I wish the Nobel committee would explain how the cause of peace is advanced by the promotion of a controversial hypothesis to force even more wealth from the producers that will likely succeed only in creating another layer of bullying bureaucrats living off the fat of the planet.
I'm sorry that your first choice, self-nominated entertainer Rush Limbaugh was shut out again. I guess that just means another year on Paxil for you mavens of the right.
Don't worry, someday we'll find out that the Clintons did steal the strawberries and see that you were right all along. Someday we'll see!
ha...y'all are funny. the guy was right about the internet, right about iraq, and right about mans influence on climate change. and it just kills you doesn't it? sure someone is going to pull out the old fiction about him saying he invented the internet...but it's not true. and you'll say we are winning in iraq...but thats just as far from true. and then you will try to impeach the veracity of his film...but even a court has now said that in spite of a handful of factual errors the hypothesis is fully backed by the science. i think you should put yourself on the couch, my good doctor, and try to understand where this terrible jealousy springs from.
Wow, some of the moonbats are up early this morning.
They even rubbed enough braincells together to use the argument by assertion fallacy, though not enough for proper punctuation.
Where does the jealousy come from? Anybody here wants to be "just like al"?
Dr. Sanity left out Mohammed Al-Baradei and the IAEA, who are trying to give Iran the BOMB in order to destroy Israel. The dumb Norwegians are ruining their brand with stupid Peace Prize awards.
Speaking of Israel, Jimmy Carter gets away with far more offensive comments than Coulter's about the Jews on CNN with Wolf Blitzer without a peep of protest. I think that Jimmy Carter gets away remarks against the Jews simply because he is a man of the Left. And now the Left hates the Likud & Centrist Jews---anti-Semitism creeping back like the Islamic hatred is working.
There is a ginormous double standard about everything in the media----look at 30Rock mocking affirmative action and black entertainers. If it weren't Tina Fey & Alec Baldwin, but a conservative group of actors, the screams and shrieks of the hypocritical left would echo from the rooftops.
Instead, the unwatched 30Rock is the TV equivalent of Air America. As an SDS member who stayed at my Ann Arbor home [Mark Rudd had been on the cover of Time magazine the year before for a Columbia U. takeover in May, '68], said to me among other mantras:
"No fault on the Left."
Still holds true today, as does Mark Rudd's second piece of advice to me:
"Dare to cheat, dare to win."
Anyone watching "An Inconvenient Truth" will appreciate how apropos that little aphorism remains to this day.
You forgot to mention the quintessence of Nobel Peace Prize winners--Rigoberta Menchu, who basically won the prize for a work of fiction. Giving the prize for something that didn't happen seems quite fitting.
Gore, Carter, Annan, Arafat....
...Kissigner?
If wingnut heads will explode, that will alone justify the Nobel prize for Gore.
Hey, OtherEd, want is "An Inconvenient Truth", other than an exercise in paranoia?
Have a nice, warm day.
Header: "Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize... Celebrity crotch shots a close second."
"Climate Change causes war", wrote the Committee members, who justified their selection based upon the Prize's orientation towards "those who best promote piece on Earth".
jay k. - "the hypothesis is fully backed by science"
Actually, the judge ruled the film contained nine factual errors, and that parts of it were "distinctly alarmist". You apparently got your information here:
"Kalee Kreider, a Gore spokesman, said he is "gratified that the courts verified that the central argument of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is supported by the scientific community."
"but even a court has now said that in spite of a handful of factual errors the hypothesis is fully backed by the science.."
WTF? Sarcasim, right?
Algore Akbar! The man is a genius for coming up with another way to inhibit 'capitalism' (or economic freedom) by creating a 'balancing' market for carbon. (Taxing or trading carbon credits)
"I'm amazed. I thought Cindy Sheehan had it all sewn up. Or Hugo Chavez."
But with the implicit support of Religion of Peace activist, Osama Bin Laden, indeed, how could Gore have lost?
Brett: I wish the Nobel committee would explain ....
You give your own explanation. It is their goal to have another layer of bullying bureaucrats living off the fat [the lives and wealth of its producers] of the planet. They have been doing that in a grand way for quite some time. The Nobel Prize is no longer noble. It has joined the ranks of the UN, the Democrats, the Republicans, and countless other cannibalistic organizations. After all they "mean well". Gack!
Looking at the committee's track records, they can sure pick "winners", eh? Probably just as useful as Dem advisor Markos Moulitsas' endorsement.
Anybody can make a "film" (more like a power point presentation), write a fiction/song, about dire consequences of (earthquakes, locusts, flood, corn diverted to make ethanol/butanol, etc.), and has a better chance of "winning world peace" than actually doing anything to bring about world peace.
At current rate, I would think nobody's going to pay them any attention within five years.
daveinboca said "Speaking of Israel, Jimmy Carter gets away with far more offensive comments than Coulter's about the Jews on CNN with Wolf Blitzer without a peep of protest."
Sounds like you're mixing up being against radical neo-con Zionism with anti-semitism. It's extremely difficult to carry on a rational debate with people who consistently frame issues in misleading terms.
Liberals like Gloat don't understand.
Conservatives are not outraged. We have a low opinion of the Nobel Committee, and they confirm it on a consistent basis.
It's like when Hollywood gives one of its left-wing favorites an Oscar for hackneyed agitprop. We aren't outraged; we're contemptuous.
Those who lose by our choices (Aye, I am Norwegian) have always insisted that the Peace Prize will be irrelevant in a few short years. In this, the US right-wing now joins the Burma/Myanmar Junta, the South African apartheid government, and many others, all of which tend to be history in short order.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been described as Norway's WMD. Please enjoy the fallout.
-Magnus
"The Nobel Peace Prize has been called Norway's WMD'? What fatuous nincompoop called it that?
I don't know if the 2000 or 2004 elections were stolen or not, but we can all, as Americans, agree that we should certainly NOT look into the irregularities.
Looking into them can only harm a representative democracy like we have in America.
Can I get an "Amen"?
Robert, what are you trying to say?
You're a poor writer, I'll say amen too that.
Yes, Robert. "Amen" to one of Faux Liberalism's most important Commandments: "Thou shalt always remain behind the curve."
This is rich. Undoing? Really? Perhaps, but if a little arm chair psychology is good for the goose...Ever hear of "sour grapes". Feel free to hate Al Gore, but I suspect that if one of your ilk were to win the Nobel Peace prize, you would trumpet that victory from the highest mountain top. Get over it. Oscar, Emmy and Nobel in one year. That is a pretty good trifecta but then I am sure you think this is just more lefty undoing. Good grief. Do you ever stop to reflect on how petty you come across?
"The Nobel Peace Prize has been described as Norway's WMD. Please enjoy the fallout."
Laughter, Magnus?
"Oscar, Emmy, and Nobel...Do you ever stop to reflect on how petty you come across?"
Shane
Again - too busy laughing at you. Really!
Prizes and awards that once were given for excellence are now given for political correctness.
Those who love excellence considers this a shame; those who love political correctness consider it a triumph.
Those who are truly mediocre can't tell the difference.
