backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Jun 27 at 11:49 AM


Al Gore, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off promoting his thoughts on "global warming", accused President Obama of having "failed" to act to stop warming.  (Source: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty images)

Mr. Gore, who recently bought his fourth luxury mansion, uses carbon like there's no tomorrow. But he says he's actually "carbon neutral" thanks to carbon credits he buys from his own company.  (Source: coldwell banker previews via real estalker)

White House officials insist Mr. Gore's accusations are untrue and that the President hasn't "failed" to address climate change.  (Source: AP Photo)
Wealthy investor-cum-advocate continues to be one of the global warming movement's noisiest voices

United States President Barack Obama must be feeling a bit like his predecessor, George W. Bush, when it comes to the topic of climate change.  President Bush was criticized by Democrats as being too weak on climate change.  At the same time, more extreme elements of his party criticized his efforts like CAFE revisions for supposedly being too heavy-handed.  Likewise, President Obama has been criticized by Republicans for being to heavy-handed on climate change, but has been criticized by extreme members of his own party for being too weak.

Taking to the pulpit in a rambling 8-page online editorial in the magazine Rolling Stone, former Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore delivered perhaps the most stinging criticism yet against President Obama.  Entitled "Climate of Denial", Gore speaks on behalf of the latter contingent -- extreme elements of the Democratic party -- in lashing out at the President saying he has "failed" to do his part to advert the climate crisis.

I. A Question of Credibility

It's a widely known fact that Al Gore makes over $100,000 for speaking appearances.  In 2007 Fast Company estimated a speaking date with Mr. Gore would cost you a cool $175,000 USD.

In his global warming "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore claims to have given at least 1,000 speeches, meaning that he's likely earned in excess of $100M USD.  And there's the profits from that documentary as well -- Mr. Gore likely earned a tidy cut of the film's almost $50M USD box office gross [source] and $31M USD in DVD sales [source].

That's not too shabby for a man who was once written off as too boring to become president.

And then there's Mr. Gore's alternative energy climate firms such as Kleiner Perkins and Generation Investment Management LLP.  According to reports, Mr. Gore is poised to become the "world's first carbon billionaire", thanks to these investments.

Mr. Gore defends these holdings, stating, "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country? I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

He's also been forced to defend his palatial living quarters, which are far from carbon-neutral [source].  In 2007 his 20 room, 8 bathroom mansion used as much electricity in a month as the average American household did in a year. The Gore manor also devoured a very sizable amount of natural gas a year.  In 2010 he bought a fourth mansion -- an even more extravagant abode [source].

And that's not to mention the companies private jets that he's used over the years to promote his "anti-warming" efforts [source]. (Mr. Gore contends that he's never owned a jet personally so this doesn't count.)

Faced with ever present criticism over his apparent green hypocrisy, Mr. Gore says he lives "carbon neutral" by purchasing a wealth of carbon credits to offset his lavish lifestyle.  But reports indicate Mr. Gore is really just paying himself -- his credits allegedly come from Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. [source]

In legal cases justices are supposed to recuse themselves from matters where they have a vested interest.  But Al Gore is no judge and he doesn't seem ready to recuse himself of this debate in which he has a massive vested interest in anytime soon.

Mr. Gore does have the honor of a Nobel Peace Prize, along with United Nations International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) embattled chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri, for what it's worth, though.

II. Obama -- "Weak" on Climate?

Al Gore attacks Obama in a piece he writes for Rolling Stone he comments:

President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding.
...
Without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change.

Mr. Gore contends it wouldn't damage the President politically to get "tougher" on climate, writing:

Many political advisers assume that a president has to deal with the world of politics as he finds it, and that it is unwise to risk political capital on an effort to actually lead the country toward a new understanding of the real threats and real opportunities we face. Concentrate on the politics of re-election, they say. Don't take chances.

All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country.
...
But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.

The attack sent the White House press department into a panic.  They rushed to point out the 960 metric tons yearly saved by the President's Recovery Act that set "aggressive new joint fuel economy and emissions standards for cars and trucks."

States White House official Clark Stevens in a written response, "The President has been clear since day one that climate change poses a threat domestically and globally, and under his leadership we have taken the most aggressive steps in our country’s history to tackle this challenge."

Mr. Gore dismisses anyone who questions that global warming is real, man-made, and "destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization" as a "polluter" or "idealogue".  It's a strategy that promises huge profits for Mr. Gore -- and one that he claims to firmly believe in from an altruistic perspective as well.

One thing's for sure -- this won't be the last time Mr. Gore will be spotted beating the drum of the global warming movement and noisily opening his mouth as a self-proclaimed expert on climate change.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

who cares
By kchase731 on 6/23/2011 12:31:25 AM , Rating: 4
i would like to know why anyone cares what al gore things. everything he was behind has been proven a scientific lie or exaggeration. he can go back to flying million dollar private jets that on 1 trip use as much fuel as an H1 mummer spreading his message. its all false anyway




RE: who cares
By Gondor on 6/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By quiksilvr on 6/23/2011 9:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
RE: who cares
By GulWestfale on 6/23/2011 5:25:50 PM , Rating: 3
al gore was vice president for 8 long years and didn't do anything at all to protect the environment. for him to now say that no one else is doing it either is a bit rich.

but he did save us from manbearpig.... EXCELSIOR!
^^ that is all al gore will ever be for me. a good south park joke.


RE: who cares
By PaterPelligrino on 6/24/2011 12:58:08 AM , Rating: 4
Well obviously this is a leftwing feint to dupe us into thinking Obama isn't just another socialist trying to neuter the American male and send our tax dollars to Kenya. Gore knows that he is universally hated by all right-thinking Americans, so he's trying boost 'Bama's rep with the Republican voter who knows that the whole climate thing is just another George Soros plot to steal our women and destroy our will to oppose the World Communist Conspiracy to pollute our vital bodily fluids. I mean 'Bama is black and Soros is a Jew so it all makes sense right? Here just give me a few moments with my blackboard and these puppets and I can prove it to ya.


