So in other words, you can't back up your claim?

So in other words, you can't back up your claim?

Old Zen proverb:

A scholar visited the monk Nanyin to ask him about Zen. Nanyin offered some tea to his guest, but he continued pouring even after the cup was full. After a short while, the scholar could not stand it any longer and said "the cup is already full! Stop pouring!". Nanyin replied "You are just like this cup, full of your views and opinions. If you do not empty your cup first, how can I tell you about Zen?"

Your "cup" is full of science fiction. There is no room for science fact.

That's a very complicated way to say "No, I can't"

Well, just like the 9/11 conspiracies becoming nothing more than hot air, the global warming theories involving anything but a man-made event are becoming debunked. For example, this documentary to be shown on UK television Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the “propaganda” that they claim is killing the world’s poor.

"Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2."

As the title of this thread goes...An Inconvenient Hypocrisy - for sure...

Well, just like the 9/11 conspiracies becoming nothing more than hot air, the global warming theories involving anything but a man-made event are becoming debunked. For example, this documentary to be shown on UK television Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the “propaganda” that they claim is killing the world’s poor.

"Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2."

As the title of this thread goes...An Inconvenient Hypocrisy - for sure...

Not disagreeing with your thrust (and the highlighted text above

does appear verbatim in the news report) but even I know that

co2 doesn't burn , it smothers combustion.

Fear that in your enthusiasm to make your point you are quoting

sloppy journalism.

Whenever I see Greenpeace mentioned, the words 'Brent Spar' spring fully formed into my mind.

Just rereading copies of the T-Rex Gazette, where the dinosaur Democratic Party is blaming the right-wing Neanderthals for not creating enough CO2 emissions to prevent the Ice Age.

Isn't it so much fun to have a serious discussion disrupted

by gratuitous frivolous bullshit ?

Isn't it so much fun to have a serious discussion disrupted

by gratuitous frivolous bullshit ?

You little wonklette. Are you pushing a "poot" in your avatar? Isn't that methane gas, too?

My comment is not frivolous. It is philosophical. Why did the ice age happen and who is to blame for that? Surely when Al Gore lived in that era (one of his past lives he was an editor on T-Rex Gazette) he would place blame on anyone but hisself and his tribe.

Mother Earth will correct the imbalances with natural disasters, new disease strains and allowing people to kill each other off. Natural attrition.

Isn't it so much fun to have a serious discussion disrupted

by gratuitous frivolous bullshit ?

You little wonklette. Are you pushing a "poot" in your avatar? Isn't that methane gas, too?

My comment is not frivolous. It is philosophical. Why did the ice age happen and who is to blame for that?

There have been several of them, we are just coming out of the last one (I'm sure I've mentioned that before)

There is only one thing that you can guarantee ...... the past ...... because it has already happened.

A bunch of people, be they white coats on television, white coats with a typewriter or plain clothed members of a forum cannot predict what will happen tomorrow or the reasons why. When we get to the day after tomorrow, you can look back ..... and for some, hindsight will be wrong.

Isn't it so much fun to have a serious discussion disrupted

by gratuitous frivolous bullshit ?

You little wonklette. Are you pushing a "poot" in your avatar? Isn't that methane gas, too?

My comment is not frivolous. It is philosophical. Why did the ice age happen and who is to blame for that?

There have been several of them, we are just coming out of the last one (I'm sure I've mentioned that before)

There is only one thing that you can guarantee ...... the past ...... because it has already happened.

A bunch of people, be they white coats on television, white coats with a typewriter or plain clothed members of a forum cannot predict what will happen tomorrow or the reasons why. When we get to the day after tomorrow, you can look back ..... and for some, hindsight will be wrong.

I'm know I'm gonna look back on today tomorrow and wonder why I have fork tyne marks on me bum.

If you can validate these two statements I will never, ever doubt you again.....

You know what, Robski? I do my homework to satisfy my own curiousity primarily. I may occasionally choose to redo some of it to satisfy someone who I feel may genuinely have an interest (see replies to Thaddeus above). But for someone who seems to get the most joy from this forum when breaking my b*lls, sorry, but I choose to decline.