Now, if 30 years from now, they decide we're in for the next ice age, does AlGore have to give his prize back?
Arafat got the Peace Prize also. I'd say Gore's in good company.
lyle, excellent point!
trifecta? only relavant if you subscribe to Algore's credibility.
If they wanted to give a 'prize' for conservation, I would have nominated Ed Begley. He walks the walk and talks the talk. I have great respect for Ed. He is passionate without Al's hysterics.
Didn't we just discuss in another thread that science by consensus is not really science? Now we have a bunch of lefty's crowing abut a non-scienctist getting confirmation of his half-truths by consensus of a panel that awards prizes to terrorists. And we are supposed to take it seriously?? Sour grapes..I don't think so. As Doc so famously asserts: denial of reality is more what I am reading here
The Nobel prize for peace is decided by politicians and therefore has no basis other the political expediency and a desire for power.
The other Nobels are done by scientists and experts in the field and are almost always for work that has taken years and has value to the progress of humanity.
The fact that Gore was not even in the running for other than a political award from a commitee that is more interested in government power says volumes about the award itself.
Unlike most people on the left most conservatives would not waste a an emotion like hate on small minded people like Al Gore and leftist commentors. Unlike the left few of us seek your demise because you serve as an example of the very things you accuse others. Hate is your baliwick not ours. Way too much "transference" going on. I have to admit I enjoy when you comment here because you exhibit who you are and demonstrate some of the poorest writing and thinking skills. It always ends the same way with name calling. What more could any conservative want than to let you talk and comment. For we believe in free speech unlike your breathern who would and do try to keep others for speaking anything but the leftist line.
The Nobel Peace Prize is now officially a joke. This comes a day or so after a judge in the UK ruled that British students are to be given a disclaimer about at least 7 scientific inaccuracies in "An Inconvenient Truth."
Fake but accurate?
Awww, jealous much?
Also interesting is in how the nobel panel announces the winners. It is always "To so-and-so" for his/her/their efforts...
What about awarding it to persons whom have actually accomplished something, hell, anything. And since they call it the 'Peace Prize' shouldn't the basis for receiving the "prize" at the very least include something that promoted, you know, peace or something?
But Algore didn't win that puppy all by himself - no sir. Let's not forget about the useful idiots and cohorts IPCC.
You can read their "mission statement" here (and try to keep a straight face whilst you're at it)
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm
The irony would be that in a few years by international treaties, Al Gore's own lifestyle becomes illegal!
Emmy, Oscar, Nobel. A real triumvirate of leftoid librul circle-jerking. Please. Take these 'awards' and shove them where you have your collective head.
Okay, I’ll admit it, I’ve been amiss in my reluctant responsibilities, not having taken the time to write missives exclaiming of diabolical conspiracies and the poisonous aspects of under-cooked rhubarb. All those gee-whiz, amerika the beautiful, Pollyanna one-liners the "doctor" was flinging out into the ether whilst we were trying to ascertain as to the nature of her indeterminate sexual orientation were classic. All she needed was a fiddle and a rubber chicken. If she ever got bored being the "lucky Pierre" of Satan, excuse me, the Republican potty, she could certainly make quite a lucrative existence in the Pocono’s. But the real problem is that while she tends to engage in mutual wank-fests with, well, crooks and liars, I’ve been rather distracted lately. Not only am I upset that in fact we and everything in the universe are all a bunch of swirling tornados of molecules and atoms, and, if you really want to get down, quarks and their various attracting/repelling strong/weak forces, running into each other and giving the false reading of separate “things”, keeping in mind that none of this would be possible if it weren’t for the uncertainty principle which forced the relative ordered and unified Big Bang to fly apart and then coalesce into the objects we see today, you know, galaxies, stars, planets, people, and strange drinks composed of odd Brazilian distilled spirits. Not only that, but somebody told me the other day that matter is decaying! Why was I not consulted about this? And while we’re on the subject, speaking of flinging things out into the ether, those items may come back to haunt us!
LB,
Care about institutions much?
The Nobel Peace Prize was originally established for those who advance the cause of peace by various means---such as improving the lifestyles of the poor, defying dictatorship and oppression, and trying to bury various ethnic hatchets somewhere other than a rival's skull.
Since the late 1990s or so, it has been a reward for politically fashionable views. Forget the Buddhist monks defying the Burmese government, people who hid Jews from Nazis, pioneers in industry and service improving the lifestyles of the Third World (except for the Grameen guy)--that's sooooooooo 1989 and the 80's are like, so over!
And let's also forget the implications of AlGore's ideology, especially when you get a look at the increasing standard of living in the Third World:
No more bomb-throwing Communists meant that the First World could set up factories, call centers, etc in the Third World. For all the talk of "sweatshops," the pay at these overseas facilities is often better than local jobs. These better-paid workers now have money, but no time to cook or sew, and had to move off the farms into the city to work---enter grocers, restaurants, retail clothiers, and landlords---who in turn need food manufacturers, clothing manufacturers, construction companies, trucking companies, and the like......
However at this point the underpinnings of many Third World economies are based around the provision of products and services to the First World, and support personnel for these providers.
So, what happens if we take the Draconian measures suggested by AlGore and his crew?
When demand slacks off for products and services in the First World, the first to get the ax would be the Third World service providers---the impact felt as well among those personnel who provide housing, food and other such services to them.
This *worsens* things for the Third World, it does not make it better.
RS,
I believe that Gore's aim is to advance the cause of peace, and his dedication to this issue, the health of the planet, is a means to that end. Do you honestly believe that unchecked First World consumption is the answer to everyone's troubles, or that it has no negative consequences that might be mitigated by smart environmental policy?
LB: I believe that Gore's aim is to advance the cause of peace
I believe that if one wants to hit a target that one's aim should be in the direction of the target.
Consider the possibility that Gore's stated aim point is not really his target. Look at what his programs will actually accomplish if implemented. That is his actual target. His words are nothing but a smoke screen used to hide his real motivation from both himself and his target: anyone who wants to live HIS life unmolested by the likes of Gore.
"I have to admit I enjoy when you comment here because you exhibit who you are and demonstrate some of the poorest writing and thinking skills. It always ends the same way with name calling. What more could any conservative want than to let you talk and comment. For we believe in free speech unlike your breathern who would and do try to keep others for speaking anything but the leftist line."
Indeed.
I can't stop laughing at this.
LB - You're a frickin' hoot! "Gores aim is to advance the cause of peace..." How? "...the health of the planet", that's how.
OMG! Thanks for a good laugh on a beautiful WARM October afternoon.
All hail Algore! Mother Earth is Saved (or his ego?) and We Will All Live In Everlasting Peace!!!!
Now if we can just stop him from burning thousands of gallons of petroleum every single time he and his ego go anywhere he might - just miiight - make a leeetle bit of difference. Until then? Meh. He's nothing more than a lefty-poser-wanna-be.
"Emmy, Oscar, Nobel. A real triumvirate of leftoid librul circle-jerking."
I have to agree, at least with the first two. I am unable to watch these out of sheer embarrassment for the type of people who care about or attend these self righteous pat-each-other-on-the-back tripe fests.
