Goracle Honored
And to think, I wasn't even aware that they had a Nobel Prize for deceptive rhetoric.
I'm now selling "smug offsets" via Paypal.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:58 AM
Comments
1
If they did, you would be a leading candidate to win a Nobel Prize.
Posted by: Pug at October 12, 2007 08:55 AM (r5zYa)
2
Ouch, someone left themselves wide open on that one...lmao
Posted by: Frederick at October 12, 2007 08:56 AM (IurQs)
3
Best part is all the wacko sites talking about him also winning the 2000 presidential race and a Oscar, neither of which is true. Whooohooo Gore. Now in the same class as Arafat and Carter.
Hey pug, frederick. It's funnier if there is some truth to it. Your doing the equivalent of making a cigar joke about Bush.
Hey pug, frederick. It's funnier if there is some truth to it. Your doing the equivalent of making a cigar joke about Bush.
Posted by: buzz at October 12, 2007 10:50 AM (PZ/ZS)
4
CY,
No, the award isn't *for* anything anymore. It's debased itself into a credential in the authoritarian mutual-admiration society. It has drawn close to the Lenin Peace Prize, and so it completely discounted.
Cordially...
No, the award isn't *for* anything anymore. It's debased itself into a credential in the authoritarian mutual-admiration society. It has drawn close to the Lenin Peace Prize, and so it completely discounted.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at October 12, 2007 11:44 AM (Ohkx7)
5
Sarcastic jealousy, how surprising and refreshing. Yawn. If your little chimperor had won it you'd be shouting from the rooftops about how great an honor it is and blah blah blah. I know it must be painful watching your small-minded world fall apart.
Posted by: leaf at October 12, 2007 11:52 AM (x7n0a)
6
Actually, the Right has been saying that the Nobel Prize is now meaningless for years. This is hardly a new thing.
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 12:12 PM (rfcTY)
7
I know the last few comments are from tbagg readers, so I'll try to use small words:
Al Gore used junk science and unsupported assertions to peddle fear.
While we know global warming is in fact occurring, that isn't the end of the world. As a matter of pure fact, global warming and cooling are natural parts of long-term life on earth, and has been happening longer than there has been primates, much less the burning of fossil fuels.
The climate has been far colder than it is now, and it has been far warmer. Somehow, species adapted, and life went on.
The Goracle wants to blame people for warming, and indeed they may play a small part, but the earth warms and cools primarily because of the activity of the sun, geologic events, and asteroid impacts, events far beyond our control.
This we know for real science, not flawed climate models and politicals agendas.
As for the Nobel itself, it has been steadily cheapened in past years... Awarding it to terrorists cheapened it, at least among normal people, as does award a peace prize for someone who has done nothing for you know, peace, which has become the new un-standard. That it would be awarded to a man who produced a documentary every bit as factually accurate as Loose Change just put the final nail in the coffin lid.
Al Gore used junk science and unsupported assertions to peddle fear.
While we know global warming is in fact occurring, that isn't the end of the world. As a matter of pure fact, global warming and cooling are natural parts of long-term life on earth, and has been happening longer than there has been primates, much less the burning of fossil fuels.
The climate has been far colder than it is now, and it has been far warmer. Somehow, species adapted, and life went on.
The Goracle wants to blame people for warming, and indeed they may play a small part, but the earth warms and cools primarily because of the activity of the sun, geologic events, and asteroid impacts, events far beyond our control.
This we know for real science, not flawed climate models and politicals agendas.
As for the Nobel itself, it has been steadily cheapened in past years... Awarding it to terrorists cheapened it, at least among normal people, as does award a peace prize for someone who has done nothing for you know, peace, which has become the new un-standard. That it would be awarded to a man who produced a documentary every bit as factually accurate as Loose Change just put the final nail in the coffin lid.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 12, 2007 12:21 PM (0BhZ5)
Posted by: Me at October 12, 2007 12:21 PM (pZtEm)
9
Wow. Who knew that someone with a Masters in English would have such deep research knowledge and experience around global climate change and would be able to definitively tell ALL of us what is "real science" and what is "junk."
Boy, sorry to have questioned such genius.
Forget all those climatologists and other respected scientists with their Ph.Ds from prestigous universities who all agree that human activity is a major contributor to global climate change and that it's far from just normal cyclical activity.
From now on, I'm going to trust those with Masters in English and people with Associates in HVAC and accounting who blog for a living!
Well-educated, globally-respected, research-experienced scientists BE GONE!
Boy, sorry to have questioned such genius.
Forget all those climatologists and other respected scientists with their Ph.Ds from prestigous universities who all agree that human activity is a major contributor to global climate change and that it's far from just normal cyclical activity.
From now on, I'm going to trust those with Masters in English and people with Associates in HVAC and accounting who blog for a living!
Well-educated, globally-respected, research-experienced scientists BE GONE!
Posted by: notforsalethanks at October 12, 2007 12:43 PM (MyDKI)
10
If the Nobel Committee were composed of remotely serious people, the prize would go to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Posted by: Mahon at October 12, 2007 12:44 PM (oFhek)
11
And how exactly, pray tell, is Gore contributing to "peace"?
How about those Burmaese Monks, or Chinese democracy advocates?
I respect the NPP when it goes to someone who actually deserves it. Arafat received it for Chrissakes, not to mention El-Barradi and if we want to go way back, the leader of North Vietnam, Le Duc Tho, who celebrated this achievement by swallowing the South and driving refugees into the sea and the rest into re-education camps.
How about those Burmaese Monks, or Chinese democracy advocates?
I respect the NPP when it goes to someone who actually deserves it. Arafat received it for Chrissakes, not to mention El-Barradi and if we want to go way back, the leader of North Vietnam, Le Duc Tho, who celebrated this achievement by swallowing the South and driving refugees into the sea and the rest into re-education camps.
Posted by: Techie at October 12, 2007 12:53 PM (T+8Gr)
12
Goracle also dis-honored, by a British High Court judge:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do
Posted by: tjmmz01 at October 12, 2007 03:20 PM (dAzoD)
13
What does global warming have to do with peace?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 12, 2007 03:51 PM (Lgw9b)
14
Shouldn't we rename this the "Yasser Arafat reward?"