So.... that's a no then.

You cannot validate those statements, then I will never ever be able to believe you again.

Fish in a barrel.

Here's one of the best lines of bs from the Gore-meister. He waves his hand around Antarctica and says if it were to melt, the sea level around the globe would increase by 23ft. Well, close but not quite. In fact he's off by a factor of 10. Scientists estimate that if Antarctica completely melted that sea levels would increase by over 200 ft.

Actually the 20ft number is accurate if you are talking about the Western Antarctica ice sheet

which seem to be the area people are speculating about. Nowhere do I find the disaster

scenario where the whole continent's ice melts.

I found this with a minimum of googling and avoiding "global warming shock horror sites".

Here's one of the best lines of bs from the Gore-meister. He waves his hand around Antarctica and says if it were to melt, the sea level around the globe would increase by 23ft. Well, close but not quite. In fact he's off by a factor of 10. Scientists estimate that if Antarctica completely melted that sea levels would increase by over 200 ft.

Actually the 20ft number is accurate if you are talking about the Western Antarctica ice sheet

which seem to be the area people are speculating about. Nowhere do I find the disaster

scenario where the whole continent's ice melts.

I found this with a minimum of googling and avoiding "global warming shock horror sites".

I'd say that both are exaggerated. A cubic foot of melted snow and ice does not equate a cubic foot of water. So for either of these figures to be correct there would have to be more than enough snow and ice to cover the earth 20-200 feet or more deep.

"The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy."

Who's the hypocrite now as this property is the Texas White House

Nice quote.

From the same article.

How does the President reconcile an eco-friendly abode for his own family with his persistent stand against anything that smacks of an environmentally friendly agenda for the nation as a whole? The answer to that perplexing question is a real mystery.

Perhaps sound ecological practices are only for those who can afford them: as a self-proclaimed strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution, Bush must be aware that clean air and clean water are not guaranteed in that glorious document. Perhaps in Bush's Brave New Corporate World, clean natural resources are merely commodities in a free-market economy: if you can pay for them, fine; if not, tough. The rest of us will just have to put up with more toxic dumps and more public lands being turned over to logging, mining and oil companies.

Here's one of the best lines of bs from the Gore-meister. He waves his hand around Antarctica and says if it were to melt, the sea level around the globe would increase by 23ft. Well, close but not quite. In fact he's off by a factor of 10. Scientists estimate that if Antarctica completely melted that sea levels would increase by over 200 ft.

Actually the 20ft number is accurate if you are talking about the Western Antarctica ice sheet

which seem to be the area people are speculating about. Nowhere do I find the disaster

scenario where the whole continent's ice melts.

I found this with a minimum of googling and avoiding "global warming shock horror sites".

The vast majority of research is estimating that sea levels are going to rise by 3 feet per century, so it would take around 750 years to get to 23 feet (still means that Bangkok and many other places will be screwed within 50)

The figure of 200ft is accurate, but would involve the entire Antarctic continent melting, sampling cores of ice taken from there shows that this has never happened in the entire history of the planet...... just the fact that you can take a core sample proves that, analysis is not required ..... a bucket of water would tend to get mixed up with the rest of the ocean

Lets keep in mind that the oceans will cool as the ice melts, so the rate of melting won't be constant.

Here's one of the best lines of bs from the Gore-meister. He waves his hand around Antarctica and says if it were to melt, the sea level around the globe would increase by 23ft. Well, close but not quite. In fact he's off by a factor of 10. Scientists estimate that if Antarctica completely melted that sea levels would increase by over 200 ft.

Actually the 20ft number is accurate if you are talking about the Western Antarctica ice sheet

which seem to be the area people are speculating about. Nowhere do I find the disaster

scenario where the whole continent's ice melts.

I found this with a minimum of googling and avoiding "global warming shock horror sites".

