Adam Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Al Gore dropped out of Divinity School which is something he apparently has in common with Casanova, Tom Cruise, Michael Moore and Joseph Stalin. Now, that in and of itself doesn't make him a bad man - nor a moron. Here's what the right-wing smear machine mouthpiece - The Washington Post had to say about his intellect as well as him dropping out of Law School and Divinity School. Here's Wolf Blitzer interviewing him where he utters the famous quote - about 53 seconds in. Ok, so he screwed up and didn't say what he means. Obama has done the same, so did Bush and countless others. Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Ok, so he screwed up and didn't say what he means. Obama has done the same, so did Bush and countless others. Who cares? Well, hey - you asked. As to him not saying what he meant - I think he's a chronic liar. That's my opinion and you're entitled to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Flawless logic. Belief confirmed. Mission Accomplished. Still waiting for an explanation of how I am wrong!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Climate change is natural. Here's 100 reasons why. Enjoy!http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 You keep repeating that the debate is not settled yet, but the people who are espousing global warming have been exposed as frauds who are fixing their data. To me the debate is over. Algore lied How cute, another stalker. Do I have a bullseye on my back? The emails being circulated represent a very small sample of cherry-picked emails from the "hacked" set. They were possibly edited. None of the "hacked" data even remotely points to a larger conspiracy. None of the "hacked" data gives evidence that data was falsified. Basically, none of the "hacked" data shows scientists behaving outside of the bounds of how scientists normally behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I have seen very convincing arguments both ways that are well above my ability to refute- I am wise enough to know that I am not smart enough to know. Not at this point, at least. The thing that gets me though, is if the CO2 is causing all the problems, why has no effort been put into removing it from the atmosphere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I have seen very convincing arguments both ways that are well above my ability to refute- I am wise enough to know that I am not smart enough to know. Not at this point, at least. It's a wise man that knows his own ignorance. ("Ignorance" meant in its most non-judgemental sense, of course.) The thing that gets me though, is if the CO2 is causing all the problems, why has no effort been put into removing it from the atmosphere? A variety of reasons, mostly amounting to "It's not exactly an easy thing to do". Efficient CO2 cycles (photosynthesis - basically, trees) are slow, fast cycles are inefficient (e.g. design a system that takes CO2 out of the air that doesn't use so much energy that it ends up putting more CO2 in the air than it removes), and when you're talking about concentrations of tenths of a percent, a technical solution is probably very energy-intensive to begin with (analogous to trying to take the salt out of sea water - no one does that on a large scale, because it's easier to take the water out of the sea water and leave the salt behind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 It's a wise man that knows his own ignorance. ("Ignorance" meant in its most non-judgemental sense, of course.) A variety of reasons, mostly amounting to "It's not exactly an easy thing to do". Efficient CO2 cycles (photosynthesis - basically, trees) are slow, fast cycles are inefficient (e.g. design a system that takes CO2 out of the air that doesn't use so much energy that it ends up putting more CO2 in the air than it removes), and when you're talking about concentrations of tenths of a percent, a technical solution is probably very energy-intensive to begin with (analogous to trying to take the salt out of sea water - no one does that on a large scale, because it's easier to take the water out of the sea water and leave the salt behind). It just burns me we have the technology to make the most ridiculous weaponry ever and we are talking about making clean energy vehicles and all that, but we can't come up with a way to clean up the atmosphere. Maybe if we took the video games away from the kids, they'd have the time to figure it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 It just burns me we have the technology to make the most ridiculous weaponry ever and we are talking about making clean energy vehicles and all that, but we can't come up with a way to clean up the atmosphere. Maybe if we took the video games away from the kids, they'd have the time to figure it out! Look at it this way: you're equating with the ability to control energies on the level of a moving car with the ability to control the energy of the planet's atmosphere. The scales of the two problems differ by more than a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend my posts to their patients who read posts * - Taken from Steely Dan's sig block Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 How cute, another stalker. Do I have a bullseye on my back? The emails being circulated represent a very small sample of cherry-picked emails from the "hacked" set. They were possibly edited. None of the "hacked" data even remotely points to a larger conspiracy. None of the "hacked" data gives evidence that data was falsified. Basically, none of the "hacked" data shows scientists behaving outside of the bounds of how scientists normally behave. You don't believe it, so it's not true. Now I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 You don't believe it, so it's not true. Now I understand. Nothing I wrote is subjective, but your response illustrates why it was not worth explaining (to you) in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Nothing I wrote is subjective, but your response illustrates why it was not worth explaining (to you) in the first place. why should you? Everything you read that doesn't fit your POV is "anectodal". Oh and this is "subjective" None of the "hacked" data even remotely points to a larger conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php Wait...you mean to say that almost all climatologists who actively publish share a belief that they are required to hold to be actively published???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Nothing I wrote is subjective Subjectively speaking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 why should you? Everything you read that doesn't fit your POV is "anectodal". Oh and this is "subjective" No, anecdotal implies a "story that happened to me" or a "story I heard about". The reason anecdotal evidence is not very good is because human memory is both fallible and selective. Also an anecdote is a single data point and therefore misses the big picture. Evidence of a greater conspiracy is missing here. Please feel free to prove me wrong. Good evidence is not subjective, nor is my assertion that good evidence of a greater conspiracy is lacking here. In general, when you start talking about "larger conspiracies", you may want to take off the tinfoil hat an rethink your position. It's not just my opinion, there are reasons for this. You can look to many of the 911 Truth movement conspiracy arguments for reference. Basically, the more people who need to be aware of a conspiracy to make it work, the less plausible the conspiracy becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 No, anecdotal implies a "story that happened to me" or a "story I heard about". The reason anecdotal evidence is not very good is because human memory is both fallible and selective. Also an anecdote is a single data point and therefore misses the big picture. Evidence of a greater conspiracy is missing here. Please feel free to prove me wrong. Good evidence is not subjective, nor is my assertion that good evidence of a greater conspiracy is lacking here. In general, when you start talking about "larger conspiracies", you may want to take off the tinfoil hat an rethink your position. It's not just my opinion, there are reasons for this. You can look to many of the 911 Truth movement conspiracy arguments for reference. Basically, the more people who need to be aware of a conspiracy to make it work, the less plausible the conspiracy becomes. If you would of said The hacked data doesn't prove that there is a larger conspiracy then that would of been correct. However you said "None of the 'hacked' data even remotely points to a larger conspiracy." The three key words that you used that are incorrect are None, remotely and points. The fact that they were trying to conceal temperature data dispels the usage of none, and it certainly does remotely point in the direction that there could be a conspiracy to hide the scientific data to prove their points. There is no objective way that you could argue this, however, you could subjectively disagree with what I just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 If you would of said The hacked data doesn't prove that there is a larger conspiracy then that would of been correct. However you said "None of the 'hacked' data even remotely points to a larger conspiracy." The three key words that you used that are incorrect are None, remotely and points. The fact that they were trying to conceal temperature data dispels the usage of none, and it certainly does remotely point in the direction that there could be a conspiracy to hide the scientific data to prove their points. There is no objective way that you could argue this, however, you could subjectively disagree with what I just said. Whatever. It's wordplay and doesn't really change the fact that there is no good evidence of a larger conspiracy. I should be more selective with my phrasing when arguing minutia with such a towering intellect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts