It appears that soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore isn’t only brainwashing America’s kids with global warming alarmism, for his daughter has co-written a documentary on the subject about to be released in Australia.
As reported Sunday by Variety (h/t John McLean):
Paramount Vantage is hoping auds will be as bullish on bears and walruses as they were on "March of the Penguins," although it remains to be seen if they will warm to "Arctic Tale," an expertly assembled docu with an underlying message about multiple species threatened by man's pigheaded behavior. National Geographic imprint ensures the pic will, in any case, have long, healthy life in tube and video preserves.
Certainly nice to have National Geographic in on the scam, dontcha think? The article continued:
Queen Latifah proves an amiably authoritative narrator, and is allowed more personality than most script readers; Morgan Freeman never told his penguins they'd "best be goin'." (Co-writer Kristin Gore, Al Gore's daughter, is the only connection to Par Vantage's similarly themed docu hit, "An Inconvenient Truth.")
[…]
Drama is heightened by the undeniably frightening changes in weather patterns over the past few years. Overall effect, regardless of aesthetic quibbles or kudos, is to make auds aware of how imminent the risk is to these environmentally interdependent creatures.
Yes, I’m sure it is.
Comments Policy
Kind of reminds one of All In
June 17, 2007 - 22:06 ET by Dave RKind of reminds one of All In The Family, with Al playing the role of Meathead.
As for National Geographic, did not that once first-rate organization pride itself in its political neutrality once upon a time?
Yes, National Geographic used
June 17, 2007 - 22:42 ET by Del DolemonteYes, National Geographic used to be objective, once upon a time. I think if you look back at the past 20 or so years, you'll see they started going downhill in the early 1990's, which would be about the same time another respected group called the BBC did the same thing.
And both of them went down about the exact same time as the rise of Tony Blair and (much more importantly) Bill Clinton.
One thing glossed over is that the Beeb and NPR, more specifically NPR's flagship WGBH-FM in Boston, entered into an active "news" partnership in the early 1990's. Add that to the puzzle.
Queen Latifa? No Snoop?
June 17, 2007 - 22:15 ET by Pragmatic-ManWhy use Queen Latifa? Why not Snoop Dog? That would surely put the creds back into the Goracle's Sham.
I suppose we know now that the carbon credit does not fall far from the private jet. (or is that apple from the tree... I forget)
for shizzle, the plan-izzle,
June 18, 2007 - 08:40 ET by CapitalismRulesfor shizzle, the plan-izzle, is heatin' till it be fizzle. See only 0.5% of the population would understand the movie's narration.
CapRulez
June 18, 2007 - 08:44 ET by Cool ArrowYou don' posta bust a cap on de messenger
Here's hoping Kristin Gore ge
June 17, 2007 - 22:20 ET by BlondeHere's hoping Kristin Gore gets the same reception in Austrailia from John Howard as her father did.
i.e. none.
The aussies are immenently sensible. They'll trash this idiocy.
And that Kristen gets more at
June 17, 2007 - 22:28 ET by botgAnd that Kristen gets more attention
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Yeah, Bruce,The battle of the
June 17, 2007 - 22:37 ET by BlondeYeah, Bruce,
The battle of the Kristens.
Actually, I'd prefer to see Al Gore play "Are You Smarter Than 15 Year Old Kristen Byrne". She'd blow him out of the (over-heated?) water in five seconds flat.
Actually Blondie,That's not a
June 17, 2007 - 22:41 ET by botgActually Blondie,
That's not a game show I'd want to be on (at least not on the AGW topic) the opposite side of Kristen on.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I wonder why National Geograp
June 18, 2007 - 05:52 ET by ThisnThatI wonder why National Geographic wouldn't highlight Kristen Byrne's data-filled and thoughtful analysis, and instead push Gore's fluffy and emotionally-charged piece? Could it be that NG's staff, being obviously dumbed down enough to consider giving credence to Gore's mush, simply aren't smart enough to evaluate and present real data, thoughtful analyses, and logic?
Good point. Or put them bot
June 18, 2007 - 06:30 ET by dahliatraversGood point. Or put them both in.
(Hope you're wrong about N.G. not being smart enough to evaluate ...)
I am too -- but evidence is m
June 18, 2007 - 06:50 ET by ThisnThatI am too -- but evidence is mounting....
National G magazine and thier
June 18, 2007 - 09:16 ET by ahusserNational G magazine and thier other enterprises has been tilting to the left when Gilbert M. Grosvenor became President of the Society in 1987. He has since retired but I am afraid the leftie tilt (while not as drastic as some MSM) will remain. I noticed the more "relevant" and "topical" (read leftie) articles immediately after he took control of the mag and my interest level in reading it went way down. Here is a quote from a wikepedia article about the the National Geographic Society:
"In later years the once-benign articles became outspoken on issues such as environment, deforestation, chemical pollution, global warming, and endangered species - a scope expanded to topics well beyond exploration curiosities. Series of articles were included focusing on the history and varied uses of specific products such as a single metal, gem, food crop, or agricultural product, or an archeological discovery. Occasionally an entire month's issue would be devoted to a single country, past civilization, natural resource, or other theme. Also in recent decades, the National Geographic Society has unveiled other magazines with different focuses.
During the Cold War, the magazine committed itself to presenting a balanced view of the physical and human geography of nations beyond the Iron Curtain. The magazine printed articles on Berlin, de-occupied Austria, the Soviet Union, and Communist China that deliberately downplayed politics to focus on culture. In its coverage of the Space Race, National Geographic focused on the scientific achievement while largely avoiding reference to the race's connection to nuclear arms buildup."
"A mind is a terrible thing." - A comic I forgot the name of.
It's not just National Geographic...
June 17, 2007 - 22:31 ET by caambersI do volunteer work with another organization that is 'wildlife centered' and they are firmly on the GW bandwagon. Their official publications frequently have articles or make comments on GW. It's so difficult being around people that are decent about most things but so deluded or should I say brainwashed about things outside their sphere.
just a thought
June 17, 2007 - 23:45 ET by clarkfkGreat. So it's not enough that Al Bore is preaching nonsense and garbage, but now his daughter has to get into the game? America needs to wake up and discover what the rest of the world seems to understand: man-made global warming is a lie, scam, and moneymaking machine.
Well, then again, we do live in the "land of the free* " so I suppose that their scatterbrained beliefs must count somewhere.
*Disclaimer: "free" only pertains to the liberal point of view. All other views are invalid, intolerant, uneducated, and biased.
Certainly nice to have Nation
June 18, 2007 - 01:10 ET byAlso in on the scam: NASA, AGU, EPA, NOAA, NCAR, AMS, CMOS, the national academies of science of the G8 countries, including the U.S. NAS and the UK Royal Society, The IPCC, Stephen Hawking, BP, Nature, Science, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, the Governator, Rupert Murdoch, etc, etc........
That last one might cause some pain to Newsbusters readers as Fox News will likely get a well needed reality makeover.
Up until about 500-600 year
June 18, 2007 - 01:21 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveUp until about 500-600 years ago, the brightest minds in the world believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
They were all wrong.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Are you implying that the mod
June 18, 2007 - 01:36 ET by steve2007Are you implying that the modern day Copernicus is a bunch of oil-industry funded think tanks? Or would that be Michael Crighton?
If you want to put it that
June 18, 2007 - 01:43 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIf you want to put it that simply and cynically, yes.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Thanks, I thought so.
June 18, 2007 - 01:50 ET by steve2007Thanks, I thought so.
I suppose the entire scient
June 18, 2007 - 01:25 ET by steve2007I suppose the entire scientific establishment is corrupt then. Thank goodness Newsbusters is here to set them straight.
entire scientific establishme
June 18, 2007 - 01:33 ET by Dave Rentire scientific establishment??????
If and when (and that is a very big IF) the entire scientific establishment, (including those scientists who do not have an economic/financial interest in perpetrating this fraud) buys into this GW nonsense, then we'll talk.
establishment: (n) the domi
June 18, 2007 - 01:48 ET by steve2007establishment: (n) the dominant group in a field of endeavor, organization, etc.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establishment
I would be eager to hear which parts of the scientific establishment do not believe in global warming. (Note I'm not interested in names of individual scientists; scientific organizations count as elements of the establishment)
My <ignore> filter's ju
June 18, 2007 - 05:55 ET by ThisnThatMy <ignore> filter's just been triggered. <ignore> <snore>
Now this is enlightening. S
June 18, 2007 - 06:34 ET by dahliatraversNow this is enlightening. So you're only interested in those organizations and that data that confirm your pre-conceived notion. Why do I think if a raft of scientific organizations were global warming skeptics but the 17,000 scientists were believers, you'd happily be touting the 17,000 and telling us to disregard the organations?
There are two classes of peop
June 18, 2007 - 06:57 ET by ThisnThatThere are two classes of people that ask dumb questions about facts and information already covered -- those that are new; and those that are too lazy to look up the information for themselves, and only want to whine. If Steve wants a discussion, he should go back to prior NG topics (which went to great lengths at documenting those that disagree), and argue about the merits of them. Anything else is a waste of time, IMO.
TnT -- all this tedious per
June 18, 2007 - 07:07 ET by Jack BauerTnT -- all this tedious person does is rehash the same arguments we've covered a million times on here. Nothing new here. And you're right. A total waste of our time to argue with his closed mind.
Hell, I can even script-out
June 18, 2007 - 07:12 ET by sarcasmoHell, I can even script-out the rest of the argument. I make comment about SUVs warming Mars, but wondering about warming on Titan, etc. He responds with solar brightness data, while ignoring sunspots. I make fun of him for ignoring the obvious about the sun's effect on climate -- even if humans also have an effect -- for political reasons. Lather, rinse, repeat...
JMR
sarc -- well said. That's t
June 18, 2007 - 07:43 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- well said. That's the script!
And while it was fun last year to point out all the easily falsifiable assertions of a theory based on COMPUTER MODELS... and an anti-science dogma about "consensus" from alleged "scientists" who are recipients of massive tax funded income/grants scam...
But now it's just boring.
SUVs on Mars
June 18, 2007 - 07:57 ET by Cool ArrowDon't be silly. Of course SUVs are warming the planet.
The same SUVs on Earth are also warming Mars. This should be evident as both planets are affected by Solar UltraViolet rays. What I don't see is how Mars could be affected by Earth's automobile pollution.
"What I don't see is how
June 18, 2007 - 08:06 ET by ThisnThat"What I don't see is how Mars could be affected by Earth's automobile pollution". That's easy. It's Bush's fault. Using the evil profits made by Cheney from his current Haliburton connections.
Sheesh. Some Global Warming things are just too easy to explain.
Yeah, I'll never understand h
June 18, 2007 - 08:19 ET by ThisnThatYeah, I'll never understand how anyone can think we have any influence at all on the climate, when every day there is a 30-degree temperature change caused by the sun's output; when every year there 's a 40-50 degree difference caused by the earth's rotation and angle to the sun; and when there are so many, and so varied a set of heat sinks (water bodies, trees) and heat reflectors (land masses) across the planet. Just a small change in the Earth's wobble (which, by the way, has been clearly documented) could result in the miniscule temperature changes recorded over the past 100 years.
When you factor in volcanic eruptions and the shifting of the earth's geological plates, our influence seems to be like a flea jumping off an elephant's back. I think the evidence is pretty clear -- that there are larger cosmic influences to our weather patterns that simply overwhelm anything man-kind can do. Temperature increases on Mars is one of those pieces of evidence that the GW fearmongers have to address before an ounce of credibility can be attributed to them.
Krakatoa Winter
June 18, 2007 - 08:27 ET by Cool ArrowKrakatoa's eruption in 1883 should have thrown us into an Ice Age as there was no summer weather throughout the whole planet that year. But evidently the earth shrugged it off and chose its own equilibrium.
