Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film
View Poll Results: Global Warming:
Exists - It's caused by man
26
40.00%
Exists - It's a purely natural process
27
41.54%
Hoax - It doesn't exist
6
9.23%
Twikoff is warming and he must be stopped/other
6
9.23%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

The One and Only Global Warming Thread ptII - hosted by movielib

Old 03-19-07, 01:19 PM
  #1  
Admin-Thanos
Thread Starter
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,582
The One and Only Global Warming Thread ptII - hosted by movielib

Continued from The Original One and Only Global Warming Thread

Added bonus poll for your pleasure.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 01:24 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
OK, I'm going to start this thread with my last post:

I just had an idea. Anyone know if members of a senate committe can "donate" their time to another member? If so, I think every Republican should donate his or her time to Inhofe. I understand they all want to make the news but Inhofe would be so much better than any of the others. And five minutes for each of the others? They'll barely get a chance to get going.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 01:25 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Ironically, I cannot vote in the poll. All the choices are too absolute.

It exists and there are natural and human components. The human component is a very small part of it.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 01:28 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Not enough options in the poll

Therefore I refuse to participate.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 02:00 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Could we add a 'combination of man & natural process' response to the poll?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 02:02 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Originally Posted by classicman2
Could we add a 'combination of man & natural process' response to the poll?
How about "predominantly natural," "predominantly human" and "about equal"?
movielib is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 02:20 PM
  #7  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
How about an option for Gore knowingly is hyping it for personal gain?
bhk is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 02:32 PM
  #8  
Admin-Thanos
Thread Starter
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,582
I was floating about 20 different ideas for the poll in my head before I posted it.

I had:

A) Global Warming Exists, it's all man's fault and we have to do something about immediately before the ice caps melt and we're flooded in.
B) Global Warming Exists and it's caused by man and there's nothing we can do about it.
C) Global Warming Exists, but I don't want to do anything about it because it will hurt the economy.
D) Global Warming Exists and I think something should be done about it but only hurting the economy a little.
E) Global Warming might exist, I'm not sure.
F) Global Warming Exists, it's natural and we have to do something about immediately before the ice caps melt and we're flooded in.
G) Global Warming Exists and it's natural and there's nothing we can do about it.
H) Global Warming doesn't exist.
I) twikoff exists and I'm not going to put up with it anymore!

The way I see it, there are 2 competing concepts to global warming, well 3 really.

A) Does it exist?
B) Does man have anything to do with it/fix it?
C) How much are you willing to mess with the global economy to fix the planet if you even agree with A or B?

I just settled on the 4 I listed. I'm sure a lot of people will pick twikoff and that's fine.

In all fairness, I probably should have titled this one "movelib's GW thread" since you're the one most interested in this subject.

Last edited by VinVega; 03-19-07 at 03:19 PM.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 02:37 PM
  #9  
Admin-Thanos
Thread Starter
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,582
Originally Posted by classicman2
Not enough options in the poll

Therefore I refuse to participate.
It's never stopped you before.

Seriously though, I generally stay out of this kind of debate because I'm not as well versed in it as the debunkers here and I find it a little pointless on a personal level. Oh for the record, I haven't even seen Gore's movie either.
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 03:11 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Originally Posted by VinVega
In all fairness, I probably should have titled this one "movelib's GW thread" since you're the one most interested in this subject.
Would you? I feel proprietary about it.

Really.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 03:17 PM
  #11  
Admin-Thanos
Thread Starter
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,582
Originally Posted by movielib
Would you? I feel proprietary about it.

Really.
Done!
VinVega is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 03:18 PM
  #12  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,854
Originally Posted by bhk
How about an option for Gore knowingly is hyping it for personal gain?
I thought that's what 'twikoff' was for.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 03:28 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Originally Posted by VinVega
Done!
Thanks!
movielib is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 05:26 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Researchers Question Validity of a 'Global Temperature'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0315101129.htm
Science Daily — Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called 'global temperature'. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.

Average without meaning

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'.

If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

Many averages

A further problem with the extensive use of 'the global temperature' is that there are many ways of calculating average temperatures.

Example 1: Take two equally large glasses of water. The water in one glass is 0 degrees, in the other it is 100 degrees. Adding these two numbers and dividing by two yields an average temperature of 50 degrees. That is called the arithmetic average.

Example 2: Take the same two glasses of water at 0 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. Now multiply those two numbers and take the square root, and you will arrive at an average temperature of 46 degrees. This is called the geometric average. (The calculation is done in degrees Kelvin which are then converted back to degrees Celsius.)

The difference of 4 degrees is the energy which drives all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.

Claims of disaster?

These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out.

What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth.

Reference: C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. vol. 32, p. 1-27 (2007).

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Copenhagen.
Birrman54 is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 05:43 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...mo_code=2F33-1

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:41 a.m. EDT

John Kerry Starts 'Global Warming' Book Tour

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts kicked off a 10-city global warming book tour on Monday, promoting a cause whose most high-profile advocate, Democrat Al Gore, also lost a presidential race to George. W. Bush.

"This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future" by Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, will be released on March 26.

"As a society, we are sliding dangerously backwards in almost every sector of environmental concern," Kerry said in a statement about the book. "Even caring about the environment has been marginalized in recent years by a calculated assault from special interests.

"Teresa and I are writing this book because we share a sense of urgency about the need to reinvigorate grassroots action which takes these concerns into the ballot box," he said. "This book shows what a lot of individuals are doing in common sense, practical and yet visionary ways, in the hope that their example can once again galvanize Americans into action."

Kerry in 2004 lost a presidential election to Bush. Four years earlier, Vice President Al Gore found himself in the same position following the closest and arguably most controversial contests in American history.

Gore has remained in the spotlight since 2000 largely due to his campaigning on climate change, and last month, his documentary on global warming - "An Inconvenient Truth" - won an Academy Award.

For Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, both Kerry and Gore are "alarmists" when it comes to predictions about climate change and its potential effects.

"[Kerry] talks about the environment and has done so in his Senate campaigns and a little bit during his presidential election battle, but obviously, this is an issue that's very controversial, and Al Gore and John Kerry seem to be on the alarmist side of the global warming debate," Darling told Cybercast News Service.

"They are basically giving the American people the impression that if nothing is done, our world will have cataclysmic climate change, which I don't believe the science proves that theory out," he said.

"If you look at the science and a whole lot of what's been said about global warming is that it will have a minor to [minimal] effect on global climate change.

"Even if it has some sort of an effect, there's not much governments can do to change that," Darling added. "There is only so much human beings can do because human beings only have a certain amount of effect on why there is incremental climate change."

He questioned Kerry's motives in writing the book.

"Maybe he's going in a different direction because he sees he's not going to have a chance to be president anytime in the near future," Darling said. "He had his shot, and maybe he's going to do something similar to Al Gore and work on one issue and trumpet one issue that he cares about.

"Maybe this is an attempt for him to get some high-level position in the next Democratic administration, considering he's not running for higher office," he added.
I await the next alarmist global warming book by a losing Democratic presidential candidate, It's Getting Hot, Raise the Taxes: Why It's Essential to Pay Trillions for (Almost) Nothing by Michael Dukakis.

Last edited by movielib; 03-19-07 at 05:46 PM.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 06:47 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by movielib
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...mo_code=2F33-1


I await the next alarmist global warming book by a losing Democratic presidential candidate, It's Getting Hot, Raise the Taxes: Why It's Essential to Pay Trillions for (Almost) Nothing by Michael Dukakis.
Well if Sen. Kerry is hopping on the GW bandwagon, you know its jumped the shark.
crazyronin is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 07:56 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,621
These are some of the things I don't understand about the whole global warming issue:

It seems like the key phrase used to be global warming, but more and more I hear only about 'climate change.' Is that the new PC term?

It seems like half the people that strongly believe in global warming or climate change talk only about predictions, then the other half talk about the unpredictability of it. So which one is it? Is it predictable or unpredictable?
IMRICKJAMES is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 08:03 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by IMRICKJAMES
These are some of the things I don't understand about the whole global warming issue:

It seems like the key phrase used to be global warming, but more and more I hear only about 'climate change.' Is that the new PC term?

It seems like half the people that strongly believe in global warming or climate change talk only about predictions, then the other half talk about the unpredictability of it. So which one is it? Is it predictable or unpredictable?
Climate Change is preferred because it fits all the evidence, it's easier to say that whenever the Earth becomes warmer, wetter, cooler, or drier it's Climate Change to blame. Much like the Spanish Inquisition, the only thing predictable about Climate Change is its unpredictability.
Birrman54 is offline  
Old 03-19-07, 08:21 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Originally Posted by IMRICKJAMES
These are some of the things I don't understand about the whole global warming issue:

It seems like the key phrase used to be global warming, but more and more I hear only about 'climate change.' Is that the new PC term?
Yes. Then they are covered if we have global cooling. It takes care of glaciers melting OR getting thicker (which they need right now).

