Gore says global warming skeptics

#26
#26
OrangeEmpire said:
¿
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Using a non-existent or very small opinion to justify (or make more reasonable) one's opinion. It's classic Obaba style rationalization. I saw a reasonable amount of that in your statement...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
Yes, GS, I've read it. Now, they need to show:

1) The molecules generated by the cosmic rays actually do seed more clouds in the atmosphere.

2) A reduction of cosmic rays can be correlated to the warming we have seen. Or, that increases in cosmic rays can be seen to cause cooling so that we can measure the effect and understand what effect if any they have on our understanding of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
The Tennessean had a write up on Gore this morning. If GW exists its skipping past Mr. Gore, he is carrying his winter fat all the way through the summer now.
 
#29
#29
TennTradition said:
Using a non-existent or very small opinion to justify (or make more reasonable) one's opinion. It's classic Obaba style rationalization. I saw a reasonable amount of that in your statement...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

My bad, I find it unreasonable to believe an earth that has over a billion years of changes is heavily influenced by man.........ill take my billion to your 50 yrs
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
TennTradition said:
Yes, GS, I've read it. Now, they need to show:

1) The molecules generated by the cosmic rays actually do seed more clouds in the atmosphere.

2) A reduction of cosmic rays can be correlated to the warming we have seen. Or, that increases in cosmic rays can be seen to cause cooling so that we can measure the effect and understand what effect if any they have on our understanding of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You're pretty good at math, how much do you figure
we will owe by that time? About 44 trillion $$??

If you want to task people, task the IPCC with releasing
their actual (so-called) research rather than just their
summaries and task Hanson with answering his FOIA
requests he has been stonewalling for years among
other things.

This isn't and never has been about weather and
climate and is totally about money and political
power.

More history:

The Daily Bell - BIS: Trading With the Enemy – The Whole Story

We have blown nearly a trillion dollars that we will
have to repay in just this past year based on an
unproven theory.

It won't be all that long before we will be in the same
shape as post WWI Germany if we continue to pursue
such bad, no horrible, energy policies very far into
the future.
 
#32
#32
OrangeEmpire said:
My bad, I find it unreasonable to believe an earth that has over a billion years of changes is heavily influenced by man.........ill take my billion to your 50 yrs
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This is a separate (but still flawed, IMO) argument from the strawman you created above. You don't see how contrasting your beliefs/views to those of a fringe and small crowd is using strawmen to add credence and "reasonability" to your view?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#33
#33
GS- the IPCC doesnt do scientific research. Their job is to assemble reports and draw conclusions based upon the body of literature that is based on scientific research.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#34
#34
TennTradition said:
This is a separate (but still flawed, IMO) argument from the strawman you created above. You don't see how contrasting your beliefs/views to those of a fringe and small crowd is using strawmen to add credence and "reasonability" to your view?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Nope :) I would rather argue your side.......no matter what happens its right
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#35
#35
TennTradition said:
GS- the IPCC doesnt do scientific research. Their job is to assemble reports and draw conclusions based upon the body of literature that is based on scientific research.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Perzactly!

The IPCC is the mouthpiece for the BIS (and their
associates) and cherry picks it's data without
verification and then doesn't release the whole
reports from which it gathers the material to write
a summary but submits that summary to national
governments for their actions or lack thereof who
don't bother to actually check the facts and verify
the summaries either.

UTTERLY STOOOOOOPID!

And btw they have in the past included claims that
had absolutely no scientific research involvement.

Example A; the melting Himalayan glacier claim that
was proven scientifically to be absolutely false.

obamahokeypokey.jpg



PS; please read the daily bell link, whether it has anything
to do with what we are talking about or not, it is
certainly informative and entertaining. :salute:
 
#36
#36
gs....in some sick way I love the first third of your posts........after that my brain shuts down
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
GS - To my knowledge, the vast majority of the reports they are pulling their information from are open scientific literature, not secret reports. They are peer reviewed papers, research reports, etc. Yes, I do know some came from other print media, and inapprpriately so as it was proved false. My point, however, is what reports are they hiding?