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 12, 2007 03:53 PM (Lgw9b)
Posted by: SShiell at October 12, 2007 04:23 PM (8UXyu)
16
Who said that peace is meaningless? The AWARD is meaningless.
Wish folks would learn to read.
I might also point out that Global Warming is an "enemy" that the Left is saying we must fight as well...Those who live in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones!
Wish folks would learn to read.
I might also point out that Global Warming is an "enemy" that the Left is saying we must fight as well...Those who live in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones!
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 05:25 PM (rfcTY)
17
Sillys. The Norwegians awarded Mr. Gore and the UN IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize in the expectation that their efforts may well prevent the climate wars of the future. This decision was made by plain speaking, down to earth people, you know - morons (bastardized from Blazing Saddles).
The intense research conducted by the Norwegians included a marathon session during which they consumed massive quantities of regular soda while watching: The Day After Tommorow, Armagedon and Waterworld. The decision was made all the more rivetting as they were not allowed to go to the bathroom until they voted.
The intense research conducted by the Norwegians included a marathon session during which they consumed massive quantities of regular soda while watching: The Day After Tommorow, Armagedon and Waterworld. The decision was made all the more rivetting as they were not allowed to go to the bathroom until they voted.
Posted by: davod at October 12, 2007 05:36 PM (llh3A)
18
Peace Prize? I thought the global warming debate was all about science.
Posted by: MikeM at October 12, 2007 05:43 PM (nyO8l)
19
Did some posts disappear?
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 06:10 PM (rfcTY)
20
"The climate has been far colder than it is now, and it has been far warmer. Somehow, species adapted, and life went on."
That may be, but then again, at that time there weren't hundreds of millions of people living in low-lying coastal areas, who would be forced to relocate if the sea levels continue to rise. No one was around to experience the increased hurricane levels.
Species always adapt, that's just a given.
That may be, but then again, at that time there weren't hundreds of millions of people living in low-lying coastal areas, who would be forced to relocate if the sea levels continue to rise. No one was around to experience the increased hurricane levels.
Species always adapt, that's just a given.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 12, 2007 07:56 PM (N8M1W)
21
How many recounts were there before Gore got the result he wanted?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 12, 2007 08:47 PM (0pZel)
22
Arbotreeist, in the 60s and early 70s people were worried about global cooling.
Can global climate change in 30 years? And if so, who's to say that in 2030 we won't be worried about global cooling again?
Can global climate change in 30 years? And if so, who's to say that in 2030 we won't be worried about global cooling again?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 12, 2007 10:11 PM (ufhAS)
23
C-C-G,
Rumor has it that they are beginning to worry about Global Cooling NOW. That is why a lot of folks are talking about "climate change" instead of "global warming." Fact is, they just don't really know whats happening.
Rumor has it that they are beginning to worry about Global Cooling NOW. That is why a lot of folks are talking about "climate change" instead of "global warming." Fact is, they just don't really know whats happening.
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 11:09 PM (rfcTY)
24
Might also be that "climate change" doesn't sound as screwy as "global warming" when one of Algore's own speeches was cancelled by heavy snowfall.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 12, 2007 11:38 PM (ufhAS)
25
"Might also be that "climate change" doesn't sound as screwy as "global warming" when one of Algore's own speeches was cancelled by heavy snowfall."
Right, because heavy snowfall or cooler weather on a particular day in a particular location discounts in any way whatsoever the notion of global warming.
"Arbotreeist, in the 60s and early 70s people were worried about global cooling."
There was a downturn in global temps in that time period but the overall trend over the last 150 years has been that it's getting warmer, and there's little doubt that it will continue in that direction, given the current rate of fossil fuel consumption.
Right, because heavy snowfall or cooler weather on a particular day in a particular location discounts in any way whatsoever the notion of global warming.
"Arbotreeist, in the 60s and early 70s people were worried about global cooling."
There was a downturn in global temps in that time period but the overall trend over the last 150 years has been that it's getting warmer, and there's little doubt that it will continue in that direction, given the current rate of fossil fuel consumption.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 12, 2007 11:58 PM (N8M1W)
26
Riiiiiiiight Arbotreeist.
That's why they have to use such tactics as placing temperature recording stations next to air conditioner exhausts and over burn barrels.
That's why they have to use such tactics as placing temperature recording stations next to air conditioner exhausts and over burn barrels.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 12:37 AM (ufhAS)
27
My, now we're getting into some tin-foil hat territory, aren't we? And here I thought that was the sole province of us liberals?
Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 12:46 AM (N8M1W)
28
I hear up until the 1940's or thereabouts, they used to put these temperature recording devices next to wood stoves or even warm cowpies to throw off the readings. Those devious climate researchers. Thank God for AC units, makes the job that much easier.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 12:53 AM (N8M1W)
29
Thanks for proving that you have no logical or reasonable explanation for the odd placement for those recording stations. Recording stations whose data is used to "prove" global warming.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 01:01 AM (ufhAS)
30
Conservatives from year 2000 called and they want their line of argument back. The jury's in on the fact that global warming is happening. Even Bush has admitted the reality of it, albeit grudgingly. The current argument among conservatives is whether humans are the ones causing it, or nature. And if you're really on the cutting edge of conservative thinking, it's conceded that global warming is happening, it's human-caused, but maybe, they say, global warming could actually be a positive development...kind of like the idea Fox news floated about the possibility of a civil war in Iraq being "a good thing".
Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 01:28 AM (N8M1W)
31
Thanks for proving that you have no logical or reasonable explanation for the odd placement for those recording stations.
Precisely how did he prove that, CCG? By not answering your question? If somebody decides not to engage with you on your terms and your terms only, that proves that you're right and they're wrong?
Thanks for proving that you have no logical or reasonable explanation for the odd placement for those recording stations.
Precisely how did he prove that, CCG? By not answering your question? If somebody decides not to engage with you on your terms and your terms only, that proves that you're right and they're wrong?
