Over 400 Scientists Challenge Gore's Man-Made Global Warming Claims

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Debunked as in " 400 scientists did not challenge Gore's claims."

I'm sure the number who challenge Gore's bullshit is much higher than 400. For every left-wing eco-nut who swears the sky is falling and the crust crumbling, I can find you one who believes it is all bullshit and nothing but propaganda and $$$. And that's that.

You can be subjective as you wish on who you consider an "expert" but when Al Gore is the baseline, I think just about any one rises above his level.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: NeoV
um, Pabster, the point of this entire thread has been debunked, and your response is "I don't pay attention to left wing blogs"?

Your list of 400 'experts' in the field is junk, hence the entire point of this thread = junk

..they're just frothing at the mouth to get their carbon con going. just think of the cash flow. you eco-theists are going to make so many rich and happy while you ride your bikes and sit in the dark. the grift is working and you all are in play.

 

[umbrella39]

 

[NeoV]

I love the idiocy of the anti-gw crowd - the sky is falling, the carbon con, etc, etc - nevermind the fact that it might be worth it to everyone on the planet to make sure we understand what we are doing to the weather on our planet

And again - the link I provided merely questions the 'experts in the field' tag from your original link - you can pretend their questions about the 'credentials' of these so-called experts don't exist, but it just makes you look more foolish for standing behind something so obviously slanted.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I love the idiocy of the anti-gw crowd - the sky is falling, the carbon con, etc, etc - nevermind the fact that it might be worth it to everyone on the planet to make sure we understand what we are doing to the weather on our planet

And again - the link I provided merely questions the 'experts in the field' tag from your original link - you can pretend their questions about the 'credentials' of these so-called experts don't exist, but it just makes you look more foolish for standing behind something so obviously slanted.

..well that's the grift and willing accomplices like you are progressing it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I love the idiocy of the anti-gw crowd - the sky is falling, the carbon con, etc, etc - nevermind the fact that it might be worth it to everyone on the planet to make sure we understand what we are doing to the weather on our planet

And again - the link I provided merely questions the 'experts in the field' tag from your original link - you can pretend their questions about the 'credentials' of these so-called experts don't exist, but it just makes you look more foolish for standing behind something so obviously slanted.

Never try and reason with a monkey and his poop stained hands.

 

[Lemon law]

Let us face some facts, Al Gore critics are partly right and Al Gore has gone way beyond science fact, even in the more primitive days of a decade ago, and now that GW warming is a far more dynamic and moving target, Gore is somewhat hopelessly out of date as Gore vainly refuses to alter positions.

Which still does not make Al Gore critics right either and Al Gore will still retain hero status for raising awareness. I still stand with the Columbus analogy with both being flawed human beings who profoundly changed the world. Neither did all that much themselves, it will be those that follow that will achieve the lasting changes.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us face some facts, Al Gore critics are partly right and Al Gore has gone way beyond science fact, even in the more primitive days of a decade ago, and now that GW warming is a far more dynamic and moving target, Gore is somewhat hopelessly out of date as Gore vainly refuses to alter positions.

Which still does not make Al Gore critics right either and Al Gore will still retain hero status for raising awareness. I still stand with the Columbus analogy with both being flawed human beings who profoundly changed the world. Neither did all that much themselves, it will be those that follow that will achieve the lasting changes.

..algore is the grifter general. He'll never run for president because he will then have to debate his position. And like most grifters he doesn't have the legs or backbone.

 

[toadeater]

Fossil fuels are for superstitious primitives. It is the 21st century. Why isn't there a micro nuclear reactor in every garage?

I'm going to buy a Toshiba micro nuclear reactor as soon as I get a license to run micro nuclear reactors in the US. I figure I can provide enough energy for the entire neighborhood and chase Con Edison and Exxon out of here. Exxon because I'll be making my own hydrogen from the hydrogen generator which will also be powered by the nuclear reactor. Or I suppose I could just avoid the hydrogen altogether and use rechargeable car batteries.

This is what the oil companies and their lobbyists in Washington are most terrified of. With cheap, infinite electricity, we don't even need biodiesel or ethanol, let alone gasoline.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/1...actor-for-your-garage/

And Al Gore can go **** himself, along with Billary, Ghouliani, and the rest of the Washington lobbyist-loving insiders.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Although its hard to suffer through the responses on this thread, its pretty clear that Al Gore's
critics are guilty of the same lack of science sins that they so clearly see in Al Gore. And while Al Gore undoubtedly exaggerates one way, his critics almost certainly exaggerate equally outrageously the other way. And unlike Al Gore, the critics try to argue GW is only about CO2.
<...snip...>
The fact is, Gore is raising the alarm bells ahead of the science. Yet we ignore Gore at our own peril.
<...snip...>
Shall we play Russian roulette now and do nothing about GW now?

