It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How you were swindled from the truth - the great global warming swindle lies debunked for good

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   


So then you're a great admireor of propaganda and propagandists?


Well..yeah, perhaps its just me. You cant see the art form which is propaganda?

Anyway, if it gets the job done and people thinking about their environment, i dont care about the means.




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Long Lance
forget about Al Gore, this guy could not care less about ecology:


Or maybe he does:


But the fish enjoyed by the Gores were not endangered or illegally caught.

....




well, nice find, goes to show that you can't trust reports, even if they're numerous. btw, i searched for a quote like yours and only found dozens of bashing articles. could you please drop the original source link?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
You cant see the art form which is propaganda?


Haven't you seen any of my videos?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
well, nice find, goes to show that you can't trust reports, even if they're numerous. btw, i searched for a quote like yours and only found dozens of bashing articles. could you please drop the original source link?


Yup, my bad.

It's actually from the Daily Telegraph, which is surprising.

linky



[edit on 20-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Daily Telegraph. "human interest stories"

ie. make up a bunch of sensationalist crap and hope nobody sues us.

Anyway, I see good work being done. No matter how it came about, the effect is worth it.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
.......
I think there are more important issues with Gore's film, mainly about overstating the case in some instances (particularly hurricanes & storms). The lag stuff is really a red-herring.


The red herring is actually what you and some others keep doing trying to dismiss facts such as CO2 temperature...

The graph which Gore used is also a misrepresentation since there were no points of reference to compare with both graphs, and in AIT Gore claims that changes in CO2 levels preceeded and caused changes in global temperatures, when this is not true.

AIT also claims, among some other claims, that 48 nobel prize winners accused president Bush of distorting the science, but of course Gore did not mention that those scientists were part of a "political group" who were trying to promote Kerry...



[edit on 25-7-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I like how some apparently mis/dis-represented data in TGGWS seems to debunk the entire film, however when Gore does it it's not a big deal and he's still right regardless.
It reminds of of like when it's ok for US to threaten Iran, but if they speak in terms of retaliation for anything we do to them it's cause for headlines parroting how we're now justified in bombing them. Oh, wait, wrong meeting!

[edit on 6-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The graph which Gore used is also a misrepresentation since there were no points of reference to compare with both graphs, and in AIT Gore claims that changes in CO2 levels preceeded and caused changes in global temperatures, when this is not true.


How did I miss this?

I would like a transcript of exactly where Gore says that "changes in CO2 levels preceeded and caused changes in global temperature".

Because I watched it not so long back, and I don't remember it. Or tell me whereabouts it is, and I'll get the transcript for you. I'd like some context on this.


AIT also claims, among some other claims, that 48 nobel prize winners accused president Bush of distorting the science, but of course Gore did not mention that those scientists were part of a "political group" who were trying to promote Kerry...
[edit on 25-7-2007 by Muaddib]


And I suppose the scientists who are still criticising the US government for gagging them are part of a 'political group' supporting Kerry?

The scientists were pretty pissed off with Bush and his cronies, I'm not surprised they backed Kerry. There is a right-wing attack on science in many forms, from medical science to evolution to climate science. I would be pissed off with the wingnuts.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Double post...

Oh, well, I'll use the space...


Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I like how some apparently mis/dis-represented data in TGGWS seems to debunk the entire film, however when Gore does it it's not a big deal and he's still right regardless.


I don't think it does debunk the whole film. What it does do is start to cast doubt on Martin Durkin as a reliable source of information. When we see he has done it several times throughout the mockumentary and misrepresented a scientist in this piece and also previously, then we can see him as a BS artist.

It doesn't cast doubt on cosmic rays as a mediator in climate a la Svensmark, but it does cast serious doubt on Durkin. We're not talking about having a short clip of a nuclear explosion on a trailer and overstating the hurricane findings, we are talking about wholesale misrepresentation and cherrypicking of science from start to finish.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
What about Gore claiming that the HUGE line graphs prove that CO2 drives temp? As long as you can admit that Gore too is a BS artist is all I've been shooting for...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What about Gore claiming that the HUGE line graphs prove that CO2 drives temp? As long as you can admit that Gore too is a BS artist is all I've been shooting for...


Again, some support for this would be good. What did he actually say?