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 08:51 AM (lJF4u)
32
CCG, I'm counting fewer than fifteen stations on that list. How many stations are there in all? Thousands? And this tiny sample is what you're basing your argument on?
This word "proof" you use, senor, I do not think it means what you think it means.
This word "proof" you use, senor, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 08:58 AM (lJF4u)
33
Actually, that is but one piece of the evidence against mankind causing global warming. But, since you're not even willing to consider that placing recording stations over burn barrels might skew the results, clearly you're deciding the "results" first and then gathering your chosen "data" later.
The Vatican would have loved you two a few hundred years ago when they were insisting the sun revolved around the earth, ya know.
The Vatican would have loved you two a few hundred years ago when they were insisting the sun revolved around the earth, ya know.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 10:59 AM (ufhAS)
34
since you're not even willing to consider that placing recording stations over burn barrels might skew the results
Don't put words in my mouth.
Sure, this kind of thing skews the results. There are some who say that merely making the observations skews the results at some quantum level. The question, though, would be how much the results are skewed.
I would submit that the "proof" you have offered up is but an infinitesimal portion of all the weather readings that have been taken around the planet over the course of decades.
since you're not even willing to consider that placing recording stations over burn barrels might skew the results
Don't put words in my mouth.
Sure, this kind of thing skews the results. There are some who say that merely making the observations skews the results at some quantum level. The question, though, would be how much the results are skewed.
I would submit that the "proof" you have offered up is but an infinitesimal portion of all the weather readings that have been taken around the planet over the course of decades.
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:47 AM (lJF4u)
35
Another Questionable War Story:
Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight" - No comments at all? Just another liberal Bush-basher who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Gen. Sanches, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq)
Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight" - No comments at all? Just another liberal Bush-basher who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Gen. Sanches, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq)
Posted by: he at October 13, 2007 01:51 PM (H2NPa)
36
"Al Gore used junk science and unsupported assertions to peddle fear." - Confederate Yankee.
Unsupported? What about the millions in the scientific community that have been saying what he says already, and are currently applauding him for bringing so much attention to the issue with his well-stated documentary?
Why do you try to mislead, sarcastically, by claiming it's unsupported and "junk science" - when the issues have been in numerous scientific journals across the world? Do you know what "junk science" even means?! I wonder...
It's not "fear." He was promoting awareness on a subject that scientists have been talking about for a long time. And he succeeded. Infact, that is the very reason he got the Peace Prize.
Just because YOU don't think recycling makes sense, or that because the world has been warm before we don't need to worry about the consequences of our uniquely wasteful actions, doesn't mean that's true either.
By the way, for fear tactics.. Look towards the current oil-war and how we got into it, for a quick lesson on "how to instill fear in the public."
Unsupported? What about the millions in the scientific community that have been saying what he says already, and are currently applauding him for bringing so much attention to the issue with his well-stated documentary?
Why do you try to mislead, sarcastically, by claiming it's unsupported and "junk science" - when the issues have been in numerous scientific journals across the world? Do you know what "junk science" even means?! I wonder...
It's not "fear." He was promoting awareness on a subject that scientists have been talking about for a long time. And he succeeded. Infact, that is the very reason he got the Peace Prize.
Just because YOU don't think recycling makes sense, or that because the world has been warm before we don't need to worry about the consequences of our uniquely wasteful actions, doesn't mean that's true either.
By the way, for fear tactics.. Look towards the current oil-war and how we got into it, for a quick lesson on "how to instill fear in the public."
Posted by: Jar at October 13, 2007 02:39 PM (ZMXWA)
37
Jar, lots of scientists thought the sun revolved around the world at one time.
Majority opinion does not science make.
Majority opinion does not science make.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 02:49 PM (ufhAS)
38
Jar and nunaim and Arbotreeist - How have Gore and his AGW sycophants proved their hypothesis. It's my understanding that when scientists come up with a hypothesis, they design tests to prove the hypothesis.
Take for example Hansen and his cabal who control all the raw temperature data and the algorithms for smoothing them. He also developed a model to describe the historical relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. His goal was to plot a line which described the best historical fit. He then assumed causation instead of just correlation. How did he design tests of that causation theory holding all other variable constant? Was it even tested? Is it even possible to test?
Take for example Hansen and his cabal who control all the raw temperature data and the algorithms for smoothing them. He also developed a model to describe the historical relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. His goal was to plot a line which described the best historical fit. He then assumed causation instead of just correlation. How did he design tests of that causation theory holding all other variable constant? Was it even tested? Is it even possible to test?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 04:54 PM (0pZel)
39
Using your logic, then, daleyrocks, all of science's ideas about volcanoes and earthquakes must be wrong--a conspiracy by the pro-temblor and lava cabal--because they're describing phenomena instead of creating them.
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 06:13 PM (lJF4u)
40
nunaim - Using your words, "Don't put words in my mouth."
Can you answer the questions or not? I'm not interested in your deflection. The subject is anthropogenic global warming. We've got computer models telling us about various relationships between things and a lot of rabid believers in the computer models. Those believers want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and change
our lifestyles? Is all we've got computer models tightly controlled by a small group of people who also control the data or has actual testing of the hypothesis been done, you know, in accordance with the scientific method?
The AGW supporters should be able to answer these questions.
Can you answer the questions or not? I'm not interested in your deflection. The subject is anthropogenic global warming. We've got computer models telling us about various relationships between things and a lot of rabid believers in the computer models. Those believers want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and change
our lifestyles? Is all we've got computer models tightly controlled by a small group of people who also control the data or has actual testing of the hypothesis been done, you know, in accordance with the scientific method?
The AGW supporters should be able to answer these questions.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 06:22 PM (0pZel)
41
What I really wanna know about those models, Daley, is can they accurately predict the weather next week? If they can't (and we all know how fallible weather forecasting is), then why should we trust what they say will happen next year or next decade?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 06:43 PM (ufhAS)
42
I must say, Jar, nunaim, and Arbortreeist are proving themselves good disciples of Gore's new religion.
"The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," Gore said in comments e-mailed by his office 44 minutes after the prize was announced at 5 a.m. Eastern time. "It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."
