NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, not about global warming - that's not in question - I believe that global warming is real, and that humans are the primary cause of it.

This post is about the vilification of your enemies, using lies, repeating lies, and neglecting to check...

Gore seems to be pretty good at all of the above.

But he likes to repeat unchecked facts. Especially lies about people he reads about in the media.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/07/asia/AS-GEN-Al-Gore-Climate-Change-Deniers.php

"Some of the tobacco companies spent millions of dollars to create the appearance that there was disagreement on the science. And some of the large coal and utility companies and the largest oil company, ExxonMobil, have been involved in doing that exact same thing for the last several years," Gore said.

Hmm. That sounds just like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/

from just prior to Gore's comments

But (Senator) Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Gore must have read Newsweek, eh--->

After the release of a February report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of the world's top climate scientists, that warned that the cause of global warming is "very likely" man-made, "the deniers offered a bounty of US$10,000 (€7,250) for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere," Gore said.

Ok, let's look into that.

The Guardian published the same accusation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasize the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Ah, so if I read it on the Internet, it MUST be true, eh?

Lobby group is bolded for a reason.

What is the American Enterprise Institute?

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25661/pub_detail.asp

Not a lobby group. They don't engage in any lobbying.

AEI engages in no lobbying--funded by the world's largest oil company

Money from Exxon?

The Guardian reports that "AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil." Yes, that is true--over the last seven years, a sum that represents less than 1 percent of AEI's total revenue during that period.

Here's a copy of one of the letters. It doesn't read the way the Guardian says - it looks like they want to pay someone to write a research review of which global climate models are more relevant to making public policy, and which ones are not.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/AEI.pdf

I don't see the following words:

"attacking," "disputing," "undercutting," "undermining," or "emphasizing the shortcomings of"

Hmm.

What kind of stuff did AEI sponsor to have written?

"Our latest book on global warming, Lee Lane's Strategic Options for Bush Administration Climate Policy, advocates a carbon tax, which I'm pretty sure ExxonMobil opposes (the book also dares to criticize some of the Bush administration's climate-change policies!)."

http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.866/book_detail.asp

One reason climate policy is such a hotly contested issue is the importance of precedence in American politics: Once the federal government embarks on a given approach to curtailing greenhouse gases, future policies are likely to follow that path. With the threat of Kyoto-style cap-and-trade programs looming larger with each passing year, Lane argues that the Bush administration should consider adopting a modest carbon tax. This would be vastly more efficient than emissions trading and would cut off the growing political momentum toward reengaging with the Kyoto system. (At the very least, a cap should include a "safety valve," providing an unlimited supply of affordable credits, essentially transforming the trading program into a tax.)

Lane also argues that greater attention should be paid to ambitious approaches to climate change such as geoengineering and the development of breakthrough clean-energy technologies that could reduce emissions enough to curtail projected warming. Costly cap-and-trade programs that produce trivial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are simply a waste of money; our resources should focus instead on actual solutions, not ineffective interim steps.

So it looks like he's arguing for a carbon tax - which has to be more onerous than cap and trade - as well as changing to clean energy technologies...

They aren't arguing that global warming isn't real. They're arguing about the best way to deal with it. And it looks like they're proposing hitting it head on as rapidly as possible.

Gee, I doubt that a company that makes its money selling a carbon based fuel would like that...

What? A politician? Lying?

I'm shocked. Shocked and appalled.

I think I may need a lie down.

In a related story, bears shit in the woods.

In a related story, bears shit in the woods.

Correction, The Pope shits in the woods. And bears are Catholic.

Correction, The Pope shits in the woods. And bears are Catholic.

No, the Pope wears a funny hat, and Michael Jackson is a priest...

I shat in the woods a couple times. It's overrated. *nod*

I shat in the woods a couple times. It's overrated. *nod*

The important question is "did you wipe?" and if so, "what with?"

The important question is "did you wipe?" and if so, "what with?"

Now you see why it's overrated. :)

All that shit for the difference between "lobbying firm" and "right-wing think tank." And considering that the fault was in the reporting, it's hardly fair to condemn Gore as a liar--he was repeating the facts as they were reported.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning (or early afternoon, as the case may be).