I posted part of what he said at one point about the historical data earlier in this thread.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
its funny actualy
i dont care if thisgot debunked
as arrogant and evil as i sound i really dont care about global warning...what can i possibly do to stop it?and its going to be a problem in the future not now^^



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Unisol...

I would pity you if you truly believe that, but you dont deserve my pity. Or my scorn. Or my hatred. Or my anger.

All i hope is that the only impact you have on the world is a short embarrassing story in the Darwin awards.

seriously, if you go watch at LEAST the Inconvenient truth (Al Gore haters, dont even try to start another arguement with me on that) you should try to help.

You dont even need to do that, go with a plastic chair, sit down in front of a nice smog belching factory and watch it all day.

its wrong. please be part of the solution, for the sake of the earth and the intelligence of mankind.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

How did I miss this?

I would like a transcript of exactly where Gore says that "changes in CO2 levels preceeded and caused changes in global temperature".

Because I watched it not so long back, and I don't remember it. Or tell me whereabouts it is, and I'll get the transcript for you. I'd like some context on this.


.....Gore claims that CO2 is the cause of Global warming does he not?...

Gore in his lie, i mean docu*cough*lie-mentary shows a graph with CO2 levels, and temperature changes, but there was no reference point to compare both graphs... people can't see whether CO2 levels precede or lag Warming looking at the presentation of Gore, but as he states that CO2 is causing global warming, it doesn't take a genious to see that he claims CO2 precedes warming.... Or do you need everything chewed too melatonin?....


Originally posted by melatonin
And I suppose the scientists who are still criticising the US government for gagging them are part of a 'political group' supporting Kerry?

The scientists were pretty pissed off with Bush and his cronies, I'm not surprised they backed Kerry. There is a right-wing attack on science in many forms, from medical science to evolution to climate science. I would be pissed off with the wingnuts.


And i supposed the scientist who are still criticising the "let's blame mankind crowd" for gagging them and even destroying careers because there are scientists who don't agree with you and your idols are lying?.....

Grants ar enot being given to many of the scientists who disagree with you, and the rest of the "let's blame mankind crowd"....

But i guess you and the "let's blame mankind crowd" claim scientists who see anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming are the ones who are being gagged...

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the president would pick one side, since there are two sides, and the other side is going to lose?....

Anyways, we still see research from the "let's blame mankind"..... if they are being gagged, how come their research is also for all to see?.....


[edit on 7-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
.....Gore claims that CO2 is the cause of Global warming does he not?...

Gore in his lie, i mean docu*cough*lie-mentary shows a graph with CO2 levels, and temperature changes, but there was no reference point to compare both graphs... people can't see whether CO2 levels precede or lag Warming looking at the presentation of Gore, but as he states that CO2 is causing global warming, it doesn't take a genious to see that he claims CO2 precedes warming.... Or do you need everything chewed too melatonin?....


Yep, he agrees with the vast majority of climate scientists, the IPCC, and all major scientific organisation across the world, CO2 is a cause. I posted this earlier about this part of AIT:

He says during the 650,000 year data:

"the relationship is actually very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others. And that is when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperatures get warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside"

OK, sounds a bit amateurish, but he's about right. He doesn't say CO2 causes glacial warming, just that when there is more CO2, it gets warmer, which it does. CO2 contributed as a positive feedback. Just like water vapour is now. And I know you accept WV affects climate


And i supposed the scientist who are still criticising the "let's blame mankind crowd" for gagging them and even destroying careers because there are scientists who don't agree with you and your idols are lying?.....


I still see many of these people publishing work. Most still have academic positions, most are still researching. Obviously ignoring the dudes who have gone a bit emeritus.

Most just don't seem able to find the evidence they require for real scientific articles on this issue, they prefer media outlets.

For example, Svensmark. He just got millions of Euros for his cosmic ray stuff. Many herald his work as anti-"lets blame mankind crowd", so why is he getting money? Why can he readily publish his work?

....

Bob Carter

JAMES, N.P., BONE, Y., CARTER, R.M. & MURRAY-WALLACE, C.V. 2006 Origin of the Late Neogene Roe Plains and their calcarenite veneer: implications for sedimentology & tectonics in the Great Australian Bight. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 53, 407-419.