RE: who cares
By mikeyD95125 on 6/23/2011 3:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah Al Gore is a self serving A-hole, but you do know that human activity is causing very real changes in the climate of the planet, right?

I see a lot of people on this website put up posts claiming that human carbon emission as well as other forms of pollution have no impact at all. The research, and common sense proves otherwise.


RE: who cares
By JW.C on 6/23/2011 4:43:06 AM , Rating: 3
Humans do not have any substantial impact on the earths climate. Please educate yourself and stop buying into the flawed "research" that you are pointing to. It has been proven that the SUN and not man or the tiny amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is the cause for climate change.

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Only about 0.037 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide. Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively.

Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does. That is NOT enough to affect global temps!


RE: who cares
By AnnihilatorX on 6/23/2011 6:42:53 AM , Rating: 3
I don't pretend to know whether man made global warming is real or not. But I'd personally want to see emission from burning fossil fuel cut, and move on to cleaner energy sources. Even if warming is not caused by fossil fuels, I'd love to see the other types of pollution especially air pollution being cut down.

You quoted only 14% of CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning of fossil fuels. You know that half of the CO2 emitted is absorbed by the ocean? That made the fact that we contributes to 28% of extra CO2 in circulation? And there is significant evidence that, never mind the warming at the moment, coral reef ecosystems are under extreme pressure due to the rise in acidity due to CO2 dissolved in ocean.

I agree that carbon dioxide alone does not account for all the warming. You realize that water vapor, which is also significant in warming contribution, is also a significant product of the combustion of fossil fuel?

I don't like your attitude that you seem to know it all. You said it's proven the sun is the [major] cause of climate change. The fact is this is not proven. It's very debatable. Several papers has the contribution figure quoted as anywhere from 7%-50%, Benestad and Schmidt even argue that in 20th century the sun is only accountable for 7% of the warming. I am not saying they are correct, I am merely saying the issue is highly debatable.

quote:
# ^ Benestad,, R. E.; G. A. Schmidt (21 July 2009). "Solar trends and global warming". Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres 114. Bibcode 2009JGRD..11414101B. doi:10.1029/2008JD011639. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_... "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.".
Scafetta, N.; West, B. J. (2007). "Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere, surface temperature records since 1600". J. Geophys. Res. 112: D24S03. Bibcode 2007JGRD..11224S03S. doi:10.1029/2007JD008437. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008437... as PDF
Moberg, A; Sonechkin, DM; Holmgren, K; Datsenko, NM;
Karlén, W; Lauritzen, SE (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 433 (7026): 613–7. doi:10.1038/nature03265. PMID 15703742. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/mob...
Wang, Y.-M.; Lean, J. L.; Sheeley, Jr., N. R. (May 2005). "Modeling the Sun’s Magnetic Field and Irradiance since 1713". The Astrophysical Journal 625: 522–38. Bibcode 2005ApJ...625..522W. doi:10.1086/429689
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/... )
Scafetta, N.; West, B. J. (2006). "Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record". Geophys. Res. Lett. 33: L17718. Bibcode 2006GeoRL..3317718S. doi:10.1029/2006GL027142. http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0617/2006GL027142...


Your argument on atmospheric relative composition of the gases was pointless? If only 0.037% of the human population are millionaires, does that mean their contribution to society is negligible?


RE: who cares
By gmyx on 6/23/2011 7:41:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I don't pretend to know whether man made global warming is real or not. But I'd personally want to see emission from burning fossil fuel cut, and move on to cleaner energy sources. Even if warming is not caused by fossil fuels, I'd love to see the other types of pollution especially air pollution being cut down.


While I don't believe that we are the main reason behind GW, I believe we are a contributing factor. Having said that, reducing emissions will have long-term heath impacts by reducing air-borne pollution and particulate matter.


RE: who cares
By Arsynic on 6/23/2011 9:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
This idea is on the right track. We all want cleaner air and cleaner water and want to use less fossil fuels. We don't have to make up fantastical lies to get people to get onboard. Those reasons are good enough for the average American to become eco-aware and do their part.


RE: who cares
By kraeper on 6/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By SPOOFE on 6/23/2011 7:04:19 PM , Rating: 4
For every good cause, there's someone that takes it too far.

I grew up in LA during the '80s. I remember going for a half-mile walk and coming up with smoggy lungs, struggling for breath.

I'm all about nixing the pollution. I'm not exactly Mr. Rugged Outdoorsey type, but I enjoy a good hike or day trip to the mountains or desert or what-have-you. I think it's great that these exist, and I fully support the national/state park system and such.

With that in mind: I dislike having someone try to toy with my opinions and try to tie "general pollution concerns" with the doomsday prophecies or oft-exaggerated "the Himalayas are melting" nonsense of the anthropogenic climate change movements. The evidence showing the dangers of arsenic in the groundwater is clear; the evidence hovering around the Global Warming crowd is murky, inconsistent, and rife with politicization. We cannot derive much conclusion from it one way or the other. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to get the politics out of the study so we can develop a clear picture.


RE: who cares
By twhittet on 6/23/2011 5:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Ha - you think the average American gives a crap? I want to drive WHATEVER I want and it should use as MUCH gas as I can afford, cuz it's my damn money, keep your rules off me! Clean air kills jobs! The average American wants everything for nothing. I see that from plenty of posters here. Common sense would tell you reduced emissions is good people and the environment - global warming or no, but the "average American" just wants $1 gasoline for his SUV, to drive 3 hours total every day to work and back because he wants a huge house in the suburbs rather than actually living close to work.


RE: who cares
By B on 6/23/2011 2:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You realize that water vapor, which is also significant in warming contribution, is also a significant product of the combustion of fossil fuel?


Do you realize that 92 quadrillion gallons of water evaporate out of the oceans every year? Luckily there's the water cycle and the water condenses out of the atmosphere within a week to ten days.


RE: who cares
By 0ldman on 6/23/2011 11:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
I meant to hit 'worth reading' but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet this morning.

The numbers they're giving out for CO2 is quite comparable to telling people you just increased a homeless man's income by 3,000%. He's got a penny, you gave him $30. This is a windfall... that he can eat a couple of meals with.