All that shit for the difference between "lobbying firm" and "right-wing think tank." And considering that the fault was in the reporting, it's hardly fair to condemn Gore as a liar--he was repeating the facts as they were reported.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning (or early afternoon, as the case may be).

He repeated it because it's what he likes to hear, and what he thinks will do the most damage.

You don't find it interesting that AEI believes in global warming, and that it's man-made? Gore doesn't seem to think so.

All that shit for the difference between "lobbying firm" and "right-wing think tank." And considering that the fault was in the reporting, it's hardly fair to condemn Gore as a liar--he was repeating the facts as they were reported.


But when Bush does it, he's a liar. :rolleyes:

Well, not about global warming - that's not in question - I believe that global warming is real, and that humans are the primary cause of it.


I find it mildy entertaining that people feel that have to reflexively assure everybody that they DO believe in man-made Global Warming as a way to get people to read their post.

Doesn't say much for the objectivity of the reader, does it?

So, what is Gore lying about? Can you put it in a nutshell? AEI are global warming deniers. First they said it wasn't real, then when the science became overwhelming they started downplaying it's significance and tried to sew doubt about it's causes. Gore just pointed that out. Are you saying he's lying by calling them a lobbying group? I thought they were. In anycase, it doesn't change the core part of the argument - that being that Exxon funded a group who's purpose was to sew doubt about global warming.

But when Bush does it, he's a liar. :rolleyes:

But it's his own aides he's parroting. ;)

But when Bush does it, he's a liar. :rolleyes:

No, what Bush did was set up an intelligence screening operation that ran through one guy, I forgot his name, that screened intelligence that cast doubt on Saddam's WMD capabilities so that that kind of intel never hit his desk. That may not be lying, per se, because he never saw intel that ran counter to his belief that Iraq had WMD. Bush does that a lot. He likes to see information that confirms what he already knows. He doesn't like to see things that are counter to his beliefs.

But when Bush does it, he's a liar. :rolleyes:
When has Bush done something like this? Just one example, please.

No, what Bush did was set up an intelligence screening operation that ran through one guy, I forgot his name, that screened intelligence that cast doubt on Saddam's WMD capabilities so that that kind of intel never hit his desk. That may not be lying, per se, because he never saw intel that ran counter to his belief that Iraq had WMD. Bush does that a lot. He likes to see information that confirms what he already knows. He doesn't like to see things that are counter to his beliefs.

More than one guy, but they were linked--Ahmad Chalabi was the guy in charge, and Curveball was the shitty source.

More than one guy, but they were linked--Ahmad Chalabi was the guy in charge, and Curveball was the shitty source.

Nah, those are sources. There was this one guy at the Pentagon that screened all the intel for the Admin. He was appointed by the administration. I'm trying to find his name.

More than one guy, but they were linked--Ahmad Chalabi was the guy in charge, and Curveball was the shitty source.

And George Tenet was the shitty CIA director who said it was a slam dunk.

Nah, those are sources. There was this one guy at the Pentagon that screened all the intel for the Admin. He was appointed by the administration. I'm trying to find his name.

Oh--are you talking about Hadley, or Feith, one of those idiots? The Team B people who stovepiped discredited intel straight to Cheney's office. Mary Matalin was involved in that as well, I believe.

More than one guy, but they were linked--Ahmad Chalabi was the guy in charge, and Curveball was the shitty source.

That's it! The Office Of Special Plans. Douglas Feith was the guy's name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

Oh--are you talking about Hadley, or Feith, one of those idiots? The Team B people who stovepiped discredited intel straight to Cheney's office. Mary Matalin was involved in that as well, I believe.

yes

Correction, The Pope shits in the woods. And bears are Catholic.

Bears are Catholic? :confused:

*snip
WAKE-UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! A politician is the only profession besides law where you lie-for-a-living! I don't bother to find ones that don't lie, I find ones that CAN lie and get away with it. It shows intelligence. Bush is caught so often it makes me ill. Bill Clinton on the other hand lied just as much, but no-one seems to notice, which shows he did something smart.