Juxtaposed with:

CARTER, R.M. 2007 The myth of dangerous human-caused climate change. Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, New Leaders Conference, Brisbane, May 2-3 2007, Conference Proceedings p. 61-74.

and a lot of newspaper articles, heh.

....

Pat Michaels

Michaels PJ, Knappenberger PC, Davis RE
Sea-surface temperatures and tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 33 (9): Art. No. L09708 MAY 10 2006

Juxtaposed with:

Michaels (October 25, 2005). Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Cato Institute, 280. ISBN 1930865791.

and lots of newspaper articles and TV appearances.

.....

Ian Clark

ID Clark, L Henderson, J Chappellaz, D Fisher et al., CO 2 isotopes as tracers of firn air diffusion and age in an Arctic ice cap with summer melting, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2007

Juxtaposed with:

Appearance in Great Global Warming Swindle and media stuff

.....

William Gray

Klotzbach PJ, Gray WM
Causes of the unusually destructive 2004 Atlantic basin hurricane season
BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY 87 (10): 1325+ OCT 2006

Juxtaposed with:

Lots of media appearances.

....

Willie Soon & Sallie Balliunas

Baliunas S, Frick P, Moss D, et al.
Anharmonic and standing dynamo waves: theory and observation of stellar magnetic activity
MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY 365 (1): 181-190 JAN 1 2006

Juxtaposed with:

Well, lots of media stuff.

.....

Tim Patterson

Patterson, R.T., Prokoph, A., Reinhardt, E., and Roe, H., 2007. "Climate cyclicity in anoxic marine sediments from the Seymour-Belize Inlet Complex, British Columbia". Marine Geology.

Juxtaposed with:

Media stuff.

....

Need I go on?


Don't kid yourself, muaddib. These people are quite able to do research, they just can't produce anything of note on this issue directly, they prefer to write newspaper articles about it.

The US government is attempting to gag climate scientists:


Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.

www.washingtonpost.com...


“Interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career,” he says. “In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now”.

priceofoil.org...


Gagging scientists part of pattern, says Labor
February 14, 2006 - 2:49PM

The apparent gagging of Australian climate scientists and of public servants in Senate estimates hearings was part of an emerging federal government habit, Labor said today.

www.theage.com.au...





[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Yep, he agrees with the vast majority of climate scientists, the IPCC, and all major scientific organisation across the world, CO2 is a cause. I posted this earlier about this part of AIT:


Nope...you keep trying to dismiss the other "mayority of climate scientists and research which debunks the claim that it is CO2 which has caused the current warming, or any huge amount of warming in the past...more so because first of all, CO2 lags temperatures....always... Second of all the increase in warming has been exponentially higher at night, which again shows that GHGs are not the cause of the current warming, since at night GHGs lose most of the heat trapped... Third of all apparently the oceans have been cooling, and large amounts of heat have been released from the oceans, some scientists claim that heat went straight to space....but i guess those same scientists thought everyone would forget that in order for that heat to escape to space it has to go through Earth's atmosphere...



Originally posted by melatonin
He says during the 650,000 year data:

"the relationship is actually very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others. And that is when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperatures get warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside"

OK, sounds a bit amateurish, but he's about right. He doesn't say CO2 causes glacial warming, just that when there is more CO2, it gets warmer, which it does. CO2 contributed as a positive feedback. Just like water vapour is now. And I know you accept WV affects climate


.... After temperatures increase for hundreds of years, it is only then that CO2 levels increase...and the increase of CO2 levels is not always constant, as seen in the geological record... Quite a few times the Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 yet temperatures weren't that different from now... and there have been times when CO2 levels were just as high in the past, and even higher but temperatures were much much cooler than they are now...

Just because "warming causes CO2 levels to rise" doesn't mean CO2 causes the warming to be exarberated as some claim... The warming had already been going on for hundreds of years without the help of CO2, and experiments show even a doubling of CO2 does not increase temperatures like Gore and associates claim.



Originally posted by melatonin
I still see many of these people publishing work. Most still have academic positions, most are still researching. Obviously ignoring the dudes who have gone a bit emeritus.


A bit "emeritus" ...yeah... publishing data which was wrong, and tried to hide several past climatic events which have been proven to exist by the geological record and dozens of research work done all over the world as in the case of Mann?....



