbros.com/) pre-emptively.

You beleive your experts, and I'll believe mine. In my opinion, Al Gore is just another crazy in a sandwich board predicting an apocalypse that if it comes, will leave him just as surprised as the rest of us.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Wow. So much for "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, no one is entitled to his own facts."