RE: who cares
By nafhan on 6/23/2011 5:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
"Human carbon emissions" - you mean the stuff that every human (and animal) produces with every exhalation? The stuff that's at low to moderate levels historically in the Earth's atmosphere? Fighting pollution is great and everything, but claiming "carbon" as a pollutant has lead to a lot of wasted money IMO.


RE: who cares
By AnnihilatorX on 6/23/2011 6:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well arguably not. Warming aside, cutting pollution directly cuts CO2 and vice versa. Energy generating combustion process readily used by human with soot particles and other form of pollutants has CO2 as by products, with the only exception of extremely simple hydrocarbon such as methane where complete combustion is nearly guaranteed (no soot). So I don't care whether it's in the name of CO2 or air particulates, I'd love to see cars running not on fossil fuel.


RE: who cares
By nafhan on 6/23/2011 8:24:56 AM , Rating: 2
Your statement... I agree with. Reducing smog/soot and actual pollutants associated with dirty combustion is definitely worth doing. I was specifically talking about the pointlessness of cutting carbon emissions for the sake of cutting carbon emissions.


RE: who cares
By Ghost42 on 6/23/2011 11:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
Plant more trees..


RE: who cares
By Kurz on 6/24/2011 10:32:28 AM , Rating: 3
We already have very clean air compared to the beginning of the industral revolution.


RE: who cares
By MrBlastman on 6/23/2011 10:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'm lactose intolerant. As such, I'm a liability to Earth and everyone on it. As many extreme liberals would suggest--if something is a threat to our planet, it is bad, therefore, it must be eliminated.

Watch out, mass exterminations of lactose intolerant humans are coming...

I think I'll go drink another glass of milk now that I mention it. Ahhh... Is that ducks I hear quacking? Hmm... there another one. Is it getting warm in here?

As Duke Nukem would say to Al Gore (if Duke were real), "Your ass, your face... What's the difference?"


RE: who cares
By Skywalker123 on 6/24/2011 2:36:52 AM , Rating: 1
You're lactose intolerant? welcome to the club, most humans are. How is that a liability to Earth or anyone except dairy producers?


RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 8:27:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but you do know that human activity is causing very real changes in the climate of the planet, right?


No, actually we don't know that. And if it is, we don't know to what extent. We need scientific proof before we start claiming there's a "crisis", and right now we just don't have it.

quote:
The research


Gore's "Hockey Stick" was proven false, it deliberately massaged data to arrive at the conclusion. Last year we had Climategate, in where it was proved that every major study was tainted, because almost all Climate Change studies used their data. So in actuality, there is very little if any research that proves "Climate Change" even exists, much less is caused purely by man.

quote:
well as other forms of pollution have no impact at all.


Obviously every living thing on Earth causes SOME impact. That's not the debate here. Of course man, as the worlds most populated and dominant life form, causes ecological impacts. There's no way to change that. But the planet is not fragile, and we have been getting "greener" since the 1960's. Environmentalists want it to happen overnight, that's just not rational.

The issue is whether or not man is causing irreparable and life-threatening damage to the climate and Earth. Despite scare tactic after scare tactic, the science just does not support this claim. Global warming was a hoax, in fact, the Earth got cooler!


RE: who cares
By Iaiken on 6/23/2011 10:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
in fact, the Earth got cooler!


Actually, you can't say for sure either way as the solid empirical data only goes back to the 1800's.

So within recent history (relevant to us alive today), the temperature has risen from the median by around 0.5 degrees.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_...

Unfortunately, the changes are so small that relying on inaccurate historical records and estimates based on soil samples (which can be off +/- on either the temperature and time scales) are virtually useless when working with such small degrees of gradual change.

It's always been my position that we can't factually say either way beyond what solid data we have, and that the solid data we have is not a large enough body from which an accurate conclusion can be drawn.


RE: who cares
By JediJeb on 6/23/2011 1:15:10 PM , Rating: 4
This is exactly what the climate change preachers do not want to admit.

Also if you look at what they were saying back in the 90's then we should already be seeing huge changes in ocean levels on the scale of having much of New York flooded, but it hasn't happened. We should also have already seen much of our farm lands turned into deserts, which hasn't happened yet either. Their exponential rise in temperature that they have predicted has turned into a barely noticeable change in the last 10 years with a slight cooling taking place at some periods.

The Earth has been warmer in the past and I believe it will be warmer in the future than it is now. That has never led to the destruction of everything, and in fact at some of those time it has led to vast improvements to life on Earth. What we should be doing now is not wasting money trying to stop the inevitable, but studying how to adapt to whatever change will come. If we gamble that it is man caused and it is then we win, if we gamble it is man caused and it turns out to be a natural phenomena then we lose because we will not be ready to adapt.


RE: who cares
By tayb on 6/23/2011 8:41:09 AM , Rating: 3
Why don't you just admit that you have absolutely no clue. Because you have absolutely no clue.

There has been so much lies and so much manufactured and false data by the people trying to shove the idea of man made climate change down our throats that it is difficult to take real scientific evidence seriously any longer. The truth is that NO ONE, and I do mean absolutely NO ONE, has any idea what, if any, impact humanity is having on the environment or whether the supposed increase in atmospheric temperatures have ANYTHING to do with the actions of us driving SUVs.

I think it's a great idea to push alternative fuel sources, alternative forms of energy, and electric cars but it's not because I fear for the environment. It's because I fear for the world my children will grow up in if we can't climb our way out of a mound of $14,000,000,000,000 in debt and become self sustainable without a horrible reliance on foreign oil.

And why in the world would I possibly take someone serious who is one of the worlds biggest hypocrites? Even if he WAS buying carbon credits and becoming "neutral" that doesn't justify his actions. He's a hypocrite. A horrible hypocrite. Do as I say not as I do. As far as I am concerned anything that comes from his mouth should be completely ignored as complete nonsense or an attempt to generate more revenue. Either way it couldn't possibly be worth a damn.


RE: who cares
By fic2 on 6/23/2011 12:59:06 PM , Rating: 4
Carbon offsets - paying other people to not pollute so that you can.
My extreme analogy - having a child so that you can legally kill someone else.