Of-course, they're both selfish bastards, but one's far more intelligent.

But when Bush does it, he's a liar. :rolleyes:

To those who have responded to this comment:

I said that to illustrate a point, which is that conservative politicians in general but Bush in particular get a HELL of a lot more criticism and scrutiny than any liberal does. You guys provided details and information that shows you've done your homework, but Gore gets an automatic benefit of the doubt from the same people without any attempt to determine what he really knew and when he said what. You came on here to dispute the OP, not analyze it with the same level of care as you seem to have given to your anti-Bush arguments.

No, I don't particularly care for GWB myself, and I'm not on here looking to defend him. My point is that when people show that level of inconsistency and lack of objectivity, do not be surprised if your credibility suffers down the road.

[/soapbox]

To those who have responded to this comment:

I said that to illustrate a point, which is that conservative politicians in general but Bush in particular get a HELL of a lot more criticism and scrutiny than any liberal does. You guys provided details and information that shows you've done your homework, but Gore gets an automatic benefit of the doubt from the same people without any attempt to determine what he really knew and when he said what. You came on here to dispute the OP, not analyze it with the same level of care as you seem to have given to your anti-Bush arguments.

No, I don't particularly care for GWB myself, and I'm not on here looking to defend him. My point is that when people show that level of inconsistency and lack of objectivity, do not be surprised if your credibility suffers down the road.

[/soapbox]

Okay, but here's the diff...

1. Gore repeated what he read from an independent journalist that there's no evidence he ever even meant, much less appointed and asked him to screen info for him.

2. It's absoluetly inconsequential that he referred to a thinktank as a lobbying group. It does nothing to change the value of his core argument - that being that Exxon paid people to cast doubt on global warming science.

3. Gore is not the President of the United States.

4. His misidentifyin a think tank as a lobbying group didn't get the US into a war that may end up being the first in a series of events that destroys the United States and maybe The West.

I understand your point and I too hate when people stick up for their own guy and don't think their own shit stinks, this may have just been, in my opinion, a bad place to make that comparison.

Okay, but here's the diff...

1. Gore repeated what he read from an independent journalist that there's no evidence he ever even meant, much less appointed and asked him to screen info for him.

2. It's absoluetly inconsequential that he referred to a thinktank as a lobbying group. It does nothing to change the value of his core argument - that being that Exxon paid people to cast doubt on global warming science.

3. Gore is not the President of the United States.

4. His misidentifyin a think tank as a lobbying group didn't get the US into a war that may end up being the first in a series of events that destroys the United States and maybe The West.

I understand your point and I too hate when people stick up for their own guy and don't think their own shit stinks, this may have just been, in my opinion, a bad place to make that comparison.

The point is that AEI hasn't cast doubt on global warming science.

They, in fact, publish books that acknowledge that global warming is man-made, and exists. What they may differ on is the best approach to effectively stop global warming.

So his statements were utter crap.

Okay, but here's the diff...

1. Gore repeated what he read from an independent journalist that there's no evidence he ever even meant, much less appointed and asked him to screen info for him.

2. It's absoluetly inconsequential that he referred to a thinktank as a lobbying group. It does nothing to change the value of his core argument - that being that Exxon paid people to cast doubt on global warming science.

3. Gore is not the President of the United States.

4. His misidentifyin a think tank as a lobbying group didn't get the US into a war that may end up being the first in a series of events that destroys the United States and maybe The West.

I understand your point and I too hate when people stick up for their own guy and don't think their own shit stinks, this may have just been, in my opinion, a bad place to make that comparison.

I think it's cool that you looked at it at that level of detail. Most don't. That's why your conclusions carry more credibitility, because you've taken the time to specify those points.

I would say I generally agree with your points, with some not-so-sure on one or two.. but that's the beauty of analyzing it objectively... now you and I could actually have a meaningful discussion about it.