It seems like half the people that strongly believe in global warming or climate change talk only about predictions, then the other half talk about the unpredictability of it. So which one is it? Is it predictable or unpredictable?
Ask yourself how many days of the weatherman's 7-day forecast are right? Based on that, how right is a forecast for a century from now?
OldDude is offline  
Old 03-20-07, 12:12 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,081
I need a "Global warming is a natural cycle that is being greatly exaggerated and blamed on man, even though there may be a slight exacerbation of it by man made events, nothing really needs to be done because we are not all going to drown because of it, but pollution is bad and needs to be controlled simply because it sucks" option on the poll.
DeputyDave is offline  
Old 03-20-07, 10:26 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Al Gore gets to duck another debate:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...o_climate.html

Al Gore Challenged to Climate Debate

Al Gore has been challenged to an internationally televised debate on "climate change" by Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during her leadership of the United Kingdom.

In a formal press release from the Center for Science and Public Policy, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."


Monckton said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head-to-head on the science, politics, and religion of global warming in pages of the London Sunday Telegraph last November.

As reported in November 2006, Monckton challenged a U.N. report on climate change as "hysteria" over manmade global warming that distorts the truth.

A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in the Sunday Telegraph.

"But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years . . .

"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.

"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole – a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."

Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.

In his most recent challenge to Gore, Monckton calls on the former vice president to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor.

"If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge."
movielib is offline  
Old 03-20-07, 04:06 PM
  #22  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...320125451.aspx

Edwards Claims His Mega-Mansion is Carbon Neutral

Presidential candidate promotes carbon caps for business, but carbon 'offsets' for himself.

By Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute
3/20/2007 12:57:22 PM


Call it “Dancing with the Stars”: Global Warming Edition. Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards showed his best dance moves trying to avoid questions about how energy efficient his 28,000-square-foot mansion really is and how much the power bill costs each month.

The March 20 edition of CNN’s “American Morning” showed Edwards hyping global warming, promoting his energy plan that mandates carbon caps and claiming that his new mega-McMansion was actually being operated in a “carbon-neutral way.” He has recently declared his campaign “carbon neutral.”

Edwards also avoided how he holds himself to one standard but wants to hold businesses to another. As anchor Miles O’Brien put it: “One of the keys to your plan is the so-called cap plan which would institute, as it suggests, caps on the amount of carbon dioxide industry can put into the environment.”

But when it comes to Edwards’ own life, he doesn’t cap his carbon efforts, preferring instead carbon offsets. “We have committed to operate this house in a carbon-neutral way, which means in addition to using energy saving devices in the house itself, to the extent that doesn’t cover it, we’re going to purchase carbon credits on the market,” said Edwards.

Such offsets have been big news lately as even the Oscars claimed they were “carbon neutral.” The March 26 issue of BusinessWeek questioned the nature of such offsets and said “some deals amount to little more than feel good hype.”

Former Vice President Al Gore has received criticism for his own carbon offsets, though the media have been supportive. “If more people do it over time, it’s a good thing,” said reporter Russ Mitchell during the “Early Show” on CBS February 22.

During the CNN preview of his new energy plan, Edwards called for both a cap on current carbon dioxide emissions and “reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, which is aggressive but achievable.”

When O’Brien asked him about jobs going overseas instead of new jobs being created in the United States, Edwards danced again. “Well, the reason first of all is the planet has to survive. So we have a pretty simple question to begin with.” His second point merely asked “How do we deal with this issue in a smart way” and moved into boilerplate about creating jobs.

O’Brien asked about Edwards “getting Americans to conserve more.” Edwards responded with talk of conservation and then requirements. “One of the things that’s going to be required is for Americans to be willing to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and to be willing to conserve and we want to help them do that.”

When O’Brien asked specifically about his house, Edwards turned into a dancing king. Asked about the cost of energy for the home, Edwards tried several answers:

“It’s actually not bad.” And followed that up with talk of how energy efficient the home was.
“I’m not telling you. It’s actually, it’s actually not bad. It’s about three or four hundred dollars, the last one I saw.”
Following that claim, Edwards backed off a bit and said “the power bill is several hundred dollars a month.”
Like I've said before, if you're dumb enough to buy carbon "credits" and don't own the company that you're "buying" the "credits" from(like Gore) then you deserve to be swindled out of your money. Though, I would think that people like Edwards would be the one to do the swindling.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-20-07, 05:43 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Originally Posted by movielib
Al Gore gets to duck another debate:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...o_climate.html
Al Gore has been challenged to an internationally televised debate on "climate change" by Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during her leadership of the United Kingdom.
I watched the Global Warming Swindle program yesterday and they said one of the 2 major developments to catapult GW into the political mainstream was Thatcher using it to undermine the UK coal industry and it's powerful unions.
wmansir is offline  
Old 03-20-07, 05:51 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,005
Going back to the debate from last Wednesday, March 14, I find these posts from realclimate.com (the thoroughly alarmist website from which Gavin Schmidt, one of the debaters, hails) to be quite revealing. Schmidt simply is clueless as to why his side got trounced so badly. The following post sums it up pretty well:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...the-east-side/

#277

I'm not sure what other posters have written and do not have time to look but, if you want to know, I will tell you why I think the audience responded more favorably to the other side.