RE: who cares
By JediJeb on 6/23/2011 1:17:36 PM , Rating: 3
Extreme, but more accurate than most are willing to admit.


RE: who cares
By JediJeb on 6/23/2011 1:19:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And why in the world would I possibly take someone serious who is one of the worlds biggest hypocrites? Even if he WAS buying carbon credits and becoming "neutral" that doesn't justify his actions. He's a hypocrite. A horrible hypocrite. Do as I say not as I do. As far as I am concerned anything that comes from his mouth should be completely ignored as complete nonsense or an attempt to generate more revenue. Either way it couldn't possibly be worth a damn.

If Al Gore tore down his mansions tomorrow and began living in a tent, then I might take him more seriously. If someone really has a passion about something then they will act on that passion. Seems Mr. Gore's passion is making money, not saving the environment.


RE: who cares
By SPOOFE on 6/23/2011 3:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
Tent, nothin'. Let's see him use no more than double what George W. Bush's mansion in Texas uses. This ain't no Dubya rah-rah, just saying that if you're using more juice than an oil man you probably shouldn't be talking about about "going green"...


RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 6:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Dude Al Gores's yacht uses more energy than W's whole ranch lol.

Cause, you know, every environmentalist needs his own 100+ foot personal mega yacht. That's how you hug the ocean and save whales!


RE: who cares
By chick0n on 6/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By TEAMSWITCHER on 6/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 8:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The evidence of global warming has never been refuted by any credible science publication or body.


It's called a "thermometer". You can't have "global warming" at the same time as a near record cooling trend.

quote:
In fact, the evidence for global warming is rock solid - 100%.


Umm bullshit. You got a link for that? 100% is a pretty strong claim. Why do I get the impression you're just talking out of your ass?

quote:
is that right now there may be a window of opportunity to avoid our fate


Yeah..nvm. You're ass-talking 100%.


RE: who cares
By BSMonitor on 6/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 10:44:39 AM , Rating: 2
We ARE talking about "man made global warming". I'm fully aware the cycle has been happening for tens of thousands of years, and even though that isn't the argument, it only further bolsters my position.

quote:
But Reclaimer has proven time and time again that he is incredibly narrow minded. Would not expect him to grasp something as great global climate patterns.


Nice attack on me, when in fact, you bring NOTHING tangible to the discussion except speculation, misinterpretation, and theory. And I like how you speak about me as if EVERYONE is an expert on "great global climate patterns", when obviously most people who make that their living can't even fully grasp it.

quote:
The question everyone is asking, are greenhouse gases, produced by heavy industry, automobiles, etc, speeding up the process??


They aren't. There, I just answered your question. I can say that because there isn't a single shred of unbiased evidence that it is.

quote:
The debate for this IS important.


I agree. Problem is, most of the time, it's not debated. It's treated as a far gone conclusion by people who's goal is to mandate social and political changes by whipping up fear and scare tactics. If you don't concede this has happened, you're far more narrow minded than you accuse me of.

quote:
Seriously?? Global Warming does not equate to every thermometer in every region of every land mass going up.


Now you're just being insulting. I didn't mean that and you goddamn well know I didn't. Fact is we have NOT seen average global temperatures rise anywhere CLOSE to any pro-global warming computer model or study. Remember the "hockey stick"!? It has NOT happened.

quote:
Who can know.


Brilliant.... I rest my case.


RE: who cares
By tayb on 6/23/2011 8:52:03 AM , Rating: 5
I guess you must have lived under a rock last year during the so-called "Climate Gate."

Quotes from the scientists involved.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. "

And I could go on. T
If you don't want your scientific research to be peer reviewed then it isn't worthy of being called scientific research. If you are manipulating data to come to a pre-defined conclusion that isn't scientific research it's propaganda. If you are colluding to seek out and REMOVE scientists with dissenting opinions that isn't scientific research.

I'm sorry but if you reach a conclusion before you start researching and pick and choose data to fill that conclusion you aren't following the scientific process. No wonder they declined peer review. And people like you expect me to just blindly believe this garbage simply because it came from a "scientist." alright then.


RE: who cares
By Arsynic on 6/23/2011 9:27:42 AM , Rating: 2
Scientific "consensus" does not make up for actual scientific proof. There is none. The CRU data that everyone of them references is severely suspect. The consensus consists of a cabal sucking on the teet of the political grant money gravy train. These scientists benefit financially from this so-called consensus made up mostly of scientists who aren't climatologists.

And what about the thousands of scientists who oppose this cabal? Why should they be ignored?


RE: who cares
By JediJeb on 6/23/2011 6:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
To add, there was an article here just last year about a prominent physicist who did not believe "Global Climate Change" and left the biggest international organization for physicists because they refused to allow the members who opposed Global Climate Change to publish any of their data in the official journal. They also would not even allow them to form any working group in which to discuss any anti global climate change ideas.

There was also a report put out by a pair of researchers last year that global climate change was in the process of killing off certain species of birds in the desert southwest of the US. But after looking into their report it was discovered they had already made the report, but were in the process of beginning to actually study the birds. That is not good scientific research to have your conclusion already published before your research even begins. When I was working on my Chemistry degree back twenty years ago, doing something like that would have gotten me dismissed from the university and most likely I would never have been able to get into another school or work in the field, seems today as long as you can publish something that goes with the flow you are more welcome than someone who actually does good science.


RE: who cares
By Dr of crap on 6/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 8:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
"Them vs Us" keeps the power balanced, in theory. When politicians start "working together", the only thing to work together on is spending MORE of our money on useless crap.

"Bi-partisanship" leads to exploding debt and spending levels.

The two party system isn't perfect, but it's the best thing around today.


RE: who cares
By Dr of crap on 6/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 10:50:27 AM , Rating: 2
If there were three of four parties in power, we would need three of four "houses" or "senates" in Congress.

Go read the Constitution. This country was BUILT on a two party system. It's the main vehicle of "checks and balances".