Spiritual challenge, Gracie? Sounds like he is setting himself up as Pope of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And I am sure Pope Gore will give you three a good price on indulgences... er... carbon offsets.
"The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," Gore said in comments e-mailed by his office 44 minutes after the prize was announced at 5 a.m. Eastern time. "It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."
Spiritual challenge, Gracie? Sounds like he is setting himself up as Pope of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And I am sure Pope Gore will give you three a good price on indulgences... er... carbon offsets.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 07:13 PM (ufhAS)
43
CCG - It all sounds like a lot of guess work to me and that they're praying everyone believes them. Isn't religion the belief in the unknowable? It sounds like this qualifies to me with what they've got.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 07:41 PM (0pZel)
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 08:10 PM (0pZel)
45
I hear Ben Stein's voice...
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 08:17 PM (ufhAS)
46
ccg
another good question of the models has always been can they be run in reverse? In other words, take current conditions and past data and predict past climate. my understanding is that they cannot be run in reverse, which would be a serious flaw to my mind.
another good question of the models has always been can they be run in reverse? In other words, take current conditions and past data and predict past climate. my understanding is that they cannot be run in reverse, which would be a serious flaw to my mind.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 13, 2007 08:20 PM (9BPe+)
47
Excellent point, Iconoclast. I would also be interested in seeing if they can take data from, say, 13 Oct 2006 and then predict the weather for today, 13 Oct 2007.
Of course, the fact that there is very little if any data from tests like this kinda gives one the impression that said tests have not been run, perhaps because the pseudo-scientists pushing this know what the results would be.
Of course, the fact that there is very little if any data from tests like this kinda gives one the impression that said tests have not been run, perhaps because the pseudo-scientists pushing this know what the results would be.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 08:23 PM (ufhAS)
48
Speaking of red herrings and deflections, the pro-climate-change crowd (present company included) serves up a heaping helping of both each time they put fingers to keyboard.
Since I'm guessing that not many of the people who post here are climateologists--and thus not able to discuss the science with any credibility--let's stick with what we can see with our own eyes and to hell with the computer models.
Pollution is bad. Car exhaust is bad. The crap that spews out of smokestacks is likewise bad. How do we know? It makes you sick if you have to breathe a lot of it.
There are more and more cars and smokestacks all the time. That means that there's more bad stuff going into the air every day, which means more unsafe air advisories in places like LA (unless you think that unsafe air advisories are also a left-wing conspiracy, which opinion would not surprise me in the least).
Trying to stop the process from spiraling out of control is not a bad thing, and "spiraling" is the word I mean to use--population does not undergo linear growth, but speeds up as it takes place. Thus, all the pollution-producing things that people use get used more in the same proportion. More people equals more cars equals more pollution put into the air.
That's the bottom line. That's the deal, shorn of all the crapola of arguments about weather stations set up over blacktop.
Those of you who argue against who argue against climate change are essentially saying, "People cannot pollute the environment to any degree that we need to bother ourselves with it." You are, in essence, pro-pollution, because, after all, that's what the climate change people are trying to curb: pollution.
But you're not really pro-pollution, are you? I'd be stunned if you were. That's why the very existence of this argument is baffling to me. How can anyone seriously argue against preserving--and heck, maybe even improving--the place we live?
Since I'm guessing that not many of the people who post here are climateologists--and thus not able to discuss the science with any credibility--let's stick with what we can see with our own eyes and to hell with the computer models.
Pollution is bad. Car exhaust is bad. The crap that spews out of smokestacks is likewise bad. How do we know? It makes you sick if you have to breathe a lot of it.
There are more and more cars and smokestacks all the time. That means that there's more bad stuff going into the air every day, which means more unsafe air advisories in places like LA (unless you think that unsafe air advisories are also a left-wing conspiracy, which opinion would not surprise me in the least).
Trying to stop the process from spiraling out of control is not a bad thing, and "spiraling" is the word I mean to use--population does not undergo linear growth, but speeds up as it takes place. Thus, all the pollution-producing things that people use get used more in the same proportion. More people equals more cars equals more pollution put into the air.
That's the bottom line. That's the deal, shorn of all the crapola of arguments about weather stations set up over blacktop.
Those of you who argue against who argue against climate change are essentially saying, "People cannot pollute the environment to any degree that we need to bother ourselves with it." You are, in essence, pro-pollution, because, after all, that's what the climate change people are trying to curb: pollution.
But you're not really pro-pollution, are you? I'd be stunned if you were. That's why the very existence of this argument is baffling to me. How can anyone seriously argue against preserving--and heck, maybe even improving--the place we live?
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 09:03 PM (7Cmj1)
49
nunaim, if you're gonna complain about red herrings, don't serve one up yourself.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 09:35 PM (ufhAS)
50
Red herring? Hardly. How?
This is what the whole thing is about. The arguments are distractions from the main point, which is this: what do we do about our pollution? Or, more to the point, do you even care about our pollution?
Red herring? What a lame response...
Now, if I were doing things the way you generally do them, I would take this opportunity to say, "So, CCG, you do not deny that you are pro-pollution. Therefore, you are." But I won't, because it would be beneath me.
This is what the whole thing is about. The arguments are distractions from the main point, which is this: what do we do about our pollution? Or, more to the point, do you even care about our pollution?
Red herring? What a lame response...
Now, if I were doing things the way you generally do them, I would take this opportunity to say, "So, CCG, you do not deny that you are pro-pollution. Therefore, you are." But I won't, because it would be beneath me.
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 09:45 PM (7Cmj1)
51
nunaim, you are clearly an idiot.
Pollution and global warming are not directly connected. The theory of anthropogenic global warming assumes that carbon dioxide is causing the warming, not pollution, which is mostly solid, not gaseous carbon.
You really have no friggin' idea what you are talking about, and you're making yourself look very very stupid.
Pollution and global warming are not directly connected. The theory of anthropogenic global warming assumes that carbon dioxide is causing the warming, not pollution, which is mostly solid, not gaseous carbon.
You really have no friggin' idea what you are talking about, and you're making yourself look very very stupid.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 09:52 PM (ufhAS)
52
You're really grasping here.