The vast majority of research is estimating that sea levels are going to rise by 3 feet per century, so it would take around 750 years to get to 23 feet (still means that Bangkok and many other places will be screwed within 50)

The figure of 200ft is accurate, but would involve the entire Antarctic continent melting, sampling cores of ice taken from there shows that this has never happened in the entire history of the planet...... just the fact that you can take a core sample proves that, analysis is not required ..... a bucket of water would tend to get mixed up with the rest of the ocean

I'm not sure if any of these "estimates" can be relied upon. They seem to be revised regularly ,

recently when large lumps started detatching themselves from the western sheet and it was

observed that glaciers were retreating. For the overall ice mass I see estimates that it is both

increasing and decreasing depending on who you read.

My point here was that I felt Spee was attributing statements to Gore that he did not make.

I asked Spee earlier whether this was just a Gore bashing thread , and he denied it.

However he does describe Gore as an "elitist self righteous hypocrite" and implies he

uses distortion to advance his case.

As he seems to share these traits , plus his language is a lot coarser than Gores , I

wonder how Spee feels about himself. Can't be easy being Spee.

PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN’T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST

According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined.

Coldest March day since 1950 in Mass

Coldest February ever

However he does describe Gore as an "elitist self righteous hypocrite"

You state this as if I'm the only one saying it. People have been saying it more or less for the guy's entire public life. This recent nonsense with global warming fear-mongering while living a lifestyle that is opposed to everything he preaches, is just the latest in a long line of hypocracies. The fact that you may be unaware of these things doesn't make them any less true.

.... and implies he uses distortion to advance his case.

I did not imply it. I stated it as a matter of fact because the Algore has himself stated it as a matter of fact. What part of this is difficult to comprehend and accept? That I said it? Or that he said it?

I

wonder how Spee feels about himself.

Why do you choose to try to thread hijack and try to make this a personal issue with me, instead of what was in the original post and related comments? Didn't endure just hand out a bunch of wrist slaps about that kind of stuff?

What is important is that I have yet to see you or anyone take statements from the film and trace it to published scientific facts or research. Whereas on the other hand, there is a ton of published work to indicate that the film is much more science fiction then it is about science fact.

For people like you who may not have dealt much in the world of science and research (whereas I spent more than 25% of my professional life in the middle of it), for all intents and purposes things can be simplified down to about five different positions:

1) Something is undeniably proven as fact. (If you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground.)

2) Something can be taken as fact within a reasonable or proven degree of certainty. (If proper procedures are followed, the shuttle will launch safely.)

3) Something is completely uncertain. (The Earth as we know it will come to an end in 10,000 years.)

4) Something can be taken as non-fact within a reasonable or proven degree of certainty. (You will some day be as rich as Bill Gates.)

5) Something is undeniably proven as non-fact. (Homosapiens has been present for the entire lifetime of the Earth.)

In the film, Gore takes all 5 of these, puts them into a big mixing bowl, adds in a bottle of snake oil, and serves up a big plate of discombobulated opinionated agenda-driven Algore goulash. And for a reason!! Science fiction is always much more entertaining and grasping than science fact. (Well ... for the most gullible anyway). Does anyone think he would have won an Oscar with 90 minutes worth of "don't worry, I've checked and everything is fine."

However he does describe Gore as an "elitist self righteous hypocrite"

You state this as if I'm the only one saying it. People have been saying it more or less for the guy's entire public life. This recent nonsense with global warming fear-mongering while living a lifestyle that is opposed to everything he preaches, is just the latest in a long line of hypocracies. The fact that you may be unaware of these things doesn't make them any less true.

.... and implies he uses distortion to advance his case.

I did not imply it. I stated it as a matter of fact because the Algore has himself stated it as a matter of fact. What part of this is difficult to comprehend and accept? That I said it? Or that he said it?

I

wonder how Spee feels about himself.

Why do you choose to try to thread hijack and try to make this a personal issue with me, instead of what was in the original post and related comments? Didn't endure just hand out a bunch of wrist slaps about that kind of stuff?