Originally posted by melatonin
Most just don't seem able to find the evidence they require for real scientific articles on this issue, they prefer media outlets.


Oh yeah i forgot, Al Gore has so much knowledge and understanding about Climate Change.....



Originally posted by melatonin
For example, Svensmark. He just got millions of Euros for his cosmic ray stuff. Many herald his work as anti-"lets blame mankind crowd", so why is he getting money? Why can he readily publish his work?


And i still see many of the "let's blame mankind" getting tons of grants and their papers are published too...so why are they getting their grants and earning exorbitant amounts of money if they are being "gagged by the government"?....



Originally posted by melatonin
Need I go on?


Don't kid yourself, muaddib. These people are quite able to do research, they just can't produce anything of note on this issue directly, they prefer to write newspaper articles about it.


LOL, nice try Mr. melatonin... As always you try to disinform people... Let me give an example with the complete bibliography of one fo those scientists you tried to discredit...

One of them being Ian Clark...you claimed he just had one book published...


Bibliography
Ian Clark and Peter Fritz, Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology, 1997, ISBN 1-56670-249-6.

Ian Clark and B Lauriol, Aufeis of the Firth River Basin, Northern Yukon, Canada, Arctic and Alpine Research, 1997

Ian Clark, B Lauriol, L Harwood, M Marschner, Groundwater Contributions to Discharge in a Permafrost Setting, Big Fish River, NWT, Canada, Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 2001

B Lauriol, ID Clark. An approach to determine the origin and age of massive ice blockage in two Arctic caves, Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 1993

I Clark, B Lauriol, M Marschner, N Sabourin, et al. Endostromatolites from permafrost karst, Yukon, Canada, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2004

D Lacelle, B Lauriol, ID Clark, Seasonal isotopic imprint in moonmilk from Caverne de l’Ours (Quebec, Canada), Can. J. Earth Sci, 2004

ID Clark, L Henderson, J Chappellaz, D Fisher et al., CO 2 isotopes as tracers of firn air diffusion and age in an Arctic ice cap with summer melting, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2007

en.wikipedia.org...

But hey apparently some people have learnt well from Mann to hide evidence which refutes and contradicts some people's claims...

Anyways, let's see who do you and some others trust...


Al Gore

Gore graduated from Harvard with honors in June 1969 (with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government).[11]

en.wikipedia.org...

Extrapolated with a lot of BS, news media appearances and " an inconvinient truth".... an example of what not to do when you are trying to present a controversial issue to the public, and you don't know what you are talking about....

Hummm.....

BTW, keep trying to downplay the gagging of scientists or anyone who dares to doubt the claim that CO2 is the cause of the current warming....and i can see you post a lot from "news media" and even blogs....


Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’
Monday, March 12th, 2007

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’


"The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists."..more there

technocrat.net...


The first three paragraphs of a Washington Times article today combine to offer a prime example of the tactics used by left-wing liberal environmental wackos: The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he will investigate a threatening letter sent by the leader of an EPA-member group, vowing to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic.

www.blogcatalog.com...


Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

www.opinionjournal.com...

And lets see what kind of threats the envirolunatics come up with...

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

www.washingtontimes.com...

Put the gloves on, and lets get it on!!!!....



[edit on 7-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Yeah, and you cherry picked just the part at the end of his argument. You seperated it as if he wasn't speaking in the context of the huge line graph that he had just got done demonstrating with a scissor lift, and was still arguing about. It was all one argument, and that's a fact. Considering your cherry picking and unwillingness to agree on a common ground that Gore is in fact himself a cherry picking over-exaggerrating propagandist, I'm finding it harder to not place you near the same category as Gore and Durkin.

I know I haven't done an itemized listing of all of Gore's folly's, however with you being so acute in all of this science it wouldn't seem I'd have to for you to know that Gore is one and the same as Durkin, other than being seperate in ideology, kind of like republicans and democrats who use different forms of fear to achieve similar ends.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Nope...you keep trying to dismiss the other "mayority of climate scientists and research which debunks the claim that it is CO2 which has caused the current warming, or any huge amount of warming in the past...more so because first of all, CO2 lags temperatures....always...


Not so. There are periods where GHGs seem to lead temperature (e.g. PETM and mid-cretaceous).