And in the spirit of that :D

True, he's not the Prez and true, his decisions aren't going to cause or prevent any wars, but he has a LOT of followers and considerable political capital. He is in a position to be a major driving force for change either for good or ill. The President is done in 2008 but Gore's cult of personality can go on indefinitely. So if he's a liar that can be a VERY dangerous thing. A lot of people seem to accept that, as a politician, lying is par for the course with him. I find that unnerving.

I'm not gonna defend the think tank/lobby group. I happen to agree that their lack of objectivity makes either term equally applicable.

The point is that AEI hasn't cast doubt on global warming science.



Just a few snippets from their website...

www.aei.org

But how much have human activities affected the Earth's climate up to now? How much will human activities change the climate in the future? What fraction of human-caused climate change is the result of greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, and how much is from other factors, such as turning wilderness into cities and farmland? How harmful will climate change be, and what should policymakers in Raleigh, N.C., or Washington, D.C., do about it?

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our solar system have in common. Hmmmm. Solar system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.

That last from Fred Thomson - of Law and Order fame who may run for pres...

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, humans may be partially responsible. Now, let's have a serious discussion of what it means to respond intelligently.

Like I said, they used to just deny it altogether. Now that the science is clear and teh climate is obviously changing they have gone to, "but it's not all us," and "it's not going to be so bad," etc...

The point is that AEI hasn't cast doubt on global warming science.

They, in fact, publish books that acknowledge that global warming is man-made, and exists. What they may differ on is the best approach to effectively stop global warming.

So his statements were utter crap.

Just to be clear, here was their position in 2003:

On many of the walls here at the Feira Milano conference center, site of the giant United Nations meeting on climate change, Green activists have posted flamboyant posters showing a picture of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), with a quotation from him: "Global warming is 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'"

The idea being proffered by these sophisticates, of course, is that Inhofe is a typical American rube. Global warming a hoax! What a dope!

In fact, Inhofe is one of the best-informed Senators on the science and economics of global warming. And "global warming"--as it's used by environmental extremists--is indeed a hoax.

Yes, the Earth's surface has warmed a bit over the past century, but is that warming caused mainly by humans or by natural cycles? And can changes in human activity--specifically reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions--have anything more than a tiny effect on temperature? The answers to those questions, which are at the heart of the Kyoto Protocol and other attempts to force cuts in energy use, are simply unknown.

It is the claim of certainty that is a hoax. It's a dangerous one, too, since using global-warming theory as the basis for extreme policy mandates could plunge the world into a long-term recession or even a depression.

The quote on the poster comes from Inhofe's speech during debate over the McCain-Lieberman bill that would have curtailed greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, a measure similar to the Kyoto Protocol, which President Bush rejected in 2001 as "fatally flawed" and which still lacks enough ratifying nations for implementation six years after it was signed. McCain-Lieberman was rejected, too--in part because of Inhofe's strenuous efforts as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

One of the themes being promoted by Greens at this conference is that the American people want Kyoto-style measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and that the close vote on McCain-Lieberman proves it. Wednesday's issue of ECO, the daily conference newsletter backed by WWF International, Greenpeace and other environmental groups, refers to "mounting anger at home" to President Bush's stance on climate change. "The American public is catching on to this charade," claims ECO.

But several times this week, Inhofe has patiently explained the real arithmetic behind the Senate vote. First, it was 16 votes short of the 60 effectively needed for passage under Senate rules. Second, it was riddled with concessions to win votes. Without the amendments, Inhofe figures only 32 Senators would have backed it. Finally, the bill was sold under a claim that it would cost only $20 per household per year. A study commissioned by TechCentralStation and performed by Charles River Associates, the respected economic research firm, found that the costs would be at least 17 times that much.

Inhofe heads a congressional delegation of eight Republicans in Milan. The others are Sens. Larry Craig (Idaho), Craig Thomas (Wyo.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Chris Cannon (Utah), Fred Upton (Mich.), Chris Shays (Conn.) and Jim Greenwood (Pa). There are no Democratic members of Congress here but plenty of Democratic staffers.