I think the third needs some qualification though. Although I know the right despises science, the Nobel scientific awards are worth something.
Oh, wait. I'm wrong!! This years prize for physiology and medicine:
"for their discoveries for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells."[100]"
Damn lib babykillers!!!
When you shoot a gun, you are responsible for everything your bullets hit, no matter what you were aiming at.
In other words, reasonably forseeable consequences are your fault, no matter what your intentions.
Poverty is always underestimated in its environmental impact. Don't believe me?
Answer these questions:
If you were so inclined, would you find it easier to find a guide to help you hunt Bald Eagle or Mountain Gorilla?
Would this guide also be employed as a park ranger?
How many problems does Japan have in keeping farmers out of nature preserves as compared with Mexico?
First-generation technologies pollute more than second-generation technologies, but are cheaper. This means poorer nations will always be behind the curve technologically. Should they simply never buy technology----because the least-polluting technology will never get to where they can afford it unless their economy grows?
The claims to peace revolve around the assertion that a change in climate will cause wars over scarce resources.
The irony, or course, is that it would be a dropping temperature that would be more likely to produce scarcity. As it turns out, civilization has historically advanced when temperatures rise, and crumbled when temperatures fall. Keep in mind that higher temperatures cause increased precipitation, not drought, as well as longer growing seasons and increases in arable land. Loss of total landmass would be minor even if the ice caps melted.
This is also aside from whether or not the rise in temperatures is man-made, or if even the rise in CO2 levels is fully man-made or just coincidental (C02 levels lag temperatures by something like 800 years, and 800 years ago was the Medieval warming period).
To a very good approximation, peace breaks out when everyone is busy trying to make money by trading with each other.
i feel bad for the doctor and her extreme right friends. the nobel commitee are libtards. 90% of the scientists are just wrong. the media is totally made up of libtards. the majority of american people are cowards and can't see that we are winning in iraq and we don't torture and abu gahrib was an anamoly. 12 year old kids are forcing socialist medicine on your nation...that is what's left of your nation after immigrants ruin it. gays want to destroy your marriages. all the universities have become close-minded and intellectually dishonest. marx and lenin are being re-born. all this and only the extremeists on the right can see it. how frustrating it must be for y'all.
"The right despises science"? - angryflower.
Wha? Where the hell did you ever come up with that bit a nonsense? Good grief.
And nice try with the physiology and medicine prize obfuscation. See, they didn't win "for their discoveries for introducing specific gene modifications...", they won "for their discoveries of principles for introducing specific gene modifications in mice by the use of embryonic stem cells. Loosely translated: they haven't discovered anything yet. But yes, they do use dead baby parts but I highly doubt they were the ones who killed them.
Say there angryflower, you wouldn't happen to be an MSM reporter would you? That was spot-on MSM bullshite. Good job!
Count to 10,
"To a very good approximation, peace breaks out when everyone is busy trying to make money by trading with each other."
EXACTLY!
Archie the Cockroach is soooooo going to kick jay k's butt for stealing his act.
I feel sorry for jay k and his Leftist friends:
They are threatened by cable news channels and talk radio personalities. They think that ideological agreement with a PR campaign equals scientific knowledge, military knowledge, and historical knowledge. They lack courage, and thus hold the whole concept in contempt. They reject reality, and wonder why they get taken in by every PR campaign on the planet. And the Baby Boomers that form the core of their movement are a bunch of old geezers shuffling off into oblivion while sticking future generations with the bill. How frustrating it must be for y'all.
rs...
um - nice retort. if you had ever had a critical thought you would realize you are talking about the right. but don't worry you aren't in danger of making that realization.
pat chester...
if you think thats bad wait until archy finds out i'm taking that hottie mehitabel out for drinks and a little sumptin' sumptin' later tonight.
Jack Ryan, I'm sure it hurts for you few remaining deniers for your worldview to be spanked in public like this. Look, there will always be debate in science -- it's part of the process. But, there is no substantial debate on the issue of global warming. Maybe you don't understand that, or maybe you just enjoy bashing Gore. Either way, it doesn't change the lay of the land. No matter what you all think, there is no real debate on the science of this issue anymore. There is debate on how to mitigate the effects, but it's not served by ad hominem attack. And how do you propose Gore reach a wide audience with his message -- riding a skateboard down the street while carrying a bullhorn? Get over his air travel already.
"Should they simply never buy technology----because the least-polluting technology will never get to where they can afford it unless their economy grows?"
Who cares? It's the rich countries doing all the polluting.
"It's the rich countries doing all the polluting." You mean China, India, and Russia?
Mike Hunt,
If you believe that all the world's pollution is caused by the First World, you are kidding yourself.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display....php?
pub_id=3586
http://www.ncpa.org/ea/easo94/ea...94/
easo94m.html
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/a.../02/
390933.aspx
http://www.theseminal.com/2007/0...climate-change/
Lefties argue that first world consumption is the problem, yet miraculous nuclear energy (that has incidentally killed 2 more Americans than Ted Kennedy) being stopped cold by these idiots reveals their true issue isn't consumption.
They can't stand people living prosperous and autonomous lives without their direction. You wanna outrage a liberal, let him get a glimpse with his own eyes just how much he ISN'T needed.
"No matter what you all think, there is no real debate on the science of this issue anymore."
LB
Tell me, just how did you come to know that, LB?
Dear Right Wingers.
Gore now has a Nobel Peace Price to go with his Oscar, and other recognitions..... And Bush has your usual 30% approval and not a darn thing more.
In 2003 one of your fallen heroes, Donald Rumsfeld said of the Iraqi Insurgency " They are a small group of dead-enders that refuse to acknowledge that the world around them has changed". Now just four years later with Rumsfeld gone in disgrace, and every Neo Con nut back in his/her cage, the "dead-ender" phrase has become the self-portrait of the Bush Administration and the Right Wing movement.
You have been PROVEN wrong in everithing from the war in Iraq, embryonic stem cell research, global warming, North Korea, Iran, deficits, and on and on. It is pathetic to see the Bush Administration present the Insurgent "dead-enders" as the show case for our success in the latest surge in Iraq. It is weird to see Right Wingers argue about global warming while all the Northern countries (including us) are in a race to extend their rights to exploit the Artic sea because it's melt down represents huge commercial oportunities for some. It is funny to see adopt-a-cell nuts fight a loosing battle against the unstopable tide of global sience, and logical thinking. It is alarming to see your fiscal policies condemned by the likes of Alan Greenspan the greatest Treasury Secretary of all time. It is scanadalous to see retired General after retired General condem your policies in Iraq now that they can be candid about their true views.
You Right Wingers have been like a pest for this country. You came out of nowhere, infected everithing with your poison, and now are reluctant to let go. It is in blogs like this that you parade your 30% minority as if your cause was some kind of world wide mandate with the approval of God himself.
No guys, in the end it was Gore and the ideas he represents that have gained the respect and admiration of the world..... What have you gained Right Wingers????
Last I checked you are still at 30% .... As you allways have, and allways will. A minority of extremist that felt vindicated with Bush. Well turns out that only you support the idiot now..... while Gore basks in the glory.
Is back to the hole for you guys.... And that's eating you up inside because rejection is tough to take.
Randy: what's "radical neo-con Zionism"? Israeli Jews defending themselves? What's your solution? Get rid of Israel and replace it with Muslim Palestine? How is that an improvement?
Anyway, I don't have to defend Israel against you or anyone else. They can defend themselves quite well, to the consternation of their Arab neighbors.
Magnus: How does bloviating about global warming bring peace anywhere? Or does the committee just hand it out to anyone it feels like? I mean, there were some Nobel Peace Prize winners who actually made a contribution to peace. That doesn't include Jimmy Carter, who should probably give his prize back, since it was based on a treaty the North Koreans quickly reneged on.
Polls are not "proof." The number of people who believe something is true does not make it true. Reality and truth exist outside of what you happen to believe, gil. History will assess the facts without emotion. I'm willing to wait. Your side wants history to be inscribed in stone NOW so that they don't have to deal with inconvenient facts. It's really a very bad habit, and ultimately it won't work in the long run. Unfortunately for useful idiots like yourself, it tends to work in the short run and facilitates the kind of smugness and superiority that seems to emanate constantly from the political left. I'm placing my bet on reality though to wipe that smugness off your face. 
have a nice day while you can.
My Cunt, [Mike Hunt] that was a funny telephone prank back in the 50's. Did you think we wouldn't get it?
"i feel bad for the doctor and her extreme right friends."
No, you don't. You can't even accept the possibility that there might be some truth to what we say. Sympathy is not necessary or wanted.
"i feel bad for the doctor and her extreme right friends."
No you don't. You can't even accept the possibility that we might be correct about something. No false sympathy, please.
At the risk of repeating myself...
"The number of people who believe something is true does not make it true."
Dr.S.
No, but simply asserting, "There is a consensus," does make that assertion true, and proves the truth of whatever the consensus is about.
I learned that at Head Start. Or manybe it was Duke?
Gore recieving the Nobel Peace Prize for an act of eco propoganda is so vacuous as to be laughable. But I do not think we should begrudge him this honor in the least. I for one am thankful every day that he has been in a position to win it. He is in that position only because he was not President on 9-11.
Now that is a truly frightening thought. What if President Gore had, on 9-12, made a mere symbolic response to Muslim terrorism, or otherwise decided that the best way to deal with Muslim extemists was to hold in depth dialogues with Iran and Syria. Gore as President would have been a far greater threat to Western Civilization as a whole then then anything he can do as the Goracle of the eco-nuts. At least he poses only a minor danger to humanity at the moment.
And for that, all I can do is thank a benevolent God and say congratulations Al, and Godspeed.
As to scientific consensus . . . the history of science is replete with strongly held beliefs held by the majority of the scientific community that have turned out to incorrect. For a very recent example of "scientific" dogma considered so settled that scientists were being attacked at Congressional Hearings for heretical beliefs, see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/0...per&
oref=slogin
To claim that something is established fact and to refuse to entertain contrary facts and theories because of "scientific consensus" would seem to be foolhardy in the extreme.
Sorry, just saw your post for Oct 10, Dr. S, in which you discuss the article I site above. Unfortunately, cannot edit out my above post. Sorry.
Not to interrupt the celebration, but I would predict that in the time it would take for the world to heat up one degree, hell will have actually frozen over before one Al groupie can describe a scientific argument against G.W., much less disprove it. But congratulations for another stunning success to all you fans of catastrophe in managing to avoid all evidence to the contrary of your peace. (Big hint: don't start your research with Al's own documentary. Inconveniently, and in the spirit of science, he left opposing evidence out.)
Lefties sem to be under the misimpression that the Nobel Peace Prize confers legitimacy on the science of An Inconvenient Truth. They believe it validates Al Gore as scientist.
But scientific literacy is not a factor in awarding the Prize. It is given by political actors to other political actors for purely political acts.
Gore hasn't accomplished anything beyond making a movie and promoting it (and of course, himself). As with Jimmy Carter and Rigoberta Menchu, he is being honored for proselytizing an agenda of which the Committee approves.
The Nobel Peace Prize is misnamed. It should be retitled the Nobel Prize for Political Propaganda.
Katina: never have, never will. Not here anyway.
Thanks.
At Anthony Watts' site, here's one refutation of the claim regarding the alleged AGWconsensus.
Scroll down to point #32.
DR. Sanity.
If polls are not indicative of support can you please tell me why all politicians use them, and the poll industry has become a multi-billion Dollar industry?
So please stop pretending that your Right Wing 30% representation has some how morfed into something elese, only misrepresented by people like me that can't read polls correctly. A 30% after your excuse is still a 30%... That's the problem (and the beauty) about Math.... It's not kind to demagogues.
Trough world history It's allways been the same way. The extreme Right (You and your followers) and the extreme Left (The Nancy Sheehans of the world) .... History has seen you pup up again and again here, and there trough the world, and America is not any different. Is allways the same story. A "movement" of new (or "Neo") fanatics trying to force their ideas on normal people until they overplay their hand.
It's happening to you Right Wingers.
You call me an "idiot" because I remind you that your ideas are liked by NO ONE but your same old tired 30 per centers?...... Sorry I touched a rough nerve, but some one had to tell you who you really are..... A 30 per center destined to become a foot note in some dusty history book from the period.
You see my friend in the end the people that are remembered in history are the Galileos, the Da Vinci's , the Jesus of Nazaret, the Mandelas, the Neru's,and many more enlightened people that challenged the establishment with a message of peace, humbleness, and hope. Man all that gave us a reazon NOT to fight, not to destroy natural resources, not to ignore the power of science for the good of humanity.
That's why you will loose as you have lost so many times before in history. For neither your cause or your kind are anithing new. You are just another "Neo" in a long list of "causes", crusades, inquisitions, wars, and persecution. You see pal, there's nothing "neo" about you all.
But maybe you are right and I am an idiot, and next year Dick Cheney will be awarded the Nobel Peace Price, or how about Bush, or Rummy?? ...... But some how pal I can tell you that a five year old would understand not only that they will not get it, but why. And that is for the simple reazon that they do not deserve it..... JUST LIKE YOUR CAUSE .... AFTER ALL THEY REPRESENT IT PERFECTLY.
Here's what the term 'poor reading comprehension' means:
Doc wrote: 'Polls are not "proof." '
gil responded: 'If polls are not indicative of support can you please tell me why all politicians use them, and the poll industry has become a multi-billion Dollar industry?'
Perhaps poor reading skills are a prerequiste for Leftism.
gil further noted: 'But maybe you are right and I am an idiot...'
Every now and then, true consensus does emerge after all.
I thought multi-million dollar industries were the enemy. Not to mention the all time historical low dem. congress poll rating. Not to mention again that Jesus and the rest were in the minority at the time or that you are the establishment now. I'm truly concerned that the nerve struck to be handled with care is yours, crusader for G.W., persecutor of G.B. Really, as a fellow human, I will forego this opportunity to go in for the strike and instead will respond that your emotional rant belies the threat that you feel from presentation of simple facts and we see it and further suggest that you examine what exactly triggered the outburst, and further and gently encourage the idea that your self worth isn't directly at stake when you are disagreed with, although your spelling isn't great and you still haven't come up with facts verses emotional discharges, such as big Al himself. But thank you for another G.D. example of what is not science, my friend. I strongly suggest that you ground yourself in reason verses emotion beginning with a look into the Watts site as given by Peden (above) and then find a response likewise reasonable, which I'm positive will be ever more inducive of self assurance, gil. Meanwhile hell is still freezing over.
"Raising awareness" seems to be code words for liberals.
Think about it. What theory or cause is not automatically made suspect by a bunch of do gooder liberals wanting all debate stifled so they can enter this emotional propoganda mode and FEEL GOOD about themselves?
Doc,
Keep it up. You really hit one over the fence this time. The demented libs are ranting and raving. You hurt their fragile sense of self worth. All because you pointed out that reality does not follow their whims.
Way to go!!!!
I can understand why heads of government would be attracted to the cause of global warming. They generally have nothing to offer when it comes to solving the real problems of the World - war, hate, poverty, disease, hunger. But they are very good at coercing their citizens to "make sacrifices" by passing laws. So it's little surprise that they choose to do what they do best.
Liberals and leftists are addicted to government. Every time a new law is passed, ostensibly for the public good, they get a psychic payoff. Not to mention the approval of their peers for supporting the effort.
Oh my, I just caught that remark from LB that I've been "Publicly spanked".
For the love of God man, get yer mind out of the gutter!
Have a good weekend everyone.
Lyle.
"Polls are not proof" ..... Not proof that you belong to a 30 % of nut cases on the extreme Right?
If I am the idiot, I have plenty of company.... Like 70% of the American population, and about 90% of the world's population.
That's all the "proof" I need to point to who's the real idiot here..... YOU, AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
But, is not about calling me a name, and me answering back in kind. I go back to my original point. If some one tells you that there is "no proof" of my definite statement backed, by statistical random sampling Mathematics, and a CONCENSUS of Mathematicians ..... Not Bull Shitters like you, that the Left is comprised by aproximately 25 to 30 % of the American population, and the Right by about the same percentage..... Then it most be said that for something that has "no proof" polls have become the gospel of politics..... AS IN THAT'S YOUR PROOF YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!
Reading-Comprehension and a new brain is what YOU need. Mine is fine and accompanied by the great majority of the world's population thank you very much.
A. rational human.
Does you brain works in terms of "The Right" and "The Let"????
Because the Right and the Left are just two opposites filed with NUT CASES.
I would not want to be ruled by the "Left" any more than the "Right".... You are all fanatics with no common sence whatsover.
So next time some one like you comes to posts some criptic remark like " the demented Libs are ranting, and rabing, you most have hit it out of the park".... Take notice that NOT ONE SINGLE AMERICAN that does not belong to your pathetic little group of extremist on the Right agrees with your positions. In fact there's plenty of important Republicans at all levels, and walks of life that do not agree with many of your ideas.
Names like Arnold Shwazenager, Rudy Gulianni, Chuck Hagel, Alan Greenspan, Collin Powell, just about every retired General Commander in Iraq, etc.ALL REPUBLICANS , NOT LIBERALS..... Is rather intellectualy dishonest to allways bunch up the opposition to your ideas as some amorphous "Liberal" label you people allways tag on dissenters.
Not true. The dirty little truth you people continue to ignore is that the only way you can justify your extremism is by attacking the other extremist, the hated "Liberals", and in doing so pretending that is not the majority of the American population including many members of your own party, and even memebers of your movement like George Will, that disagree with you..... But "Liberals".
snooring citizen.
"Liberals and Leftists are addicted to Government"
You know pal you are Right. The sad truth tough is that the same can be said about the Right.
You talk a lot about a smaller Government but after 6 years ao ABSOLUTE control by the Republicans, and the Right..... Our Government is bigger than ever and our Government expenditures at an all time high.
So when it comes to Government spending..... The Right after Bush, lost all credibility. When it comes to spending money like drunken sailors, You guys are nothing but LIberals with different agendas and priorities.
Like I said, the Left and the Right do make me sick.
Pathetic.
""Raising awareness" seems to be code words for liberals."
In the matter of GW, I prefer the Scientific Method. Wouldn't it have been nice if the ipcc, enc., had used it?
It's becoming clear that even the most basic measurement of surface temperatures themselves is severely corrupted by poor sites - not to mention the continual bizarre data manipulation by the AGW Gurus. For example concerning the latter, older temps. seem to tend to always be getting cooler, while newer temps. warmer, thanks to obscure "adjustments" of data within the Temples.
Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org is rather successfully chasing down what's going on with statistics within the Guru clan. It isn't pretty and appears to nearly certainly not be science.
Right Wingers and Extreme Liberals.
Let me try (without insults) to explain your true place in American contemporary society.
The Left and Right have for many many years influenced the direction of their respective parties. I will not get into who's side has more influence on it's respective party, instead I will just remind you of the obvious.
On every National election cycle you extremist are courted by politicians that need your vote to win the Primaries. After the deal is sealed, and you have given your vote to some politician, you extremist are put back on the attic just like the crazy son the parents want to hide from the public.
Fact is that not once will you see an extreme Right Winger given prime time at a national convention, and the same goes for the Left. The reazon is simple. In a National election it is the CENTER that ultimately gives the Left or Right their power. And so that you understand your place in American society, your power given will only stay in your corner, as long as you pay attention to the needs of the CENTER.
So please stop pretending that you on the Right or Left have any moral standing over Americans in general. Fact is that you are only as good as your results. And frankly Right Wingers your results stink. Now we will see a bunch of Liberals in power ..... By the way, thanks to your incompetence Right Wingers, and I for one have no high hopes about that crowd either.
Some day, some how we the MAJORITY of Americans will figure out that the best way to advance the true interests of our country is to keep you in the attic forever.
Gil, you just spent 1000 words validating that A Rational Human hit the nail on the head with his comments.
Its all psychological!
8 October 2007 RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES
RECORD EVENT REPORTS FROM NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA
NEW PREVIOUS YEAR OF
LOCATION RECORD RECORD PREVIOUS
STATIONS SETTING (OR TIED) A NEW RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE:
ALLENTOWN, PA 90 81 1943
ALPENA, MI 90 82 2003
"Its all psychological!"
Yeah. In the summer the hot temps. of Boise and Spokane were reported for several days on ABC National News Radio because these cities were "where it's usually cool".
Right.
steveh
I spent 1,000 words validating "rational human"?
How So??? I love the way you people that disagree with what I say elavorate their posts.
You guys take my "1,000" words and answer with comments like.... "You are an idiot" , or your comments validate our views, or polls are no proof of anithing, or take a hike.
Is like, HAUGH???????
I can tell we have ourselves here on this one blog a bunch of real erudites that can comment on my posts with an incredible level of intellectual sharpness indeed.
Priceless insight like "You hit it out of the park baba !!!! (in reference to a fellow Right Winger post), or "you are an idiot", or we need proof that we in the right are at 30% in the polls. Man I am impressed by you Right WIngers!!!!--- Keep this up and you'll get the Nobel Price on Bull Shit.
gil projected with:
Is back to the hole for you guys.... And that's eating you up inside because rejection is tough to take.
Like it is for you?
gil asked:
If polls are not indicative of support can you please tell me why all politicians use them, and the poll industry has become a multi-billion Dollar industry?
To make sheep like you follow the herd, mainly.
Coward(s). Part trios.
You’d think randroids would’ve been able to craft quick-n-witty retorts to the decades old “pragmatic predator” question by now. But since ARH was the second to the last human I deemed potentially capable of this, I guess I’ll just have to accept that he’s right and it’s up to me now.
But since failure looks likely, I’m also working on selling an international law which would require adherents to any new philosophy or religion which cannot pass the “pragmatic predator” test to wear their underwear on the outside.
---------------
gil,
I completely agree. Times almost up for “Get Lefty!” as the core conservative philosophy du jour, just as time ran out for many failed leftist ideologies years ago. It’s time to solve problems with real answers now.
Patrick Chester.
Man you are a brain!!!
Did you figure all your entire answer to my posts by yourself?
Wow.
The trend on this blog repeats itself over and over again. I just made the point that time and again, people like Patrick "the Brain" chaster here, reduce their answers to some idiotic comments that have nothing to do with my comments.
Like , Why politicians use polls? according to the "brain" chester is to make "sheep" like me follow the herd..... WHAT?????
Polls are USED by politicians as a tool to know what bull shit to say to people like you, or me. So you are confused, if me or you are to be "sheep" it's not the polls or the pollsters that are to blame.... But ignorance, stupidity, and fantastic views of the word that are to blame. Like in your case for example.... You are a Right Winger therefore you most be agaist abortion, be for adoptig stem cells and giving them Social Security numbers, you are for the war in Iraq, against illegal immigration, against any tax increases...... Am I describing your sheep behavior correctly so far?????
So Beeeeeh for you too pal. Me, I am only using the polls to remind you that wherever you say, however you hide it.... You are a MINORITY of the U.S. population with as bad a reputation as a Mexican Illegal rapist. And if I have to be more specific, you are a member of a MINORITY of extremist whose power is about to expire for good.... Thank God.
...and once again, gil confuses verbosity with wisdom.
Oh, and uses many words that don't mean what he thinks they mean.
I'll type it slowly so even gil can understand:
What we are witnessing on the Left is a convergence of Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and politics.
You can poll known-left-leaning demographics and get whatever answer you want on any issue you want.
"The Amazing New Blockbuster By...." "This Movie Gets Two Thumbs Up!" "'Gripping' Raves the New Yorker..."
For complex scientific issues whose nuances are beyond the ken of people who have not spent years studying an issue, you appeal to that vain streak in so many people who think they can learn anything by reading a book.
"Smart travelers prefer..." "The Choice of Doctors, Now Available for You..." "For The Buyer Who has Done Her Homework..."
Take over the institutions, and you can set your own standards
"Winner of the Gold medal for Service..." "Endorsed by the Society for..."
the righty whining on this thread is utterly priceless, it's the verbal equivalent of a dude with an uzi in the dark spraying everywhere hoping he hits something
Gil, I learned a long time ago that when writing a report about anything, at least keep your spelling consistent. It is as distracting to the reader as a speaker would be when they use different dialects to the audience.
I love the sound of freeper heads exploading..... You guys are putting a smile on my face!
Whatever fantasies you need to get you through the day, I guess.
gil, could you please control your children!
Coward(s). Part quatre.
Sweet flibberdy jibbits! Still nothing? What if I used the politically correct “prudent predator” terminology instead?
Would any of the Blog Report Lefties want to pretend to be a randroid so I can start to figure this dang thing out?
I almost didn’t notice, J.Peden’s back! Where the hell have you been?
In honor of J. Peden’s return I think we should all take a break from a busy evening of blogging/cussing each other out and dance for a few:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h?
v=Ach9Byn2ND4
af,I am deeply touched. Or is it rather 'severely' touched? Your choice.
So, I'm curious:
What would you take as proof that global warming exists and is actually occurring?
jim,
It's the wrong question.
Skeptics generally agree that temperatures have risen by about a degree-and-a-half over the past century-and-a-half. There's nothing alarming about it. It's within normal variation. The sun's output fluctuates according to well-established cycles, the best-known of which is the sunspot cycle.
Global Warming skeptics are aware of the CO2 increase, but it is the result of - not the cause of - temperature increases. Contrary to Gore's junk science, CO2 levels lag behind temperature levels by about 800 years.
The hockey stick graph is a proven fraud, a statistical fabrication, nothing but junk science.
The assertion that the past ten years are the hottest ever is also a fabrication by GW zealots.
An Inconvenient Truth is full of anecdotal evidence that seems to foretell an impending apocalypse. But scientifically, it's garbage. A contrary selection of anecdotes could prove the opposite case.
The burden of proof lies with those who make extraordinary claims. That's how science works. Global warming activists have to prove that our current warm spell is urgently different from all the previous warm spells that it resembles, and that man-made CO2 is the primary culprit.
To date, there is no such evidence.
Lyle, you may as well be trying to explain to a child why the piece of crap plastic toy hes saving up to buy, isn't as cool as it looks in the tv commercial.
SteveH,
I accepted jim's question as being asked in good faith and tried to answer in good faith.
As for the hysterics and remedial readers on this thread, of course you're right.
“I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming.”
“Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.”
“The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.”
- George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...20010611-
2.html
Thanks for acknowledging my question. My question is more hypothetical than current, though.
So let's say you're right about current claims and evidence, and that global warming is only due to variance in solar activity.
Since as you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, what *is* the sort of extraordinary evidence you would accept?
What would have to be occurring, and how it would have to be observed, that you would accept as evidence that human activity has a role in global warming?
And yet the largest gas (by percentage) in the atmosphere is nitrogen (76%) and oxygen is second (23%) with all others - carbon dioxide, neon, argon, etc. making up the rest (1%).
How much are we actually talking about here?
jim,
Again, it's the wrong question.
You're asking what kind of hypothetical evidence would be acceptable and convincing - if it were to exist. That's backwards, a waste of time, and it defies common sense.
The burden is on Global Warming activists to put forward actual - not hypothetical - evidence for their extraordinary claims. In the absence of such evidence, a reasonable person should assume that current causes and effects are the same causes and effects that have always existed.
Why don't you list what you consider to be actual evidence for catastrophic human-induced Global Warming?
Lyle, I'm asking a hypothetical question. The essence of a hypothetical question is possibilities, not certainties or even likelihoods.
Consider it as if I'm just referring to something you don't believe in.
Such as "What sort of evidence would it take for you, to accept that Bigfoot might exist?" Or "What kind of evidence would it take for you to accept that the Loch Ness Monster exists?"