The IPCC writes a detailed assessment report of the current state of the literature. This is public. A small part of this is the "Summary for Policy Makers", which is more widely circulated but not more "open".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
TennTradition said:
I'm sorry you don't see that, because that was what it was.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I guess,in my absence people lost their sense of humor or sense of sarcasm....

too many people lookin down from the mantle
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#40
#40
OrangeEmpire said:
I guess,in my absence people lost their sense of humor or sense of sarcasm....

too many people lookin down from the mantle
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It's fairly intellectually dishonest to throw out opinions that you actually hold and then when the way the opinion is presented is called into question to cry foul at the seriousness and lack of humor in the response. I don't think you were trying to be funny in your original post, or if you were you didn't accomplish it, so why would I reply with humor?

Basically, you want to throw your opinions out there on a topic, using fallacious structures to the argument, and then just pass it off as a lack of seriousness if you get questioned on it. You don't have to be on the mantle to look down on that.

I'm not making an argument that the discussion is important or serious. It isn't. However, although I haven't reviewed the board rules in the last few days, I don't think it is against the rules to actually have a real discussion. In other words, having an actual discussion doesn't mean we internalize it or think it is more than just a messageboard discussion.
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
OrangeEmpire said:
I guess,in my absence people lost their sense of humor or sense of sarcasm....

too many people lookin down from the mantle
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If there is one topic above all others on which people
will try to talk down to you, it would be about the
AGW hoax.

090511.jpg


Some believe it religiously.




TennTradition said:
GS - To my knowledge, the vast majority of the reports they are pulling their information from are open scientific literature, not secret reports. They are peer reviewed papers, research reports, etc. Yes, I do know some came from other print media, and inapprpriately so as it was proved false. My point, however, is what reports are they hiding?

The IPCC writes a detailed assessment report of the current state of the literature. This is public. A small part of this is the "Summary for Policy Makers", which is more widely circulated but not more "open".Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

(bolded), therein lies the problem.

There were 150 scientists on the IPCC panel, many of
which had dubious scientific credentials, and only
nine wrote the summary.

There was much disagreement about their conclusions,
even among the 150, some were in such disagreement
that they resigned from the panel rather than have
their names and reputations further associated with
such shoddy scientific conclusions.

Furthermore the 150 were cherry picked, there are
many many more, some 3,000 0f the most qualified
scientists have signed a petition to refute the IPCC
final report.

Strong pressure has been put on scientific publications
to publish pro agw articles and not publish anti agw
articles, at least one editor was fired for publishing
anti articles.

Then too, the 'peer reviewed' caveat is at times a
complete joke, as in the 'polar bears are all dying' scam.

What reports are they hiding???

They are attempting to completely ignore the vast
body of work by many exceptionally qualified scientists
that have refuted the IPCC conclusions.

Some of that work merely calls into quetion some of
the IPCC conclusions, others have refuted beyond
any reasonable doubt basic concepts upon which the
IPCC conclusions are based.

Bottom line is that the whole report needs to go to
file 13 and then start over using scientific methods,
leaving out the political agenda in the scientific debate.

In the public debate everyone needs to understand
that there is no scientific consensus and even if there
were, we need to understand that what really matters
is getting it right rather than getting behind a majority
that is wrong.

We need to end policies like ethanol and banning
incandescent light bulbs and shutting down coal
fired electrical facilities.

Taken as a whole these policies are kiliing our
economy and promoting the huge multi-national
corporations that seem to want to control all
business.

The Assault On Small Business - Halt The Assault





OrangeEmpire said:
gs....in some sick way I love the first third of your posts........after that my brain shuts down
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Give yourself a pat on the back, you are doing far
better than average, most evidently can't read
two sentences without going braindead.

al-gore-raise-ocean-20-feet.jpg
 
#44
#44
gsvol said:
If there is one topic above all others on which people
will try to talk down to you, it would be about the
AGW hoax.

090511.jpg


Some believe it religiously.






(bolded), therein lies the problem.

There were 150 scientists on the IPCC panel, many of
which had dubious scientific credentials, and only
nine wrote the summary.

There was much disagreement about their conclusions,
even among the 150, some were in such disagreement
that they resigned from the panel rather than have
their names and reputations further associated with
such shoddy scientific conclusions.