I sat down with Inhofe at breakfast at his hotel in Milan Thursday morning. Considering the fact that nothing much has been happening at COP-9, the ninth United Nations conference of the parties to the 1992 Rio agreement on the environment, I started by asking why he was here.

"I'm here," he said, "to show that we are not going to ratify Kyoto."

That's Inhofe at his finest. Straight talk. No nonsense.

Unlike some other members of Congress, who accept the scientific basis for Kyoto but say that the treaty costs too much and exempts developing countries, Inhofe disputes the science. He knows the studies, and he recognizes that the tide has turned in the past few years.

"Virtually all of the research since 1999 has been refuting [the theory of human-caused global warming]. It is ludicrous that Kyoto can be as damaging economically as it is when there is no science to justify it."

New research, for example, has challenged Michael Mann's "hockey-stick" formula, which asserts that temperatures have risen sharply, in an unprecedented fashion. In fact, warming was worse centuries ago, before industrialization and automobiles.

The delegation met Wednesday with counterparts from Europe, and Inhofe and many of his colleagues were shocked at the Europeans' refusal even to consider scientific research that casts doubt on predictions of cataclysmic warming. "They just don't want to talk about the science," said Inhofe. "They don't want to listen. They were Zombies"--unlike "real people in the U.S." Those Americans, said Inhofe, "we are turning around" with the recent research.

Some members of the delegation have been as forceful as Inhofe on the subject of climate-change science. For example, in 1998, with Bill Clinton in the White House, Sen. Larry Craig said, "As more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the administration in the Kyoto Protocol are an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat the vice president himself [i.e., Al Gore] is caught up in making."

The talk of the conference has been Russia. Will the Russians ratify Kyoto? The treaty requires the votes of nations producing 55 percent of all emissions from developed countries. Currently, the tally is 44 percent, so the Russians, with 17 percent, hold the key.

Inhofe says that some Russians see negotiations on ratification "as a way to make some money. They want to see how big the bribe will be." But, in the end, he thinks the Russians will reject Kyoto, for reasons of science and economics, just as Bush rejected it as shortly after his inauguration.

"I'm proud of Putin for having the courage to look at the science," said Inhofe, referring to the Russian president. "In this environment, it takes courage."

Inhofe also agrees with the assessment that this has been a particularly depressing conference for the Greens. The plenary sessions are only about half-full, and "there was no enthusiasm in the room."

Meanwhile, Inhofe points out, the United States is shelling out $4.7 million, footing the bill for about one-fourth of the cost of the U.N.'s extravaganza. But the price may be worthwhile, if only because Inhofe is getting his message out. He's teaching the value of straight talking to the Europeans and the Green NGO officials who, for a long time now, have assumed they can set the world's agenda. This year, with Kyoto on its deathbed, they're learning otherwise. It's delightful to see.

Now that the science is so strong, here's their position now:

Policymakers wishing to restrain greenhouse gas emissions have a broad range of potential instruments available. They can criminalize emitting activities, they can regulate emissions via technology requirements or emission standards, or they can put a price on the activity via a tax or trading scheme.

There is widespread agreement among economists and public policy analysts that activity bans and regulations are highly inefficient approaches to managing environmental externalities, particularly those such as climate change, where polluting activities span nearly all aspects of human life; cross all jurisdictional borders; have high levels of uncertainty with regard to costs and benefit delivery; and impose asymmetric costs and benefits. Thus, emission pricing--through taxation or the establishment of a pseudo-market that trades in emission permits--has been widely favored (by analysts) over regulatory approaches for several decades. Both taxes and emission-trading (also called cap-and-trade) impose a price on emissions, but the two systems are very different.

Taxing greenhouse gas emissions accomplishes several desirable goals in one stroke: It creates an economy-wide incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; it is largely transparent; it operates within preexisting institutional frameworks adept at fraud prevention; it minimizes the potential for rent seeking; it does not lead to wealth transfer between regions with different forms of economic activity; it produces revenue that can be used to reduce other taxes in order to offset the economic harm of higher energy prices; it is predictable, adjustable, and can thereby avoid price volatility; it shifts some revenue generation from production to consumption; and it can be harmonized internationally if desired.

Emission trading systems by contrast (particularly international systems) are virtually unenforceable; create massive incentives for fraudulent claims of prior emission estimates and emission reductions; lead to massive wealth redistribution; require new untested institutions that have performed poorly in pilot testing (the European Trading System is a prime example); create incentives for rent seeking; generate no revenue to offset the economic harm of higher energy prices; require complicated "safety valves" to prevent massive energy price volatility; and are largely nontransparent.

We recently estimated that a tax of fifteen dollars per ton of CO2-emitted levied on the carbon content of fossil fuels would produce an 11 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while raising the costs of crude oil and natural gas modestly. The majority of the price increase would affect coal prices and hence coal-based electricity. This is entirely appropriate as that, to paraphrase bank robber Willy Sutton, is where the emissions are.

For these reasons, I believe that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is a superior policy alternative to emission trading, regulation, or activity bans if our goal is the cost-efficient reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

So basically, "Global warming is a hoax!"

Climate change becomes obvious. Science becomes much more certain.

"We need to be careful not to hurt business, and besides, how bad can it be and how much of it is because of us?"

Well, not about global warming - that's not in question - I believe that global warming is real, and that humans are the primary cause of it.That really does sound like "I'm not racist, but..." Not the best way to start a thread.

Here's a copy of one of the letters. It doesn't read the way the Guardian says - it looks like they want to pay someone to write a research review of which global climate models are more relevant to making public policy, and which ones are not.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/AEI.pdf

I don't see the following words:

"attacking," "disputing," "undercutting," "undermining," or "emphasizing the shortcomings of"

Hmm.This is just the bit that caught by attention. So is doesn't mention specific words, but this is politics. You need to learn read between the lines.

The purpose of this project is to write about the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC processMeans: Don't write a whitewash.

As with any large scale "consensus" process, the IPCC is susceptible to self selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Wroup reports.Means: the IPCC won't hire our people, hasn't crumbled under previous attempts of ours to undermine its work, and is drawing more conclusions that we don't like. We want you to undermine this conclusions.

From our earlier discussions...Remember earlier when we were talking with you in private and we could be more candid?

...I developed considerable respect for the integrity with which your lab...Obligatory flattery.

... approaches the characterization of climate modelling data.We liked your ideas. Please write more on this whilst rubbishing the IPCC.

We are hoping to sponser a paper ... that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate change policy.Again, we will pay you to rubbish the models that the IPCC are using to back their research... just in case you hadn't got the message.

All that shit for the difference between "lobbying firm" and "right-wing think tank." And considering that the fault was in the reporting, it's hardly fair to condemn Gore as a liar--he was repeating the facts as they were reported.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning (or early afternoon, as the case may be).

It's hardly fair to call him desperate. He's a conservative trying to use logic and reason. That's like an octopus trying stilts. At least he is showing an openness to reality as a basis for knowledge.

He's gone past the "people from a country we're allied with killed a bunch of people here so let's attack a country that we used to be allied with because they're kind of an embarrassment," type of thinking. That itself is something to be applauded.

Think of it as a baby shitting in a your shoe. They've figured out that shit is supposed to be deposited in a container. It shows growth and the promise of adult capabilities in the future. Unfortunately you do, at the moment, have shit in your shoe, but you also have the hope that one day you will no longer have to clean up all the shit left behind by the babies you're stuck living with.

It's hardly fair to call him desperate. He's a conservative trying to use logic and reason. That's like an octopus trying stilts. At least he is showing an openness to reality as a basis for knowledge.

He's gone past the "people from a country we're allied with killed a bunch of people here so let's attack a country that we used to be allied with because they're kind of an embarrassment," type of thinking. That itself is something to be applauded.

Think of it as a baby shitting in a your shoe. They've figured out that shit is supposed to be deposited in a container. It shows growth and the promise of adult capabilities in the future. Unfortunately you do, at the moment, have shit in your shoe, but you also have the hope that one day you will no longer have to clean up all the shit left behind by the babies you're stuck living with.This coming from a cabbage patch girl.