In my post I specifically mention carbon-producing sources. Pretending that I didn't doesn't make it so.
So answer my question. You're pro-pollution, aren't you? You like the idea of sending crap into the atmosphere.
In my post I specifically mention carbon-producing sources. Pretending that I didn't doesn't make it so.
So answer my question. You're pro-pollution, aren't you? You like the idea of sending crap into the atmosphere.
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 10:54 PM (7Cmj1)
53
nunaim, you're the one that is grasping.
Equating solid carbon particles from smoke and pollution with carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life on this planet (plants need it) is such a stupid mistake that it's clear that you haven't the foggiest idea of the science involved.
If you had any cojones you'd admit that you made a mistake, but you don't, so you won't.
Equating solid carbon particles from smoke and pollution with carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life on this planet (plants need it) is such a stupid mistake that it's clear that you haven't the foggiest idea of the science involved.
If you had any cojones you'd admit that you made a mistake, but you don't, so you won't.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:02 PM (ufhAS)
54
Also, CCG:
Why are you afraid to address the real issue facing us, rather than the phony issue?
I'm tempted to think that it's because with the phony issue, you can spend your days looking for web sites that document the fact that fifteen poorly-placed weather stations might conceivably skew data one-quintillionth of a percentage point.
That stuff's safer for you because, whatever somebody on the other side says, you can always shriek, "Nuh-UH! Junk science! Rammafrazzle global warming conspiracy!" and, I guess, you get off on that.
When it comes right down to the actual root issues, however--issues like "do we want to continue spewing carbon into the air via automobiles and power plants and so on?" you're afraid to engage. You pull out your thesaurus and complain about "red herrings" and "deflections" and base your entire argument on the fact that I used the word "pollution" to refer to atmospheric contamination from carbon sources.
Actually addressing the root issues that drive the whole debate are, I reckon, too difficult and, therefore, too scary for you to do.
Why are you afraid to address the real issue facing us, rather than the phony issue?
I'm tempted to think that it's because with the phony issue, you can spend your days looking for web sites that document the fact that fifteen poorly-placed weather stations might conceivably skew data one-quintillionth of a percentage point.
That stuff's safer for you because, whatever somebody on the other side says, you can always shriek, "Nuh-UH! Junk science! Rammafrazzle global warming conspiracy!" and, I guess, you get off on that.
When it comes right down to the actual root issues, however--issues like "do we want to continue spewing carbon into the air via automobiles and power plants and so on?" you're afraid to engage. You pull out your thesaurus and complain about "red herrings" and "deflections" and base your entire argument on the fact that I used the word "pollution" to refer to atmospheric contamination from carbon sources.
Actually addressing the root issues that drive the whole debate are, I reckon, too difficult and, therefore, too scary for you to do.
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:05 PM (7Cmj1)
55
nunaim - Carbon dioxide is really not a pollutant even though the EPA has been given a mandate to regulate it in certain ways. CO2 serves a necessary function on this planet for many things. The topic on this thread is global warming, not pollution, hurricanes, volcanoes, plate tectonics or other things you may keep trying to shift toward. Trying to disqualify people from talking about the subject because they are not climatologists should have knocked most of the people off the IPCC as their expertise was not strictly climate. If the rule you are trying to advance is that you should not discuss a topic unless you are an expert, I suggest you stay off this board. I haven't seen a hint of expertise or mastery of a subject from you yet.
Why are you afraid to discuss the basics of global warming? Is it because you know nothing or because you know there's nothing there?
Why are you afraid to discuss the basics of global warming? Is it because you know nothing or because you know there's nothing there?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:14 PM (0pZel)
56
See what I mean about not having enough cojones to admit a mistake?
Your entire argument boils down to: pollution is bad, global warming is bad, therefore pollution must cause global warming.
By the same logic, I could say crime is bad, pollution is bad, therefore crime causes pollution.
You make a nonsensical argument and then defend it to the death... you should apply at The New Republic... I hear there's at least one position open.
Your entire argument boils down to: pollution is bad, global warming is bad, therefore pollution must cause global warming.
By the same logic, I could say crime is bad, pollution is bad, therefore crime causes pollution.
You make a nonsensical argument and then defend it to the death... you should apply at The New Republic... I hear there's at least one position open.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:17 PM (ufhAS)
57
CCG, you will never, ever, EVER win by playing the word game with me. Reading your posts is like listening to some pain-in-the-butt seventh grader play Jailhouse Lawyer: "You said that I had to sit down, but you never told me that I had to sit in my seat!"
Both of you think you're getting somewhere, but all it makes you look like is that you've dug deep into your barrel of smarts and come up empty-handed.
Let's strip away all the little things that so easily distract you: why are you a proponent of increasing carbon emissions?
Both of you think you're getting somewhere, but all it makes you look like is that you've dug deep into your barrel of smarts and come up empty-handed.
Let's strip away all the little things that so easily distract you: why are you a proponent of increasing carbon emissions?
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:18 PM (7Cmj1)
58
nunaim, we're neither of us gonna play your little red herring game. So don't bother trying to lump all carbon emissions together.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:24 PM (ufhAS)
59
Trying to disqualify people from talking about the subject because they are not climatologists
Nice attempt to twist my words into something that suits your needs. Unfortunately, your baldfaced lie is showing.
My suggestion was that since we aren't (to my knowledge) climate scientists, that we approach the topic in a way that can be discussed fruitfully by non-climate scientists.
Why, daleyrocks, are you in favor of increasing carbon emissions?
Trying to disqualify people from talking about the subject because they are not climatologists
Nice attempt to twist my words into something that suits your needs. Unfortunately, your baldfaced lie is showing.
My suggestion was that since we aren't (to my knowledge) climate scientists, that we approach the topic in a way that can be discussed fruitfully by non-climate scientists.
Why, daleyrocks, are you in favor of increasing carbon emissions?
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:28 PM (7Cmj1)
60
CCG - nunaim is playing out the latest lefty talking point. You see it on other blogs. When they can't defend the basics of the AGW argument, they have been instructed to steer the discussion to pollution in general in an attempt to fool people. Only the truly gullible fall for this transparent attempt to shift the conversation away from Captain Planet's Holy Grail.
Is water pollution part of the global warming discussion now or nunaim's point? How can you leave water pollution out if you are talking about things that are bad for mankind? Has that been factored into the AGW models?
Just more attempts at shape shifting to avoid the basic subject. Notice how he has still avoided answering questions.
Is water pollution part of the global warming discussion now or nunaim's point? How can you leave water pollution out if you are talking about things that are bad for mankind? Has that been factored into the AGW models?
Just more attempts at shape shifting to avoid the basic subject. Notice how he has still avoided answering questions.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:29 PM (0pZel)
61
CCG:
You're absurdly insistent that I answer your questions. Remember that? Remember how you demanded again and again that I answer some question that I had already answered?
You won't even pretend to answer my questions. Ever. In the Old Country, we called that "being a yellowbelly."
You're absurdly insistent that I answer your questions. Remember that? Remember how you demanded again and again that I answer some question that I had already answered?
You won't even pretend to answer my questions. Ever. In the Old Country, we called that "being a yellowbelly."
Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:32 PM (7Cmj1)
62
nunaim - The thread is about Al Gore and AGW:
"Since I'm guessing that not many of the people who post here are climateologists--and thus not able to discuss the science with any credibility--let's stick with what we can see with our own eyes and to hell with the computer models."
To my knowledge he is not a climatologist or a scientist and I do not think he has much credibility on the subject, yet he just won a nobel prize for his work in the area. I figure if he can talk about it I can talk about it. America is the land of opportunity. What are you afraid of here?
Do you need to consult your current talking points again?
"Since I'm guessing that not many of the people who post here are climateologists--and thus not able to discuss the science with any credibility--let's stick with what we can see with our own eyes and to hell with the computer models."
To my knowledge he is not a climatologist or a scientist and I do not think he has much credibility on the subject, yet he just won a nobel prize for his work in the area. I figure if he can talk about it I can talk about it. America is the land of opportunity. What are you afraid of here?
Do you need to consult your current talking points again?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:35 PM (0pZel)
63
nunaim, you remember how CY reacted last time we played this game?
I learn from my mistakes; apparently you don't.
I learn from my mistakes; apparently you don't.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:36 PM (ufhAS)
64
Hey, daleyrocks... drop me a line at the email on my blog if you'd like to talk away from nunaim. 
Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:41 PM (ufhAS)
65
Death to volcanoes!
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 14, 2007 02:09 AM (s4ZqU)
66
Well, then, it looks like I've been beaten once again by your strategy of not actually engaging if the interaction isn't precisely on your terms. It's effective yet lame. And I can see your point, daleyrocks: the whole thread is about Gore. Isn't he the one who set up those weather stations that CCG is going on about?
Anyway, now I'm scared. CCG informs me on his site that he pretty much knows where I live. That sounds like a veiled threat to me. I'd better beat a hasty retreat before he comes to the city where I work and finds me somehow and puts a burning bag of dog poop on the front doorstep.
The fact remains that those of you who fight so strenuously against the whole climate change thing are, for some mysterious reason, actally for degradation of our environment. I can't imagine why, since you live here, too. If you ever feel like explaining your position (since, after all, it is the very root of the discussion you're having here), I'll be all ears.
Remember: Gore's Nobel is nice for Gore, but it's not the biggest problem we face in this, our life.
Anyway, now I'm scared. CCG informs me on his site that he pretty much knows where I live. That sounds like a veiled threat to me. I'd better beat a hasty retreat before he comes to the city where I work and finds me somehow and puts a burning bag of dog poop on the front doorstep.
The fact remains that those of you who fight so strenuously against the whole climate change thing are, for some mysterious reason, actally for degradation of our environment. I can't imagine why, since you live here, too. If you ever feel like explaining your position (since, after all, it is the very root of the discussion you're having here), I'll be all ears.
Remember: Gore's Nobel is nice for Gore, but it's not the biggest problem we face in this, our life.
Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 09:46 AM (YHa1b)
67
Hey, nunaim, here's something else you, Algore, and the rest of the AGW pseudo-scientists have to answer:
Mars is warming too, and faster than the Earth.
So tell me, are the Martians driving SUVs?
Did they elect a Republican President?
Did Halliburton open a branch on Mars?
Or could it be, just perhaps, that the warming is being caused by something exterior to both Mars and Terra? Something like, oh, I dunno, THE SUN?
Mars is warming too, and faster than the Earth.
So tell me, are the Martians driving SUVs?
Did they elect a Republican President?
Did Halliburton open a branch on Mars?
Or could it be, just perhaps, that the warming is being caused by something exterior to both Mars and Terra? Something like, oh, I dunno, THE SUN?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 11:05 AM (ufhAS)
68
The lib comments are a perfect example of how "global warming" has become their religion.
There is no debate, the proof is in, to deny is to sin.
If you disagree with their mahdi AlGore, you're a heathen that hates the earth, and must be sleeping with most of the board of Haliburton.
The whole debate isn't about the earth and it's NATURAL cycles anymore to these gaea worshippers, it's about destroying the way of life of the US through decimation of it's key industries.
The fact that AlGore was awarded a peace prize for a movie about him giving a speech in front of a crappy slideshow, is proof positive that this "award" is a joke now. Arafat?, 'nuff said.
There is no debate, the proof is in, to deny is to sin.
If you disagree with their mahdi AlGore, you're a heathen that hates the earth, and must be sleeping with most of the board of Haliburton.
The whole debate isn't about the earth and it's NATURAL cycles anymore to these gaea worshippers, it's about destroying the way of life of the US through decimation of it's key industries.
The fact that AlGore was awarded a peace prize for a movie about him giving a speech in front of a crappy slideshow, is proof positive that this "award" is a joke now. Arafat?, 'nuff said.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 14, 2007 12:19 PM (La7YV)
69
Conservative CRJ:
If you've bothered reading the posts up above, you've seen that I've tried to look past the bread and circuses represented by Gore and get at the root issues that Gore is addressing.
The question repeatedly asked--and just as frequently avoided by daleyrocks and CCG--is why they are in favor of increased carbon emissions.
There are a few possibilities for this:
A. They're against decreasing carbon emissions simply because it's something that Lefties want.
B. They don't believe that carbon emissions exist.
C. They think that it is literally impossible for human-produced carbon emissions to have any negative effect on the planet.
D. They are glad that carbon emissions will have a negative effect.
E. They think that carbon emissions will actually have a positive effect on the planet.
This would be a more productive direction for the conversation than any of these:
A. Prattling on about red herrings and deflections.
B. Snarking about SUVs on the planet Mars.
C. Trying to conduct a highly technical discussion out of our fields of expertise. (I'm assuming, again, that none of us involved in this discussion are climate scientists. If I'm wrong, please set me straight.)
D. Cracking open the old chestnut about how everything that Lefties feel strongly about (but that the Right doesn't) is a liberal "religion."
The whole AGW topic can, in fact, be discussed rationally without descending into the arcane matters of sample size, computer models and data skews. To do so, however, would be to confront the wellsprings of one's beliefs/prejudices/whatever without the security blanket of snark and other evasive maneuvers.
That's too much to ask, apparently.
If you've bothered reading the posts up above, you've seen that I've tried to look past the bread and circuses represented by Gore and get at the root issues that Gore is addressing.
The question repeatedly asked--and just as frequently avoided by daleyrocks and CCG--is why they are in favor of increased carbon emissions.
There are a few possibilities for this:
A. They're against decreasing carbon emissions simply because it's something that Lefties want.
B. They don't believe that carbon emissions exist.
C. They think that it is literally impossible for human-produced carbon emissions to have any negative effect on the planet.
D. They are glad that carbon emissions will have a negative effect.
E. They think that carbon emissions will actually have a positive effect on the planet.
This would be a more productive direction for the conversation than any of these:
A. Prattling on about red herrings and deflections.
B. Snarking about SUVs on the planet Mars.
C. Trying to conduct a highly technical discussion out of our fields of expertise. (I'm assuming, again, that none of us involved in this discussion are climate scientists. If I'm wrong, please set me straight.)
D. Cracking open the old chestnut about how everything that Lefties feel strongly about (but that the Right doesn't) is a liberal "religion."
The whole AGW topic can, in fact, be discussed rationally without descending into the arcane matters of sample size, computer models and data skews. To do so, however, would be to confront the wellsprings of one's beliefs/prejudices/whatever without the security blanket of snark and other evasive maneuvers.
That's too much to ask, apparently.
Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 12:55 PM (YHa1b)
70
Sorry--"Conservative CBU," I should have written. Life is more difficult when I'm not wearing my glasses.
Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 12:56 PM (YHa1b)
71
nunaim, I would answer your question if it had any relevance.
It does not.
And you're looking like a 5-year-old who doesn't get his way on the playground.
If that's the image you want to project, fine, but don't expect to be treated as an adult as long as you're acting like that.
A question that does have relevance is why Mars is warming if humans are the cause of all global warming. Why won't you answer that one? Simple, because it demolishes your entire argument.
It does not.
And you're looking like a 5-year-old who doesn't get his way on the playground.
If that's the image you want to project, fine, but don't expect to be treated as an adult as long as you're acting like that.
A question that does have relevance is why Mars is warming if humans are the cause of all global warming. Why won't you answer that one? Simple, because it demolishes your entire argument.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 01:07 PM (ufhAS)
72
CCG - nunaim keeps demanding that we not put words in his mouth yet puts them in ours:
"The question repeatedly asked--and just as frequently avoided by daleyrocks and CCG--is why they are in favor of increased carbon emissions."
I don't recall saying anything of the sort, I have merely been questioning the AGW jihadis who want us to change our entire way of life and redistribute global income based on what I see as questionable science, data and computer modeling. nunaim has presented nothing to strengthen the pro-AGW argument nor did I expect him to.
Al Gore tellingly refuses to debate the subject just as nunaim has here. Nunaim reverted to an "air pollution makes you sick if you breath enough of it," how can you be in favor of pollution argument, which somehow translates to global warming. Again, I'm not propollution, but I don't like the greenhouse gas effect from biofuels, which he doesn't address, water pollution, other types of pollution, but I am in favor of cost benefit analysis.
If he does indeed want to address AGW, it all goes back to the credibility of what its proponents call their "science", the data and their models, not nunaim's feelings about pollution and the planet.
I know progressives are all about feelings, but its a tough way to rationalize spending hundreds of billions of dollars, redistributing the worlds wealth, and changing the way we live. I'd like to see a little more critical examinination of the hypothesis in this country instead of the censorship we've had by the media and the academy.
"The question repeatedly asked--and just as frequently avoided by daleyrocks and CCG--is why they are in favor of increased carbon emissions."
I don't recall saying anything of the sort, I have merely been questioning the AGW jihadis who want us to change our entire way of life and redistribute global income based on what I see as questionable science, data and computer modeling. nunaim has presented nothing to strengthen the pro-AGW argument nor did I expect him to.
Al Gore tellingly refuses to debate the subject just as nunaim has here. Nunaim reverted to an "air pollution makes you sick if you breath enough of it," how can you be in favor of pollution argument, which somehow translates to global warming. Again, I'm not propollution, but I don't like the greenhouse gas effect from biofuels, which he doesn't address, water pollution, other types of pollution, but I am in favor of cost benefit analysis.
If he does indeed want to address AGW, it all goes back to the credibility of what its proponents call their "science", the data and their models, not nunaim's feelings about pollution and the planet.
I know progressives are all about feelings, but its a tough way to rationalize spending hundreds of billions of dollars, redistributing the worlds wealth, and changing the way we live. I'd like to see a little more critical examinination of the hypothesis in this country instead of the censorship we've had by the media and the academy.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 02:13 PM (0pZel)
73
CCG - nunaim keeps demanding that we not put words in his mouth yet puts them in ours:
You really didn't expect a lefty to play by the same rules he demands we play under, did you?
You really didn't expect a lefty to play by the same rules he demands we play under, did you?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 03:07 PM (ufhAS)
74
For those of you who cannot connect global climate change and world peace in context to everything that is going on in the world today, may God help you for being so ignorant.
Posted by: john bryan at October 14, 2007 03:20 PM (v9dwy)
75
A question that does have relevance is why Mars is warming if humans are the cause of all global warming. Why won't you answer that one? Simple, because it demolishes your entire argument.
Nobody of note is saying that humans are behind all climate change; rather, that they are exacerbating the situation.
Question answered; straw man trampled underfoot; argument still intact.
A question that does have relevance is why Mars is warming if humans are the cause of all global warming. Why won't you answer that one? Simple, because it demolishes your entire argument.
Nobody of note is saying that humans are behind all climate change; rather, that they are exacerbating the situation.
Question answered; straw man trampled underfoot; argument still intact.
Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 03:29 PM (YHa1b)
76
I am in favor of cost benefit analysis
Now we're getting somewhere. The next question would be what you see as the costs and benefits of either curbing emissions or letting them grow.
I am in favor of cost benefit analysis
Now we're getting somewhere. The next question would be what you see as the costs and benefits of either curbing emissions or letting them grow.
Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 03:31 PM (YHa1b)
77
nunaim, if we are not behind climate change, then how can any of the proposals pushed by you gaia-worshipers stop it?
Answer: they can't.
Here's a few more facts about your Dear Leader Algore that you might consider, courtesy Investor's Business Daily:
• He [Gore] conveniently ignores the 98% of Antarctica that has actually cooled in the last 35 years to focus on the 2% that is warming.
• His film "An Inconvenient Truth" depicts Florida going underwater, yet that would take a 13-foot ocean rise; the U.N. forecasts a mean sea-level increase of only 13 inches by the century's end.
• Gore's movie shows a polar bear drowning in search of icebergs; the polar bear population has quintupled in 40 years.
Fascinating, hmmm? Perhaps if you paid attention to the facts instead of the hype, you'd not look like such a fool.
Answer: they can't.
Here's a few more facts about your Dear Leader Algore that you might consider, courtesy Investor's Business Daily:
• He [Gore] conveniently ignores the 98% of Antarctica that has actually cooled in the last 35 years to focus on the 2% that is warming.
• His film "An Inconvenient Truth" depicts Florida going underwater, yet that would take a 13-foot ocean rise; the U.N. forecasts a mean sea-level increase of only 13 inches by the century's end.
• Gore's movie shows a polar bear drowning in search of icebergs; the polar bear population has quintupled in 40 years.
Fascinating, hmmm? Perhaps if you paid attention to the facts instead of the hype, you'd not look like such a fool.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 03:35 PM (ufhAS)
78
CCG - Now we've got John Bryan suggesting that Iraq is not a War for Oil, but a War for Global Warming? Unbelievable! What will these folks think of next.
Nunaim keeps bobbing and weaving, the Hamster Dance, never engage. The meathead doesn't understand that you can't get to the point of a cost benefit analysis unless you buy into the premises of the AGW hypothesis, which he refuses to discuss. He's a human mobius strip on this. He can't break out of his loop.
Nunaim keeps bobbing and weaving, the Hamster Dance, never engage. The meathead doesn't understand that you can't get to the point of a cost benefit analysis unless you buy into the premises of the AGW hypothesis, which he refuses to discuss. He's a human mobius strip on this. He can't break out of his loop.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 04:15 PM (0pZel)
79
Far be it from me to put words in your mouth, daleyrocks, but when I read this:
If he does indeed want to address AGW, it all goes back to the credibility of what its proponents call their "science", the data and their models, not nunaim's feelings about pollution and the planet.
That implies to me that you believe either that carbon emissions do nothing to negatively affect the planet, or that the negative effects aren't actually negative. If we are to discard the predictions that you deride, then that's what we're left with. Am I correct?
I'm trying to engage productively here, but we need to agree what we're talking about before we can get anywhere.
If he does indeed want to address AGW, it all goes back to the credibility of what its proponents call their "science", the data and their models, not nunaim's feelings about pollution and the planet.
That implies to me that you believe either that carbon emissions do nothing to negatively affect the planet, or that the negative effects aren't actually negative. If we are to discard the predictions that you deride, then that's what we're left with. Am I correct?
I'm trying to engage productively here, but we need to agree what we're talking about before we can get anywhere.
Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 04:51 PM (YHa1b)
80
nunaim, there are many different forms of "damage to the planet," and we are discussing only one: global warming.
Please quit with the red herrings. We know you've caught your limit, and want to show them off, but please consider us duly impressed with your red herring skill.
Please quit with the red herrings. We know you've caught your limit, and want to show them off, but please consider us duly impressed with your red herring skill.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 05:13 PM (ufhAS)
81
CCG - He's still doing it:
"carbon emissions do nothing to negatively affect the planet, or that the negative effects aren't actually negative"
The thread is about AGW and he is talking about "negative effects," dodging the issue once more. I don't see the words warming or temperature in his latest comment. He's still where he was last night where he tried to side track the thread - because he breathes pollution and pollution makes you sick so it is bad so we have to stop it.
Do you think I can get a Nobel Prize for that logic train too? You need a license to be as stupid and dishonest as nunaim and not institutionalized, don't you?
"carbon emissions do nothing to negatively affect the planet, or that the negative effects aren't actually negative"
The thread is about AGW and he is talking about "negative effects," dodging the issue once more. I don't see the words warming or temperature in his latest comment. He's still where he was last night where he tried to side track the thread - because he breathes pollution and pollution makes you sick so it is bad so we have to stop it.
Do you think I can get a Nobel Prize for that logic train too? You need a license to be as stupid and dishonest as nunaim and not institutionalized, don't you?
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 05:14 PM (0pZel)
82
I note that nunaim has been blessedly silent recently.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2007 08:01 PM (ufhAS)
83
CCG - Trying to divert the thread to a discussion of air quality from air temperature is a complete red herring. I'm pretty convinced the Bozo knows that and deliberate, but he could be too stupid too understand.
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 16, 2007 12:24 AM (0pZel)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0149 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0056 seconds, 91 records returned.
Page size 55 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.