Furthermore the 150 were cherry picked, there are
many many more, some 3,000 0f the most qualified
scientists have signed a petition to refute the IPCC
final report.

Strong pressure has been put on scientific publications
to publish pro agw articles and not publish anti agw
articles, at least one editor was fired for publishing
anti articles.

Then too, the 'peer reviewed' caveat is at times a
complete joke, as in the 'polar bears are all dying' scam.

What reports are they hiding???

They are attempting to completely ignore the vast
body of work by many exceptionally qualified scientists
that have refuted the IPCC conclusions.

Some of that work merely calls into quetion some of
the IPCC conclusions, others have refuted beyond
any reasonable doubt basic concepts upon which the
IPCC conclusions are based.

Bottom line is that the whole report needs to go to
file 13 and then start over using scientific methods,
leaving out the political agenda in the scientific debate.

In the public debate everyone needs to understand
that there is no scientific consensus and even if there
were, we need to understand that what really matters
is getting it right rather than getting behind a majority
that is wrong.

We need to end policies like ethanol and banning
incandescent light bulbs and shutting down coal
fired electrical facilities.

Taken as a whole these policies are kiliing our
economy and promoting the huge multi-national
corporations that seem to want to control all
business.

The Assault On Small Business - Halt The Assault







Give yourself a pat on the back, you are doing far
better than average, most evidently can't read
two sentences without going braindead.

al-gore-raise-ocean-20-feet.jpg
Click to expand...

oe is special...lol
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#46
#46
GS - look more carefully at what was being called into question. I didn't "talk down" to anyone about their thoughts on AGW (though I did imply I didn't agree). My point was centered around logical construction of an argument, with the sole intent to maintain an even-handed discussion. I have no doubt some here would point out similar errors in my logic or argument construction.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
Wait for it....wait for it.......neophyte is coming from someone
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#49
#49
TennTradition said:
GS - look more carefully at what was being called into question.
Click to expand...

Official energy policy of the United States of America
is being called into question while people like you would
have us chasing wild geese.

unclesamstravels.jpg


TennTradition said:
I didn't "talk down" to anyone about their thoughts on AGW (though I did imply I didn't agree). My point was centered around logical construction of an argument, with the sole intent to maintain an even-handed discussion.
Click to expand...

Well your last two posts addressed to me seem to be
doing just that.

Admittedly you a far from the worst in that regard
although you appear to be the most tenacious while
avoiding being as truclulent as most AGW promoters
such as Gore and his pathetic sycophants.

At one point in the discussion you were particularly
vitriolic in an attack on my (supposed) intellectual
capacity (or lack thereof) in your advance of your
belief that AGW is an actual fact rather than a
theory (that has repeatedly been dissproven by some
of the most qualified scientists the world has to offer.)


TennTradition said:
I have no doubt some here would point out similar errors in my logic or argument construction.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Any comment on BIS being the driving force behind the
AGW hoax?

Here are some more of Gore's 'racists.'

800,000 years of abrupt climate variability: Earth's climate is capable of very rapid transitions

The research published in the journal Science
(Sept. 8, 2011) demonstrates that abrupt climate
change has been a systemic feature of Earth's climate
for hundreds of thousands of years and may play
an active role in longer term climate variability through
its influence on ice age terminations.
--------------------------------------------

The new predictions provide an extended testing
bed for the climate models that are used to predict
future climate variability.

The collaborative research was funded in part by a
Leverhulme Trust Philip Leverhulme Prize awarded to
Dr Barker at Cardiff University. The prize recognises
the achievement and potential of outstanding
researchers at an early stage in their careers but
who have already acquired an international reputation
for their work. The Natural Environment Research
Council and National Science Foundation in the United
States also funded the research.
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
#50
#50
GS - I thought my replies to you over the last week in this discussion have been fairly even-handed. Maybe I am forgetting something - could you please quote my vitriolic comments? There have surely been times I have called your understanding of the science into question, and in this instances I believe there was a legitimate reason to do so, but I don't remember vitriol cast in anyone's direction about their AGW thoughts in this discussion. Could have...just show me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top