Frankly I find your attitude highly deplorable. So you won't vote, or participate in Government, until everything just works the way you want it to? If everyone did that, things would NEVER be the they wanted it. Did our Forefathers just sit in England and say "well, sooner or later, things will be the way we want them to here". Change requires action or force.

YOU and people like you are the reason things are the way they are. It's called "apathy", look it up.


RE: who cares
By The Raven on 6/23/2011 11:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are referring to the bicameral system and the combination of the three banches of gov't as the main vehicle of C&B.

The gov't was NEVER intended to be 2 party.

Can you see it now? "We the people...are either pro-choice and socialists or anti-gay rights and believe in the freemarket." I can't.
quote:
Frankly I find your attitude highly deplorable. So you won't vote, or participate in Government, until everything just works the way you want it to? If everyone did that, things would NEVER be the they wanted it. Did our Forefathers just sit in England and say "well, sooner or later, things will be the way we want them to here". Change requires action or force.
Yeah! Rock the vote, dude!</sarcasm>
His money does more about our gov't than his vote. But if he is going to give up his vote, I would ask that he vote Libertarian as a "big" ;-) FU to the two parties.
quote:
YOU and people like you are the reason things are the way they are. It's called "apathy", look it up.
I agree that apathy is a big problem in this country and the world at large, but your attitude re: the 2-party system sounds almost just as effectively apathetic IMHO. At least he is willing to symbolically take power from the gov't, where you propose to bolster the 2 antagonists. I'm not trying to put you down, that is just the way I see it from my point of view.


RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 12:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I just can't abide someone who complains about the way things are, then says he "refuses" to vote until things just magically fix themselves to his liking. That's lazy and apathetic.

I know a single vote is hardly a sword of light, able to cut through the darkness and despair, but it's more than doing NOTHING.

quote:
At least he is willing to symbolically take power from the gov't


What? How is he doing that, exactly? By paying taxes and NOT voting, he's GIVING them more power.


RE: who cares
By Dr of crap on 6/23/2011 12:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
First - all politicians do is blame the other side, and try and keep their elected office.

Second - they take bribes, free and legal mid you, to vote the way the money givers want them to.

Thrid - number two above keeps the politicans from voting like his constituents wanted him to when they voted him into office!!!!

By the way, not that I have to explain myself the the lowly reclaimer77, I voted for Ross Perot, and I have voted for any other party on the ballot rather than pick any republican or demacrat.

The political system we have is in no way what the ones who drew this up wanted it to be.

What have you done to change things? Easy to blame someone for not doing anything; harder to do it yourself!

And while I have your attention, Do you like to have every TV and radio comercial, every billboard covered with political ads when its election time? Not to mention the crap load of yard signs that make me want to rip them all out and build a bonfire. You know that the ones that has the most yard sign and ads gets the most votes don't you? How is that a good way to pick the best one for office.
"I'll vote for him, because my neighbors all have his name on their lawns." And don't think for one minute this doesn't happen
How is all that even sane or "green"? Hell you can't even get elected if you don't spend MILLIONS. And our govt GIVES out money to the candidates to run for office!
WAY MESSED UP!
My take on the bulls$$t is to stay out of it all.


RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 1:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way, not that I have to explain myself the the lowly reclaimer77


That's lowly Reclaimer77 to you, spell it right.


RE: who cares
By adiposity on 6/23/2011 12:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What? How is he doing that, exactly? By paying taxes and NOT voting, he's GIVING them more power.


At any given time, he's only giving power to one party or the other...whoever has more votes at the time. I suppose that's an oversimplification, but basically, voting has a legitimizing effect on candidates. If you equally hate both candidates, you can do worse than to vote for neither.

Personally, I think you should vote for Ron Paul or Nader or something just to make a statement, but even doing that kind of suggests you support the system, and are ok with the result of the vote. On the other hand, if only 15% of the country are still voting, it sends a message that the system is broken and not accepted by the populace.

For the record, I do vote every election, and I'm not advocating not voting. But voting actually lends credence to the government, not the other way around. By voting you symbolically accept the system of choosing officials, and therefore the result as valid and fair.


RE: who cares
By The Raven on 6/24/2011 11:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally, I think you should vote for Ron Paul or Nader or something just to make a statement, but even doing that kind of suggests you support the system, and are ok with the result of the vote. On the other hand, if only 15% of the country are still voting, it sends a message that the system is broken and not accepted by the populace.

Good, but don't generalize about the whole system... It is the 2-party one that is the problem. And that exists because only a minority of the population seem to think that it is even a problem.

So how about this...
quote:
Personally, I think you should vote for John McCain or Obama or something just to make a statement, but even doing that kind of suggests you support the 2-party system, and are ok with the result of the vote. On the other hand, if only 15% of the country are still voting in the 2-party system , it sends a message that the 2-party system is broken and not accepted by the populace.


RE: who cares
By adiposity on 6/24/2011 2:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Two party system exists because it is winner take all. This guarantees a two party system. We don't have proportional representation, so if you get 30% of the vote and someone else gets 31%, you get nothing. This leads to coalitions that represent approximately half the voters. A third party can never truly exist because they will get nothing, and eventually they will have to throw their support to one side or the other or their vote is meaningless. The two parties don't have to be today's two parties, but it will always gravitate towards two.

This has nothing to do with the voters. They cannot change the math of elections. It has to do with the structure designed by the founders.


RE: who cares
By The Raven on 6/27/2011 11:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
Though I agree at least partially with your explanation of why we have a 2-party system, I disagree that there is nothing that the voters can do. I mean, take local elections as examples. 3rd party candidates regularly get elected. And look at Ross Perot's run where he ate up ~20% of the vote when everyone was saying, "No 3rd party can succeed." (Just think if they hadn't said that.) And further back, look at Ted Roosevelt as a Progressive besting Taft (R) candidate [but losing to Wilson (D)].

The fact is that we are all too jaded that we continuously say, "No 3rd party can win" and then making that a self fulfilling prophesy. Look outside the box and demand change.


RE: who cares
By JediJeb on 6/23/2011 6:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there were three of four parties in power, we would need three of four "houses" or "senates" in Congress. Go read the Constitution. This country was BUILT on a two party system. It's the main vehicle of "checks and balances".