What is important is that I have yet to see you or anyone take statements from the film and trace it to published scientific facts or research. Whereas on the other hand, there is a ton of published work to indicate that the film is much more science fiction then it is about science fact.

For people like you who may not have dealt much in the world of science and research (whereas I spent more than 25% of my professional life in the middle of it), for all intents and purposes things can be simplified down to about five different positions:

1) Something is undeniably proven as fact. (If you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground.)

2) Something can be taken as fact within a reasonable or proven degree of certainty. (If proper procedures are followed, the shuttle will launch safely.)

3) Something is completely uncertain. (The Earth as we know it will come to an end in 10,000 years.)

4) Something can be taken as non-fact within a reasonable or proven degree of certainty. (You will some day be as rich as Bill Gates.)

5) Something is undeniably proven as non-fact. (Homosapiens has been present for the entire lifetime of the Earth.)

In the film, Gore takes all 5 of these, puts them into a big mixing bowl, adds in a bottle of snake oil, and serves up a big plate of discombobulated opinionated agenda-driven Algore goulash. And for a reason!! Science fiction is always much more entertaining and grasping than science fact. (Well ... for the most gullible anyway). Does anyone think he would have won an Oscar with 90 minutes worth of "don't worry, I've checked and everything is fine."

I'll do you the courtesy of quoting your entire post and not picking a few words here and there.

I quoted your description of Gore because you stated it. I did not state it as if you were the only

one stating it , I quoted it as if you stated it which you did. How many others share the view of

the individual is irrelevant. I understood the topic to be about Gore's extravaganza on global

warming and whether it is totally exaggerated.

Which part of the word "implied" really got your dander up ?

My ironic criticism was related solely to your posts in this thread and not meant as a hi-jack.

I do find your posting style aggressive , condescending and often vulgar when a response

provokes you (but free speech IS free speech) and I cannot deny that I may have let that

influence me subconsciously.

In that light I would offer two words (which I steal from another poster) heat , kitchen.

I do feel you pass the bounds by "implying" that Endure would slap my wrist for my post.

Therefore I will report yours to Endure with a request that he review mine.

Reason for the report - discussion of moderation issues.

Therefore I will report yours to Endure with a request that he review mine.

Reason for the report - discussion of moderation issues.

Jesus H. Chocolate Christ - this is Bedlam...

Therefore I will report yours to Endure with a request that he review mine.

Reason for the report - discussion of moderation issues.

Jesus H. Chocolate Christ - this is Bedlam...

Well he wouldn't be the only one who ever ran to them for help would he?

Therefore I will report yours to Endure with a request that he review mine.

Reason for the report - discussion of moderation issues.

Jesus H. Chocolate Christ - this is Bedlam...

Well he wouldn't be the only one who ever ran to them for help would he?

As opposed to whining/cringing over a certain Oz real estate magnate's verbal assualt?

Back on topic: The media loves a "green" story. As Al Gore and Hollywood celebrities push the practice of carbon offsetting - donating money toward an energy-saving project while still taking your vacation - the lamestream media nods in agreement.

"If more people do it over time, it's a good thing," said CBS reporter Russ Mitchell during a carbon offset story on the February 22 "Early Show."

Carbon offsetting is completely hypocritical because it allows the extremely wealthy, like Al Gore, to still use enormous amounts of energy (1 million miles of global air travel in 2005 and more than 20 times the national average of power usage in 2006), while telling everyone else to conserve energy to save the planet from climate destruction...

Therefore I will report yours to Endure with a request that he review mine.

Reason for the report - discussion of moderation issues.

Jesus H. Chocolate Christ - this is Bedlam...

Well he wouldn't be the only one who ever ran to them for help would he?

As opposed to whining/cringing over a certain Oz real estate magnate's verbal assualt?

Well it wasn't because I was getting my butt whipped in an intellectual arguement that I was outmatched in and couldn't find any more cut/paste answers to.

Well it wasn't because I was getting my butt whipped in an intellectual arguement that I was outmatched in and couldn't find any more cut/paste answers to.

Not to worry, cdnvic, we know the story...