You did not give any examples. The other side had plenty, almost completely uncontested by you guys. You basically told the audience that "scientists" have decreed this and that without giving any reasons why, and insinuated that they were too dumb to understand it. You've got to get into the nitty-gritty and, you've got to present it in a way that they can understand it. That does not mean "dumbed-down." It means, in a way that meshes with their personal experience.

I once had a manager tell me, in my younger days when I was fuming over the customer's inability to understand what I was telling them, that if I couldn't put it in terms that most men on the street could understand, then I didn't really understand it myself. Most men (and women) on the street have a good store of common sense and, if you break your argument down into the essentials, you can persuade them. Too technical is bad, but not technical enough is bad, too. I mean, you had an audience that came in largely expecting to emerge on your side and, you lost them. Do you think that is their fault? Why?

Oh, and then you brought in "the children." I mean, how hackneyed can you get? I bet the eye-rolling meter was pegged on that one. And, when you said "I don't think that they are completely...doing this on a level playing field that the people here will understand,", well, that really gave the game away. Even your post here gives off an odor of sour grapes, [edit] [Note by movielib: an edit on realclimate often means that one of the site managers (all alarmists) has deemed something not worthy of being read by the masses; I do not think posters have the ability to edit their own posts.]

Why in the world do you think you can succeed like that? I can't imagine why you expected this kind of presentation to be received favorably. For the life of me, I really can't.

Comment by Reid — 19 Mar 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Less than two hours later, another one of the site managers (Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, aka raypierre) posted this:

#280

Every once in a while, a key turn of phrase on the part of the good guys, a key step out of bounds on the part of the bad guys, does have the power to completely turn around a public debate. Everybody who has ever been involved in a public debate over critical issues hopes for a moment like Joseph Welch's obliteration of Joe McCarthy, with the phrase "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" That moment clearly didn't happen in the global warming debate under discussion here, and maybe it will never happen for a problem like global warming. I do think that this case too, in the end, comes down to a fundamental lack of decency, a fundamental shamelessness, on the part of opponents like Lindzen or Crichton. My hat is off to Gavin, Brenda and Richard, who I think did about as well as can be done playing the science straight, but the response shows that some other tactic is necessary to engage the hearts as well as minds of the audience. I'm not, of course, suggesting that one play crooked with the science the way Lindzen does, but that tactics which play more to peoples' feelings, tactics which even extend to ridicule of opponents where they deserve ridicule, may be needed to win in fora like this one. I'm not sure what such tactics would look like, but I doubt many scientists have the requisite theatrical skills.

Comment by raypierre — 19 Mar 2007 @ 11:47 pm
The arrogance, the self-satisfied smugness of their own righteousness is unsurpassed. Obviously, raypierre either didn't read Reid's insightful criticism or he dismissed it with the usual realclimate superior, cavalier attitude. He accuses Lindzen of dishonesty and implies his side lost because it was more decent (ironic since Gavin backhandedly implied Lindzen and the skeptics were intellectually dishonest and strongly implied the audience was too stupid to understand the obvious correctness of his position) and lacked "theatrical skills."

It is sad to see scientists acting so uncharitably toward their fellow scientists whose only crime is that they disagree with the alarmists, not to mention that it is just plain childish. But with so much at stake I can only hope there are more debates and other forums where both sides are fairly and equally represented (as opposed to the daily biases of the MSM) because I can only see the alarmists losing support with their attitude and tactics.

I also think the skeptics can win on the science if given fair treatment.

Last edited by movielib; 03-20-07 at 10:34 PM.
movielib is offline  
Old 03-20-07, 05:56 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by bhk
http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...320125451.aspx


Like I've said before, if you're dumb enough to buy carbon "credits" and don't own the company that you're "buying" the "credits" from(like Gore) then you deserve to be swindled out of your money. Though, I would think that people like Edwards would be the one to do the swindling.
Rich people don't have to worry about polluting as they can afford it. That's the Democratic platform.
kvrdave is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.