Actually that is far from the truth. George Washington said the worse thing that could happen to the country is the formation of political parties. The fact is as long as he was president no political parties existed. Though shortly after he left office they began to form. As for not getting anything done with out political parties, if you look at it our congress probably made more progress than it ever has during those first eight years when Washington was president.

The first parties were the Federalist Party and the Anti Federalist Party. Then came the Democratic-Republican Party followed by the Toleration Party and the Anti Masonic Party, then the formation of the Democratic Party followed a few years later by the National Republican Party which later became the Whig Party which became the American Republican Party which eventually became the Republican Party of today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_par...

The list of parties is huge, though only a few became dominant at any one time.

In my opinion, an it is only that, my opinion, I believe George Washington was right to believe we should not have any parties at all. People with differing ideas and ideals will flock to the politicians who hold to matching ideas and ideals, but if no parties existed there would be less infighting and we would be electing those who best represent the beliefs of the majority of American citizens. As it currently is we usually elect one of the two choices we have that somewhat comes close to what we believe. Why not instead of having primaries just have all those candidates appear on the final ballot in November and let us chose then who we want? No party, no affiliation, just each candidate standing on their own record and ideals.


RE: who cares
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 6:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
I would LOVE that. But short of another Revolutionary War, I don't see how it's ever going to happen. So I guess there's no point in wishing for it.

The only thing about having no parties is, without them, everyone would just say whatever they thought you wanted to hear to get elected. At least with parties you have some idea of what the persons ideology and beliefs are, and how he will vote when he gets to Washington. If for no other reason than he will probably be pressured to vote the "party line" by his peers.


RE: who cares
By rdawise on 6/23/2011 9:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only thing about having no parties is, without them, everyone would just say whatever they thought you wanted to hear to get elected.


Umm...that's what they do today in the current system.
quote:
At least with parties you have some idea of what the persons ideology and beliefs are, and how he will vote when he gets to Washington. If for no other reason than he will probably be pressured to vote the "party line" by his peers.


So you advocate have leaders who vote off mere "peer pressure"? Face it, the only reason you want a 2 party system is to keep the current gang mentality of "he's wearing red so he must be right!".

Do away with the partisan system research candidates. Let them stand on their own.


RE: who cares
By zinfamous on 6/23/2011 2:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
everything has been a lie or exaggeration?

everything?

no. not at all.

it's easy to disprove the things you find uncomfortable when you seek to find such claims that support your bias.

no one wants their core beliefs challenged these days. which is sad.


RE: Time to face the facts and stop living in denial
By JW.C on 6/23/2011 4:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
Climate changing carbon it produces? My god man stop listening to the idiots that are screaming about how man is the cause of climate change. We do NOT produce enough CO2 to make any sort of impact on the global climate. The fact is that man made CO2 only accounts for 14% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 makes up only 0.037% of the atmosphere, of that only 0.0051% is man made.

Please stop listening to the idiots and check out the numbers for yourself


By BansheeX on 6/23/2011 5:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
Someone still needs to explain to me how the little ice age could have happened before man started burning fossil fuels and reproducing to the likes of 6 billion. Greenland was colonized and then abandoned during this time because of a 7 degree Fahrenheit temp change over only 80 years.

http://www.livescience.com/14381-ice-age-viking-de...


By JW.C on 6/23/2011 5:23:31 AM , Rating: 4
The thing that bothers me is that these global warming fanatics refuse to acknowledge the fact that we are actually still in an ice age. The average global temp is 14.2C and we are in an interglacial period. When the ice age was at its peak, global temps were 12C. Before the ice age the average global temp was 22C. Thats far above what we currently have and even when it was 22C the world survived.

No, the sun is the cause of global climate change, man has little to no impact. Even now there are studies that point out the fact that the suns activity seems to be slowing down. Its entirely possible that should the activity drop off like it did in the 1600s we could very well see years with almost no warming between winters.


By kattanna on 6/23/2011 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Someone still needs to explain to me how the little ice age could have happened


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

it happened most likely because of a complete lack of sun spots. when the sun enters low periods of activity it allows more interstellar cosmic rays to reach earth which in turn create more cloud cover. with an increase in clouds the earth receives less of the suns radiation, because it is reflected back by the clouds. with less radiation reaching the ground you will get a net cooling effect as the oceans will have absorbed less heat and therefore have less heat to transport around the globe.

and currently it is looking like we might just be entering such a period again.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/11061...

another way the sun directly effects the earths magnetosphere

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229988-New-Maund...

and talk of a new maunder minimum


By tng on 6/23/2011 11:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and talk of a new maunder minimum


Seen that one. Scientists really don't understand how the suns cycles work and the recent decline in activity has allot of them scrambling for new theories.

If the global temps continue to decline and we slip into what could be considered a little ice age, there will still be those who will blame man for profit... (Al Gore).

If you want to know what Al is all about look at his personal worth before and after he started the whole global warming campaign. It is the about the money, not saving the earth.


By Ghost42 on 6/23/2011 11:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
Good Luck with that.. It's like Adam & Eve & Dinosaurs..


By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 8:48:48 AM , Rating: 3
People like you wont support domestic drilling, though. So don't give me that "foreign oil sucks money out of our pockets line". You clearly don't support using ANY oil from anyone.


By tayb on 6/23/2011 8:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
There is no such thing as a quick solution to our energy problems. We need sustained HUGE investments in internal energy plans and we need to open up areas of the US for drilling that were previously closed off. We should be cutting money EVERYWHERE to fund research into alternative energy. Every penny we spend we'll get back tenfold if we can wean our way off of foreign oil but it isn't going to be a quick fix and that is what most people don't understand. It will take 20-30 years.


Overpopulation hypocrite
By fishman on 6/23/2011 7:08:39 AM , Rating: 3
Gore has been speaking out against overpopulation. Once again it is a Gore "do as I say, not as I do" moment, since he has four kids.




RE: Overpopulation hypocrite
By AdrianJudd on 6/23/2011 7:20:00 AM , Rating: 1
This doesn't mean overpopulation isn't a problem.


RE: Overpopulation hypocrite
By espaghetti on 6/23/2011 10:18:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This doesn't mean overpopulation isn't a problem.

Another genocide speech?
Damn! Good job Adolf. Welcome back. What group of people should we kill next? Doesn't matter? Oh I thought you were Hitler. Couldn't see the horns on your head Lucifer.


RE: Overpopulation hypocrite
By JediJeb on 6/23/2011 6:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it doesn't, but a calculation was done which shows if you were to give every single person in the world a 2meter by 2 meter area to stand in and place those areas side by side, the total world population would only fill one county of one state in the US. That is a very tiny speck compared to the total area of land in the world.

Overpopulation isn't the problem, it is the waste of food and resources that is the problem. We currently produce enough food to feed twice the population we have now if we didn't waste some much of it.


Obama failed to address climate change indeed
By indignation on 6/23/2011 1:50:45 AM , Rating: 3
He didn't stop Al Gore from using so much energy.




By izmanq on 6/23/2011 3:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
He should send SEAL5 to get Al Gore :D


Cmon
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2011 9:12:26 AM , Rating: 3
Where's the obligatory ManBearPig picture.

Because that's about all he's good for. He'd do a lot more good for the planet if his massive hulk was ground up for fertilizer or fed to pigs so I can get my bacon.




How Can Obama Fight Something That Doesn't Exist?!!
By Arsynic on 6/23/2011 9:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
I hate Obama because he isn't fighting the Purple People Eater!!!




By FITCamaro on 6/23/2011 11:58:08 AM , Rating: 1
He took care of the alien monster that makes successful men sleep around.


Statistics
By RedemptionAD on 6/23/2011 11:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.




...
By wookie1 on 6/23/2011 12:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Al, don't go away mad - just go away.




Manbearpig
By 91TTZ on 6/23/2011 2:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Manbearpig




Nobel peace prize?
By Breathless on 6/23/2011 6:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Are "cum-advocate" liberals the only ones that win nobel peace prizes?




Al Gore
By consilience on 6/24/2011 11:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
It surprises me that the posters here don't show more respect to the author of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 which gave many of you digital ditch diggers jobs and you video gamers free porn to masterbate to. It does not surprise me, however, that you think you know more about climate change than does the Nation Academy of Science. As Darwin (and others) have said, self confidence comes more often from ignorance than knowledge.




By Miqunator on 6/24/2011 4:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless how much of the climate change is caused by us having this guy fly around in private jets and buying huge mansions certainly isn't going to make things better.

I doubt Gore cares about it anyway, he found out you can make huge amount of cash going all sensationalist about it and he isn't going to stop 'til the money stops. In a way he really is a true American eh? (sorry about that last part)




Terms Have Changed
By Radiomachine on 6/24/2011 8:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming is so passe, now it's called climate change, so whether it gets hotter or colder, it can be blamed on human industrialism, the ultimate cover your arse. Funny how we laugh at the preacher who predicts the end of the world but are supposed to take clowns like Gore seriously.




By CharonPDX on 6/23/2011 1:12:49 PM , Rating: 1
Shouldn't this ridiculously biased drivel be under "Opinion", rather than "Science News"? I stopped reading when I saw "global warming" in quotes.




Its so simple
By Freezetron on 6/23/11, Rating: 0
Biased
By DirtyHarry69 on 6/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: Biased
By Dr of crap on 6/23/2011 8:57:04 AM , Rating: 1
Do you feel lucky punk, well do you?

You made my day!


RE: Biased
By Arsynic on 6/23/2011 9:36:38 AM , Rating: 1
A "scientific consensus" also said that the Earth was the center of the universe! Thanks for "deniers" like Galileo or we'd still be slaves to "consensus" rather than irrefutable scientific facts.

There are no irrefutable scientific facts that prove global warming. The data has been massaged and manipulated.


RE: Biased
By JediJeb on 6/24/2011 9:45:16 AM , Rating: 1
Actually many of us here are scientists or have a science background. I may not be a "Climatologist" but as a Chemist I do know quite a bit about how to interpret data and design experiments.

One big name Global Warming expert gets on the Discovery Channel in a documentary and shows two graphs. Both graphs begin low and rapidly increase in value. One is global temperatures the other is CO2 levels. He makes a big deal about how it shows that CO2 levels are increasing and so are temperatures therefore a rise in CO2 must be causing warming temperatures. What it conveniently does not point out is a simple thing that anyone who studies cause and effect in scientific research should notice first off. That little fact is that his graphs show that global temperatures begin to rise years before the CO2 levels begin to rise. Any scientist worth his degree would interpret that to show that rising temperatures is the driving force behind rising CO2 levels, not the other way around. This guy is honest with showing his true data to the world which I applaud, but because most of his audience does not have a scientific background they do not catch the error in his conclusion based on his research.

Now this is only one set of results for one person's research, yet the pro global warming community embrace him because he is preaching exactly what they want people to hear. This is not to say all of the research is this way or that everyone has made incorrect conclusions, but it makes me wonder about the intentions of the people who use the data to promote policies and if they are making sure all the data stands up to close scrutiny and they are honest about making policy based on accurate data and conclusions or just making policy and picking data that supports it.


Ad hominem is nice, but
By superstition on 6/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By SPOOFE on 6/23/2011 1:35:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Al Gore may be the world's biggest hypocrite and that doesn't mean his work to raise awareness for climate change is necessarily worthless.

It indicates he doesn't believe it, which is a sure sign everybody should ignore anything he says. His words are pure marketing spin, designed to drive his profits. It's not different than when Steve Jobs insists his products are "magical", or when Pop Tarts claim to be "part of a complete breakfast".


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By Amiga500 on 6/23/2011 4:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed.

If he was serious, he would be reducing his carbon output, and funneling the profits back into R&D for technologies to reduce CO2/MH4 etc emissions.

Things like non-electrolysis based H2 production, improving fuel cell efficiency or working on other alternative means of energy storage - so things like windmills become more practical alternatives to coal/oil/gas fired power stations (don't get me started on the nuclear option - the hippies hypocrisy is breathtaking).