Second of all the increase in warming has been exponentially higher at night, which again shows that GHGs are not the cause of the current warming, since at night GHGs lose most of the heat trapped...


Not so. This is actually supportive of a GHG effect. As this is when most heat escapes from the surface. The GHGs are helping to keep this heat in the troposphere.

I feel dirty posting from foxnews, but hey-ho.

www.foxnews.com...


Third of all apparently the oceans have been cooling, and large amounts of heat have been released from the oceans, some scientists claim that heat went straight to space....but i guess those same scientists thought everyone would forget that in order for that heat to escape to space it has to go through Earth's atmosphere...


Who says the oceans are cooling?



.... After temperatures increase for hundreds of years, it is only then that CO2 levels increase...and the increase of CO2 levels is not always constant, as seen in the geological record... Quite a few times the Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 yet temperatures weren't that different from now... and there have been times when CO2 levels were just as high in the past, and even higher but temperatures were much much cooler than they are now...


Muaddib, remember there is only one period in 400 million years or so where there seems to be a real lack of relationship, however, as Berner states, it is very likely that even this period is entirely consistent. We just need higher resolution data.



One of them being Ian Clark...you claimed he just had one book published...


I claimed no such thing.

I just picked the most recent scientific article they had published and compared it, if possible, to a readily available example of their media work and think-tank stuff.

This shows that the most vocal deniers are producing research. They are not gagged, they are doing work. They just seem to be very vocal in the media, but produce nothing that supports their denialism in the literature. These people are so restricted in their funding, they can get 10 million Euros for a single project...


As for the gagging stuff. I think you have a few nutcases sending death-threats, a weatherwoman who seems to be a bit noughty, and a scientific community that doesn't like people who distort, lie, and spread disinformation, like Tim Ball, a known liar. The latter are using a form of peer-pressure. Yeah, peer-pressure to be an honest broker of science is such a bad thing, heh.

On the opposite side, we have governments who are directly interfering in the communication of scientific findings.

So, in one post, we have two incorrect statements (CO2 always lags; night time warming anti-GHG), a misinterpretation (I stated something about Clark having only one paper), and the obligatory 440million year issue.

Same old, same old, eh?

[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Yeah, and you cherry picked just the part at the end of his argument. You seperated it as if he wasn't speaking in the context of the huge line graph that he had just got done demonstrating with a scissor lift, and was still arguing about. It was all one argument, and that's a fact. Considering your cherry picking and unwillingness to agree on a common ground that Gore is in fact himself a cherry picking over-exaggerrating propagandist, I'm finding it harder to not place you near the same category as Gore and Durkin.


Oh, OK. That sounds, errm, cool.

What? The whole documentary is one argument.

I have asked you to support your claim. I have presented one quote that I personally transcribed from the documentary that speaks to the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature, as that was the one I clearly remembered. If it wasn't the one you were specifically focusing on, I'm soooo very sorry.

If you want me to transcribe a whole 10 or so minute slot, I'm sorry dude, I have better things to do. It was your claim, you should support it. Same for muaddib.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yeah, and you cherry picked just the part at the end of his argument. You seperated it as if he wasn't speaking in the context of the huge line graph that he had just got done demonstrating with a scissor lift, and was still arguing about. It was all one argument, and that's a fact.


I didn't cherry pick nothing... The whole premise of Gore is that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming, he has been dishonest and the graph he presented with no reference points to compare the increase of warming and GHGs shows that he was willingly trying to hoax everyone into believing his main premise.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Considering your cherry picking and unwillingness to agree on a common ground that Gore is in fact himself a cherry picking over-exaggerrating propagandist, I'm finding it harder to not place you near the same category as Gore and Durkin.


Honestly, i don't give a hoot what you think about me. You are not exactly Mr. honesty, and by far you try to spout more propaganda than even Gore does.



Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I know I haven't done an itemized listing of all of Gore's folly's, however with you being so acute in all of this science it wouldn't seem I'd have to for you to know that Gore is one and the same as Durkin, other than being seperate in ideology, kind of like republicans and democrats who use different forms of fear to achieve similar ends.


A big difference is that Gore named himself the lord and master of science and in his "an inconvinient lie, I mean truth" he presents himself as if he was a college professor in front of a class teaching about a subject he obviously knows nothing about...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join