I'm not trying to get into a discussion about whether or not human-caused global warming exists. You've got your beliefs in that area, and that's fine.
I'm just honestly curious what level of proof or what sort of evidence it would take, for you to think that human-caused global warming exists.
jim,
Imagine that a prosecutor drags a man into court, charged with murder. The judge says to the prosecutor, 'What evidence do you have?' And the prosecutor says to the judge, "What evidence would you like?'
It's not a reasonable place to begin a discussion. It's not even hypothetical. It's nonsensical.
“For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our atmosphere. “
“According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF in the last 100 years. Eleven of the last twelve years rank among the 12 warmest years on record (since 1850), with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities.”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange.../
basicinfo.html
Or, for this crowd:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange...ge/kids/
cc.html
The global warming issue is a political battle over the science of climate change and is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol. Most support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth ..
- Conservapedia
Therefore, a rational conservative can only conclude that liberalism has infiltrated not only most worldwide scientific communities, but government agencies and even the White House itself!?
Lyle, imagine this situation:
A judge and a lawyer are having a coffee after work. One says to the other, "To consider that a man might actually be guilty of murder, what kind of evidence do you generally have to see?"
That's the context that I'm presenting this question to you in. It's a purely 100% academic, hypothetical question, such as might take place over a cup of coffee.
I'm not trying to convince you that global warming is human-caused. I'm not arguing that it is.
I'm only asking you what evidence you would *have to* see, that would might cause you to think that global warming is human caused.
"Therefore, a rational conservative can only conclude that liberalism has infiltrated not only most worldwide scientific communities, but government agencies and even the White House itself!?"
americafirst
No, the rational position is that the AGW claims are unscientific. But it's stll a political matter. That's why Bush's statement did not admit the alarmist/causational aspect of the AGW proponents' claims.
Read it again.
Your subsequent post on NOAA/NASA data is false, at least as to substance.
af, do you have any background in science at all?
"I'm only asking you [Lyle] what evidence you would *have to* see, that would might cause you to think that global warming is human caused."
jim
For my own part, I'd like to have a scientific process in place to begin with. Sadly, this has not occurred along the way of the $20 billion+ the ipcc and friends have spent on "proving" their pre-determined conclusions.
I think with only $2 billion I could "prove" just about anything.
Any takers?
Last post at the end of a dying thread:
americafirst, the NASA data that you link to has been drastically revised. When Y2K software was installed circa 1998, a glitch distorted all the subsequent temperature data. The glitch has recently been eliminated, and those 'hottest years' have turned out to be pretty average. There are still problems with James Hansen's formulae. I don't know when the EPA site was written but it's not current.
jim, it's still a foolish, unproductive place to begin any discussion. I don't understand why you insist upon it.
Well Lyle, you've now spent 4 comments refusing to answer something that you could have answered in one.
So why do I keep asking it? I just want to know where you're coming from.
Do you believe that human-caused global warming exists, just because the current evidence isn't good enough? In other words, is your belief based on a relatively objective review of the facts?
Or would you not believe in human-caused global warming, **no matter what** the evidence is? In other words, is your belief unchanging no matter what the facts might be?
No, the rational position is that the AGW claims are unscientific. But it's stll a political matter. That's why Bush's statement did not admit the alarmist/causational aspect of the AGW proponents' claims.
And Bush’s statement comes across to me as pretty reasonable. In short:
1. Something is happening, it appears to be human related, but more study is needed to find best fit solutions for the world as a whole.
2. The Kyoto agreement without including China and India would be a joke, not to mention have negative economic consequences for America.
3. The administration “will fully fund high-priority areas for climate change science.”
Neither alarmist nor dismissive, just ‘aware of the situation and willing to help’. Of course, whether this statement was just another political smoke screen I’ll leave to the historians to prove.
Your subsequent post on NOAA/NASA data is false, at least as to substance. af, do you have any background in science at all?
Not professionally. But it sounds like you might know more than the POTUS’ cabinet advisors, EPA, NOAA and NASA combined are willing to admit? Do please tell us.
My point (besides being a “twisted firestarter”) was that taking extremist views such as Conservapedia’s or the AGW alarmists might come back to bite you.
The only really good thing about global climate change and its eventual reduction of humans on the planet is that most of you obsessively ignorant right wing loons will perish. Say howdy to your god-boy when you meet him.
(SteveH, you were right.)
jim,
I'm not 'refusing to answer'. I'm refusing to speculate about the sufficiency of counterfactual, nonexistent evidence - if only such counterfactual, nonexistent evidence were factual and did exist. It's a sophomoric waste of time.
And to what purpose? So you can judge whether my opinion is based on a review of objective data, or not.
But that's not how it works. You're the one who is making the extraordinary claim. The burden is yours.
Your implied premise is that you arrived at your own position by a review of the objective data. Why wait for my reply? Demonstrate your own grasp of the science. Prove that your own opinion isn't based on faith. Then we can discuss on the basis of factual, existent evidence.
Instead, you repeatedly insist that your ideological opponents speculate pointlessly in a vacuum of facts. You are the one who wants to debate in the realm of faith rather than science.
That's what I refuse to do.
americafirst,
As of October 2007, NASA's ten hottest years are, in order:
1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939
Nasa's data-collection procedures tend to skew recent numbers higher, so it's not unlikely that recent years will continue to be revised downward.
The only really good thing about global climate change and its eventual reduction of humans on the planet is that most of you obsessively ignorant right wing loons will perish. Say howdy to your god-boy when you meet him.
Why can't you cut all the verbosity out? More words don't really make you sound smarter than us. You could have just said "You're all ignorant and I hope you die," since that does seem to be what you actually meant....
My Name Is Nobody,
Doesn't Billt's crabbed mean-spiritedness make you glad he's not on our side?
I'm not 'refusing to answer'. I'm refusing to speculate about the sufficiency of counterfactual, nonexistent evidence
So you're not refusing to answer my question; you're just refusing to answer my question, for a few reasons that you consider very good?
You can see how that's still refusing to answer my question, right?
And:
- I am not making *any* claim. Please show me anywhere I have made **any claim**. That comes entirely from you.
- I am not trying to debate you. That also comes entirely from you.
In short, I am not trying to convince you of anything.
I just honestly want to know if you could actually be convinced, if you were shown facts you could accept.
Could you?
jim,
If new evidence demonstrated that the current warm period is unlike any other warm period in the planet's history, and that there is no plausible explanation except for CO2, then I would reconsider.
But that's not the state of the evidence. Quite the contrary.
So now that I've 'answered' your foolish hypothetical, why don't you borrow a pair of balls and state your own opinion, and make a feeble attempt to support it with facts?
I won't hold my breath.
'I just honestly want to know if you could actually be convinced, if you were shown facts you could accept.'
'Honestly'? Who are you kidding?
You demanded that I speculate in the absence of facts as a cheap debate ploy. You didn't invent the tactic. You don't know me, so questions about my personal character and thought processes don't mean anything to you.
It's easy for an uninformed person to be argumentative. You never have to think out an issue or defend a position; just stay on the attack.