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By superstition on 6/23/2011 6:08:10 PM , Rating: 1
"Indeed.

If he was serious, he would be reducing his carbon output"

Indeed, this does not rebut what I said.

As I said, Al Gore may be the world's least green environmentalist, the world's biggest hypocrite (or not) -- but that doesn't prove that the majority of the information in his global warming talks is meritless.

Ad hominem can sometimes be useful as a shortcut (a heuristic). But, shooting the messenger to avoid the message is a common tactic -- one that fits exactly with my appraisal of humanity's chances (see the rabbits in Australia) as this sort of strategy dominates.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By PaterPelligrino on 6/24/2011 12:51:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I said, Al Gore may be the world's least green environmentalist, the world's biggest hypocrite (or not) -- but that doesn't prove that the majority of the information in his global warming talks is meritless.


It's called the genetic fallacy . The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is based solely on something's origin rather than its inherent meaning or significance. For example, that T.S.Eliot was a obnoxious twit doesn't in any way detract from his brilliant poetry; nor is Picasso's misogyny relevant when evaluating his art.

In any case, surely you know that people don't argue fact in these forums, they argue conviction. It is one of the curious characteristics of human reasoning that cherished beliefs always take precedence over fact.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By ekv on 6/24/2011 2:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, shooting the messenger to avoid the message is a common tactic
A certain messenger got "shot" some 2000 years ago and the scandal is worse today than then. Today, however I'd have to say it depends on who you're "shooting". If it were the corpulent punchinello Al Gore who gets Bork'd then arrogance and hyper-politicization stands a good chance of being reduced . I have my biases but I think we all agree there needs to be a continued search for true truth.
quote:
one that fits exactly with my appraisal of humanity's chances
In the end you're going to believe what you will believe. I don't necessarily see the rabbit analogy as fitting ... though your suggestion of dire consequences is readily apparent. Indeed, there is also the flip side, in that dire consequences can result if Al's policies are enacted .


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By superstition on 6/23/2011 5:54:04 PM , Rating: 1
You need to understand what the ad hominem fallacy is in order to understand my post.

And, before you claim to know what it is, re-read your response to me and compare it with the definition and what I said.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By espaghetti on 6/23/2011 8:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's your forced collective view of the world that pisses me off.
You sound like some benevolent emperor snob.
quote:
But, in any case, I don't see humans as being willing to make the dramatic changes necessary to slow down the process.

I am a free individual. I disagree with you.
Get down from you throne.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2011 8:52:37 AM , Rating: 1
Of course, he's a liberal.

When we see a problem we think "how can I change to fix it". Liberals like him think "how can we make everyone ELSE change".

quote:
It's your forced collective view of the world that pisses me off.


Without even realizing it, probably, you exactly hit the nail on the head. 'Forced collectivism' is exactly what they're all about.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By espaghetti on 6/23/2011 10:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
I have no Homer Simpson in me.
We do not need to be herded like sheep.
I am not part of the Borg. Use whatever analogy you want.
Piece by piece these people think they can entice people to join their way of life...
It is the road to serfdom or outright slavery.
Don't Tread On Me.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By PaterPelligrino on 6/24/2011 2:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer77

Of course, he's a liberal. When we see a problem we think "how can I change to fix it". Liberals like him think "how can we make everyone ELSE change".


Still thinking in black and white cartoons eh Reclaimer. Don't you think the world is just possibly a mite more complicated than that? Reducing your opponent's position to a silly caricature automatically invalidates anything of importance you might have to say on the issue.

quote:
espaghetti

I have no Homer Simpson in me. We do not need to be herded like sheep. I am not part of the Borg. Use whatever analogy you want. Piece by piece these people think they can entice people to join their way of life...It is the road to serfdom or outright slavery. Don't Tread On Me.


Slogans instead of thought. You sound like a license plate. However, from the dumb and reductive simplicity of that argument, I think you have more Homer Simpson in you than you realize.

So here we have two examples of what passes for thought on the Right: liberals are Borg who see all problems as an excuse to do nothing themselves while enslaving everyone else - neat trick that - to the hive mentality, while conservatives are freedom-loving, independent souls who, when faced with a problem, exhibit that good-ol' 'roll up our shirtsleeves and let's fix it' American spirit. (Tho I can think of many examples where the preferred conservative response would seem to be, 'if it means I have to make any sacrifice, let's just deny there is a problem'.)

Seeing that the political debate in the States is just a simple choice of good conservatives versus evil liberals, it's amazing there are any liberals at all.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By superstition on 6/23/2011 6:04:37 PM , Rating: 1
Another completely inept bit of insult coupled with the absence of a rebuttal.

People other than "liberals" can understand fallacies like ad hominem, and what their limitations are.

As I wrote before, while credibility can be important (mainly as a heuristic shortcut), what really matters is the factuality -- the content of the message rather than the messenger.

As with Assange, the overemphasis on character is used to distract people with emotionalism -- distract them from the more important substantive debate.

I'm not sure why I bothered to write a thoughtful response to yours, but the same thing goes for posting on this site in the first place. The rating system serves bias and ignorance too often.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By praktik on 6/23/2011 8:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent post.

This approach needs to be taught in grade school and hammered home year-in-year out: hey it's cool to disagree with people, you know, the magic of democracy and the marketplace of ideas and all.

But don't act like you've done anything other than be lazy if all you do is drop an ad hom and then pat yourself on the back like you just dropped some serious wisdom.

All you dropped was an actual argument, something which a logical fallacy - by definition - isn't.

So ya, hate on who you want. But your hate on will be better targeted, better argued and harder to defeat if you can direct your hate on down a path of logical argumentation.

That you know, uses evidence, critical thinking - and maybe - just a bit of patience.


RE: Ad hominem is nice, but
By superstition on 6/23/2011 5:56:03 PM , Rating: 1
More ad hominem and empty rhetoric don't add up to a rebuttal.

You need to understand what the ad hominem fallacy is in order to understand my post.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki