Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thats funny. A British court found that Al Gore's movie can not be shown without guide notes to prevent political indoctrination. The British court also ruled the reason was because 9 of Al Gore's facts are distorted or incorrect facts:
Didn't you leave out the part about shown in secondary schools? Rather a substantial thing to be leaving out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
So I would assume that you consider Gore a sham along with Lomborg?
That's correct. Neither man is a scientist at all. The 2,000+ scientists behind the IPCC are, however. All of them agree with Gore.
What does a bigger disservice to all is the one sidedness that the mainstream media reports on global warming. Shocked that the American media failed to report the British judges ruling on Al Gore's shlockulamentary? I'm not, they refuse to do anything but praise him.
My ass they did
UK judge: 'Alarmism' in Gore film - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/10/12/britain.gore.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch - broken link)
oh absolutely tn, i forgot to add that in my post, let it be known from here on out that there is not a single CREDIBLE person left that disputes Algores climate crisis! Right Saggy?
Well, I don't know. I haven't interviewed every credible person to see where he or she stands on the 'issue'. I do know that you guys have recently put up Bill Gray and Bjorn Lomborg as your own exemplars. If that's the best you've got...
Let's see, around 13,000 to 15,000 or so years ago the last ice-age came to an end and the current Global Warming cycle began. So there isn't any doubt that Global Warming exists when compared to the last ice-age. Is that a bad thing? What is the alternative to Global Warming? Do those who oppose Global Warming really want the glaciers to begin to grow again instead of receding? Or haven't they thought that far ahead?
In the last century the oceans have risen by 17", and by the end of this century they may rise an additional 14" to 18". OH MY GAWD! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Alternating Global Warming and Global Cooling cycles have been occurring for the last 40 million years. Instead of spending trillions on what can't be changed, perhaps we should be learning to adapt to our ever changing environment. Change is a fact of life and a species that can't adapt to those changes ceases to exist.
Let's see, around 13,000 to 15,000 or so years ago the last ice-age came to an end and the current Global Warming cycle began. So there isn't any doubt that Global Warming exists when compared to the last ice-age. Is that a bad thing? What is the alternative to Global Warming? Do those who oppose Global Warming really want the glaciers to begin to grow again instead of receding? Or haven't they thought that far ahead?
In the last century the oceans have risen by 17", and by the end of this century they may rise an additional 14" to 18". OH MY GAWD! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Alternating Global Warming and Global Cooling cycles have been occurring for the last 40 million years. Instead of spending trillions on what can't be changed, perhaps we should be learning to adapt to our ever changing environment. Change is a fact of life and a species that can't adapt to those changes ceases to exist.
Just curious... have you searched the internet for rebuttals to the points you posted above? If you haven't, then you may be only halfway informed.
2 of your links are simply fact base stories about Gore Jr. speeding down the highway loaded up on drugs. Did not see a single line about Al Gore in a negative light in either of those.
The CNN story added this to the British court ruling:
"Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."
Thousands? LMAO, the movie was roughly 2 hours, you'd need something much longer than that to produce thousands of facts, especially when so much time is spent on alarmism and bull$h^t graphs to evoke emotion. I would call that CNN spinning their ass off to totally downplay the fact that Al Gore's schlockulamentary is biased and political in its intent. Wouldn't want to let anyone doubt the Global Warming God would we???
Didn't you leave out the part about shown in secondary schools? Rather a substantial thing to be leaving out.
Oh, yeah, you're right. All the focus should be on the secondary school thing, that is the main point of the article. Actually that makes the rest of the article moot and meaningless. Thanks for clearing it up.
Quote:
That's correct. Neither man is a scientist at all. The 2,000+ scientists behind the IPCC are, however. All of them agree with Gore.
Ah, the old 2000+ scientists at the IPCC. Gotta love when you throw numbers out from an international government institution's politically motivated scientific body. The UN is of course infallible. Lets use their political information as a reason to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol that has produced such amazing results. You know the results, the ones that are forecasted to end up with all countries falling anywhere from 13-66% off targets, the one that so far has cost Europe 150billion to at the most generous estimates to offset .000015 degrees of warming. The one that would take several trillion dollars and 660+ years to avert one degree of climate change. Yes, lets listen to the IPCC.
Feel free to go your own way. Ignore the work of thousands of highly-trained professionals that leads to consensus across multiple and varying disciplines. After all, these are only intellectual elites who are out of touch with mainstream America. And mainstream America can always be counted on to be on the cutting edge of emerging scientific issues...
2 of your links are simply fact base stories about Gore Jr. speeding down the highway loaded up on drugs. Did not see a single line about Al Gore in a negative light in either of those.
The CNN story added this to the British court ruling:
"Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."
Thousands? LMAO, the movie was roughly 2 hours, you'd need something much longer than that to produce thousands of facts, especially when so much time is spent on alarmism and bull$h^t graphs to evoke emotion. I would call that CNN spinning their ass off to totally downplay the fact that Al Gore's schlockulamentary is biased and political in its intent. Wouldn't want to let anyone doubt the Global Warming God would we???
CNN didn't say that, A SPOKESPERSON FOR AL GORE SAID THAT. I think it's usually considered "good reporting" to seek out those involved in a case, or spokesmen for them, you know? And if you would actually READ the article, instead of combing over it for clues of your dreaded "liberal media bias" you might notice that the judge himself said the film was largely accurate and mostly based in scientific fact. Now if CNN REALLY wanted to be liberal media biased, they could have changed the headline to "Skeptical UK Judge Asserts Gore Film Largely Scientifically Accurate," right? But then it wouldn't have sounded particularly sensational or interesting, since most people have already said that.
Last edited by fishmonger; 10-15-2007 at 07:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Change or Die!
