On global warming, who's paying to shoot the messenger?

Comments

12 comments posted
Waiting for Gore-doh...

Since Al Gore was offered the opportunity to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 7 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours, 18 minutes, and 43 secondshave elapsed. Despite milking lucrative speaking engagements and book deals with his global warming schtick he declines any such debate. Perhaps he's afraid of the Real Inconvenient Truth.

manwithanactualbrain's picture
Posted by manwithanactualbrain (not verified) on 20 August 2006 - 12:23pm
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere

...but I can't find it.

BTW, what have you done about global warming, aside from scoff and vent hot air?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 August 2006 - 12:42pm
Thats the point!

Boy how you blowhards get upset when someone actually speaks the truth! That is the point. There is NO global warming, OK. That is why Gore refuses this debate. He has no actual scientific proof to back up his hysterical claims. Just follow this linkLink Text if you want to see actual scientific proof to the contrary. But I am sure you do not. Then you would have to believe something that is not "politically correct". Ma I am glad you all are not in power. We would be drivng horses and carraiges again.

manwithanactualbrain's picture
Posted by manwithanactualbrain (not verified) on 22 August 2006 - 11:49am
Ostrich politics

Gotta love it.

I suppose there's no such thing as the flu, pollution doesn't exist, cancer is caused my moral failings, poverty is just desserts and nobody is dying in Iraq.

You're the proud inheritor of Luddite philosophy. Congratulations on your proud ignorance!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 August 2006 - 3:03pm
Defend your views by name calling

Wow! I am ignorant because I actually have to have scientific evidence to support your and your movements idiodic claims. You can catch the flu, you can see pollution, cancer and poverty are a bummer that you can detect, and we can see the body bags of the poor souls coming back from Irac. Absolutely no correlation to so called "global warming".

Boy I bet the fact that Bush will not sign the ridiculous treaty really gets your goat. Just think as we speak the ice cap of Antartica and the snows of Kilaminjaro are melting. Hurricanes and tornados are getting ready to be unleashed on the earth. And little fish are going blind in Patagonia. And you are powerless to do anything about it. Because Bush is president of the most influential country in the world. And thank God he actually has a brain. Unlike Duh-gore.

Oh I guess you know "global warming" is happening because the "psychics" say so. I understand completely now.

manwithanactualbrain's picture
Posted by manwithanactualbrain (not verified) on 22 August 2006 - 6:15pm
I'd suggest

...you invest in down insulation then.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 22 August 2006 - 10:59pm
Got me a damn fine down

Got me a damn fine down comforter. Thanks for the advice though.

manwithanactualbrain's picture
Posted by manwithanactualbrain (not verified) on 23 August 2006 - 12:03pm
Global Warming

When can any of you libs explain to me how it is that the world has been both MUCH hotter and MUCH colder than now before mankind was here if we are causing it?????

Darren's picture
Posted by Darren (not verified) on 23 August 2006 - 4:35pm
I think your big mistake

...is thinking that this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. What are you afraid of?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 August 2006 - 7:23pm
Snuff the Amazon!

Of course it's a liberal vs. conservative issue. If it were a scientific issue, the scientists would be in charge of working things out. But it's actually some thing else. Bush is evil. Bush is from Texas. Oil is from Texas. Oil comes from big corporations. Big corporations are evil. Therefore oil is evil every way you look at it. To strike back at Bush and corporations, say that CO2 from oil is killing the planet.

If the liberals were semi-literate and consistent about CO2, they would demand that we snuff out the largest emitter of CO2 on the planet--the Amazon rain forest. But no, they're not concerned enough about CO2 to go after the biggest problem. They're actually just against Bush and corporations.

Let's be real, though. The most influential "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. Clouds. But nobody wants to demand cloud control, because that doesn't strike a blow against Bush and the corporations.

Schiller Thurkettle's picture
Posted by Schiller Thurkettle (not verified) on 29 August 2006 - 9:58am
How's that?

When you look at what is recently causing changes, then you look at what's changed recently.

Combustion is on the rise. The Amazon rain forest is shrinking. Do you truly believe that plants cause global warming?

There's also a lot of trapped methane within the ice sheets of Greenland and northern Asia. As that ice melts, that gas is released. We have a cascading effect.

Now if you think cutting down the Amazon rain forest would address global warming, I'd like to hear it. I'd like to see it presented at the scientific talks or in the scientific literature.

Really, this is a reality-based blog, Thurky. There are plenty of science fiction sites to paste your alternate universes.

You can consider that a warning.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 29 August 2006 - 11:36am
You are amazingly

You are amazingly closed-minded on this subject, and unnessesarily hostile.
Demonizing or ridiculing those that doubt the extent and cause of climate change has a chilling effect on free speech that makes open, rational debate almost impossible.
When scientific data are presented as "facts," disagreement and inquiry are discouraged. But honest scientific investigation requires the assumption of falsifiability whereby no issue or conclusion is considered settled or beyond continuous investigation and experimentation.
Instead of attacking researchers that seek to challenge the status quo view on global warming, journalists should investigate the motives of the global-warming alarmists. Consider scientists that follow the "scientific consensus" line. They have a strong incentive to do so to gain access to billions of dollars of public funds for studies into global warming. Meanwhile, politicians use "fear" to soften up citizens so that they willingly give up more hard-earned income to pay carbon taxes.
Try watching Global Warming Swindle at MySpace tv. Yes, I believe global warming is real, but I'm not foolish enough to believe all this hype about human co2 admissions and the doomsday for all us sinners who don't repent and "go green" with a cult-like passion. Believe what you believe, but at least allow others the respect to consider that their beliefs might be just as valid as yours.

your name here's picture
Posted by your name here (not verified) on 15 March 2008 - 11:24pm