That's what makes teenagers so aggravating. If you're a teenager, get informed. If you're not, grow up.
OK. Thank you. It took 6 comments and an increasing amount of childish insults on your part, but at least you answered it.
Perhaps part of it was that you really thought I was trying to argue with you. I'm not. I really was just curious about how you feel towards global warming and evidence for it.
My opinion is in agreement with the overwhelming consensus of scientists on this subject. If you don't believe their evidence and what they have to say on the subject, you won't believe me.
Sure, consensus can be wrong - but when it is proven wrong, it's done by a new theory that explains the facts in a compelling new way. So far I have seen no such theory from global warming deniers.
As for this comment of yours,
You demanded that I speculate in the absence of facts as a cheap debate ploy.
- you are writing an interesting story there. However the story is coming entirely from you. I am not in real life a character in it; you're just projecting that character onto me.
I refer you to this previous statement of mine:
- I am not making *any* claim. Please show me anywhere I have made **any claim**. That comes entirely from you.
- I am not trying to debate you. That also comes entirely from you.
jim,
As I thought, you are simply uninformed. You've heard there's a consensus and that's good enough for you. You haven't bothered to educate yourself about problems with the so-called evidence. You have insulated yourself from alternative explanations. Big surprise.
So here are two questions for you.
Which scientific arguments do you find most compelling? Which facts do you find most decisive?
Since I 'answered' your stupid hypothetical, maybe you can answer my questions, which are not.
Now that I provided the speculation you insisted upon, why don't you explain why it was so important?
You say that it wasn't a cheap debate ploy. Were you just overwhelmed by a need to know me personally? Now that you have your much-needed 'answer', what are you going to do about it?
jim,
I'll make it easier.
How do you evaluate the impact of Gleissberg, Suess, Bond, and Schwabe on Global Warming?
How do you assess the impact of recent (2002) discoveries about the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation?
lyle, ask jim what he thinks about polar icecap meltings on Mars, or evidence of icemelts on moons of Jupiter & Saturn.
The Earth is warming, but it ain't our fault, except for a tiny smidgeon.
Menchu, Baradei, Kissinger & Le Duc Tho, Arafat, the fatuous Gee-mah, the Rwanda-meister Annan, lots of ridiculous company for ridiculous Hysteric-Al to feel at home with.
daveinboca,
Thanks for the ammo. I won't need it.
I don't expect jim to return. His appeal to the so-called consensus gave him away. He's a self-important blowhard too lazy to research the science.
Now that I provided the speculation you insisted upon, why don't you explain why it was so important?
Lyle, from the very beginning I told you: I was curious.
We can go ahead and argue this, if that's what you want. I'm game. But just be aware that, from the very beginning of this entire exchange, I've just been curious about your thought process, and you've just been certain that I'm here to argue.
In fact, you seem quite certain that my original question was some sort of effort to lay a trap for you.
After I told you repeatedly that it wasn't, and after I didn't argue with you once you actually answered my question, it would be nice to hear you admit that you were wrong.
You were curious? My 'answer' was just a revision of a paragraph that you considered unresponsive. It was information you already had, but your curiosity was satisfied by a change of syntax.
So, you're game? Well, I asked a few questions above.
Your answer was pretty unresponsive, and without particulars; nevertheless I took it as a good faith attempt to finally answer a question you avoided for 5 comments.
As I said in my previous comment, it would be nice to hear you admit you were wrong in your apparent assumption, that I asked the original question just to bait you.
That would show me that you can actually be convinced of something, when clear evidence is presented to you.
jim,
You have not stated a single fact or engaged the topic of Global Warming even once in this entire thread. You haven't demonstrated any familiarity whatsoever with the subject. It's all about your damn feelings.
Well, you're off the hook. No need to get informed. You won't have to do your homework. Stay lazy and stupid. I've got better things to do.
so, Lyle:
1) for 5 comments you refuse to answer a simple question. Along the way you throw in insults and accuse me of asking this question in bad faith, in order to pull you into some sort of debate trap.
2) you also completely invent the situation that I'm arguing with you and making claims, which I in fact have not done ***at all***.
When I point out there is not one single claim I've made, or one attempt I've made to debate you, and that you've made this all up in your head, you ignore your mistake utterly and try to change the subject.
Seriously - you **really did think** I was arguing with you and making claims, when in fact I **was not** and **had not once**.
But you invented this, and you really did believe that I was doing this.
Why did you do that? Where did this come from?
This is probably something you're repeating in other places in your life. Something that may be at the root of a lot of situations where you blame others, or hold things against them.
They may not have actually done anything to you; it may all just be assumptions you've made that you're sure are "true", that are based on your expectations AND NOT reality.
Seriously - here's the evidence that you've done that, right here. As one human to another, beyond politics - take a look at it.
3) finally, you pretend to answer my question, while not actually answering it.
How intellectually honest is that? Really? Take a look here too. Honestly.
I accept your answer in good faith, as an attempt to answer my question, however flawed.
4) I point out that I haven't attempted to argue with you at all, and so it would be nice to hear you admit you were wrong in that accusation.
You completely ignore this point, and want to go straight on into a separate argument.
Conclusion:
This pattern on your part, doesn't bode well for good faith arguing of further points, does it?
This is not at all about my feelings. This is about your willingness to admit a logical point.
Can you admit when you are wrong, or not? There's an example in this very thread, where WE BOTH KNOW you were wrong.
I'll repeat it for you: You said I was making claims and arguments, when I was not and had not at all.
If you can't even admit you wrong when you're that obviously caught right here - hy should I engage in any larger arguments with you? It seems likely you'll just act the same way:
evade, ignore or deny any points I make that you don't like, rather than deal with them directly and then actually admit it when you're wrong.
lyle,
Personally, I’m not very emotionally invested in the global warming debate, hence the centrist position. But what bothers me is when alarmists OR dismissers make all these claims without backing up their assertions with reputable links or references.
“When Y2K software was installed circa 1998, a glitch distorted all the subsequent temperature data.”
and
“As of October 2007, NASA's ten hottest years are, in order:
1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939
Nasa's data-collection procedures tend to skew recent numbers higher, so it's not unlikely that recent years will continue to be revised downward.”
From these two statements should I conclude that NASA’s data collection procedures still includes that Y2K software? Could you reference something reputable, please?
I think Krugman's got it right (damn!)
"Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration."
"And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.
The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.
"And so it has proved." rukidnme, your guru won't debate with scientists that have studied our planet before this Senator's son wobbled through geology 1 in high school.
Krugboy is unaware, being an economist, of the Constitution. [Actually, as an economist, he is unaware of economices, having predicted three recessions since 2002 out of a total of ZERO! Gore is not right, and he is afraid to debate reputable scientists, hiding behind the politicized IRCC functionaries.
I suggest that hysteric-Al is practicing what Richard Feynman called Cargo Cult Science, the sort of institutionalized fraud so prevalent today that it has replaced real science with Malthusian and Luddite hysteric-Al posturing.
Look it up and learn, rukidnme.
Steadily dropping in credibility the right keeps attacking the fringe, but the center still keeps moving to the left.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