Originally posted by: Vic
<...snip...>
In other words, beware the unintended consequences of your high-minded ideals.

I think LL is more concerned with getting started on a trend rather than truly following Gore's message tit for tat. And I agree in that respect, we should live with less impact on the environment. But the impact we are having on the weather is much less than he could ever imagine. The environment is nowhere near impacted by today's industry and people as it was 100 years ago when industry was running dirty fuels and dumping wastes unchecked.

Al Gore's support is from a bunch of investors, not from scientists. The scientists in his camp are paid for their results. They are given goals to meet to support the agenda. In the spirit of academics, the money should be flowing across a wide range of ideas and not across narrow political controls. The research presently funded is a fast track to Al Gore's team so that they can win public approval to their "carbon credits" schemes. That is next decade's Y2K, their new get rich scheme that "the public cannot ignore due to the dire consequences of no action." We've heard it all before.

 

[Vic]

When one brings up that it just "might be worth it" to do something about GW, after eliminating all or most of the alarmism regarding the future, then one has to question your priorities. In which case, why is GW more important to you than say the millions of tons of toxic e-waste dumped in developing countries every year? One would think that computer enthusiasts would be conscious of the vast environmental damage and real health problems generated by their passion right here and now. Surely that would be "worth it" too, eh?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Al Gore's support is from a bunch of investors, not from scientists. The scientists in his camp are paid for their results. They are given goals to meet to support the agenda. In the spirit of academics, the money should be flowing across a wide range of ideas and not across narrow political controls. The research presently funded is a fast track to Al Gore's team so that they can win public approval to their "carbon credits" schemes. That is next decade's Y2K, their new get rich scheme that "the public cannot ignore due to the dire consequences of no action." We've heard it all before.

QFT. :thumbsup:

Now...Carbon Credits, any one? :laugh:

This scam will make Y2K laughable by comparison...if they can pull it off.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: MadRat
Al Gore's support is from a bunch of investors, not from scientists. The scientists in his camp are paid for their results. They are given goals to meet to support the agenda. In the spirit of academics, the money should be flowing across a wide range of ideas and not across narrow political controls. The research presently funded is a fast track to Al Gore's team so that they can win public approval to their "carbon credits" schemes. That is next decade's Y2K, their new get rich scheme that "the public cannot ignore due to the dire consequences of no action." We've heard it all before.

QFT. :thumbsup:

Now...Carbon Credits, any one? :laugh:

This scam will make Y2K laughable by comparison...if they can pull it off.

Except the issues with Y2K were real. There were no issues on January 1st 2000 because thousands of IT workers busted butt to make sure.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Except the issues with Y2K were real. There were no issues on January 1st 2000 because thousands of IT workers busted butt to make sure.

Yeah, there were real issues, but the vast majority was nothing but fear mongering and snake oil salesmen out for a buck. I wonder how many people are still trying to unload generators :laugh:

 

[ScottMac]

You mean like "Y2K Compliant cabling" ?

Or "HDTV Compatible" antennas?

There "fer sher" were issues with Y2k. The general public's ignorance made it (makes it) easy for every P.T. Barnum wannabe to crawl out from under their rocks and score bigtime with issues that were / are (at best) vaguely related (like Y2K-compliant dustcloths, HDTV compatible antennas, and MMGW and Carbon Credits).

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Vic
When one brings up that it just "might be worth it" to do something about GW, after eliminating all or most of the alarmism regarding the future, then one has to question your priorities. In which case, why is GW more important to you than say the millions of tons of toxic e-waste dumped in developing countries every year? One would think that computer enthusiasts would be conscious of the vast environmental damage and real health problems generated by their passion right here and now. Surely that would be "worth it" too, eh?

Excellent post, Vic. :thumbsup:

I'll go even further and say, the many tons of combustion byproducts being released into the air which makes the air polluted/unhealthy to breathe. I'm all for reducing these emissions, because I want better air for myself and future generations. I don't have to hide behind some grand global warming movement in order to do something right about air pollution. And I don't have to support the creation of bigger and more wasteful goverment agencies (i.e. liberalism, socialism) in order to do something right and good. I wonder how many of the mmgw-followers in ATP&N drive a 9 year old car that gets 30+ MPG city, like mine does? See how personal responsibility can have a far larger impact than any goverment mandate?