Just another example of how o
June 18, 2007 - 08:39 ET by ThisnThatJust another example of how overwhelming the forces of nature seem to us -- and how laughable it is that our small efforts are the "main cause", now, of Global warming. Al Gore's, the UN's, and the rest of the gang's them song should come right out of the Wizard of Oz -- "If I only had a brain".
It's cute that you think no o
June 18, 2007 - 10:38 ET byIt's cute that you think no one has addressed the Mars warming.
And arguments from incredulity aren't valid.
Ah, throaty, you still type sans references. Don't learn.
June 18, 2007 - 10:41 ET by acaiguanaAh, throaty, you still type sans references. Don't learn.
See, when you come here with your drive-by posts and make such assertions that the GW nuts have actually addressed the Mars Warming, well, that makes for a lot of sense.
Why can't you ever cite credible evidence for your spouts?
Arguing from talking points isn't valid.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~
June 18, 2007 - 11:39 ET byhttp://humbabe.arc.n...
I've hashed through this argument here before.
And since when do peer reviewed sources persuade anyone here?
TW - Your URL would not allow
June 18, 2007 - 11:58 ET by ThisnThatTW - Your URL would not allow me to connect and read the report. Try these instead:
This should get you started. Review this, then come back. And fix your reference -- it doesn't link.
Sorry my link didn't work for
June 18, 2007 - 12:19 ET bySorry my link didn't work for you. Works for me though.
But your last link discusses the same study, so it all works out. Here are the relevant quutes from your link:
So the cause of Martian warming is albedo change, not solar. Thanks.
And Titan, etc. just happen
June 18, 2007 - 12:33 ET by sarcasmoAnd Titan, etc. just happen to have the same albedo-change (recall, a few weeks ago it was the "wobble" in the Mars orbit, so this new one is, at least, a creative new one!). Anything to explain it but the sun!!
JMR
Show me one peer reviewed art
June 18, 2007 - 13:04 ET byShow me one peer reviewed article showing it's the sun and I might change my mind.
Wanting it to be the sun won't make it so. You need actual science.
Ahh hot and cold red dust on mars
June 18, 2007 - 14:05 ET by SportPoliticsAhh, hot and cold red dust on mars, with an increased temperature differential due to a hotter solar environment.... LOL...more wind... more dust... heat entrapment...the red planet...heats up...
Then, idiot libs like thraot wobbler spew the word albedo and yakk the initials TSI, gee you forgot GDS you turdybrain..
[Examining a 22-year interval of reliable solar data going back to 1980, the Duke scientists were able to filter out shorter-range effects that can influence surface temperatures but are not related to global warming. Such effects include volcanic eruptions and ocean current changes such as El Niño.
Applying their long-term data, the Duke scientists concluded, "the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming."
"[Greenhouse] gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta observed. ( he said with fear of future grant reductoins heating up his cranium-lol)
Several Forces Affect Temperature
"We don't know what the sun will do in the future," Scafetta added. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity."]
Nahhh, we'll just go with red dustbowl commie boy throatwobbler, the chirping swallowtail it hole al gorian bird of perverse public liberal panic funding.
sport -- and sure, that's wha
June 18, 2007 - 14:36 ET by Jack Bauersport -- and sure, that's what science is: "peer" "reviewed" "articles." Oh, and "consensus." Mustn't forget that!
I guess I shouldn't be surpri
June 18, 2007 - 14:41 ET byI guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who uses the term "turdybrain" also thinks the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute are objective scientific sources.
Of course, I'm sure Rush Limbaugh is like Galileo to you.
You are the right wing equivilent of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and you aren't even bright enough to know it.
What, besides politics, is
June 18, 2007 - 14:45 ET by sarcasmoWhat, besides politics, is wrong with any of Heartland's words. Science is science and facts are facts, even if you disagree with the politics of the source. Remember, people like me have the EXACT SAME distrust of the EPA that you have of Heartland, and we demolish 'em with facts. Try it -- if you can -- you might like the change.
JMR
The Heartland Institue's "Int
June 18, 2007 - 17:37 ET byThe Heartland Institue's "Intsant Expert Guide to Global Warming" relies on the debunked Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition--you know the one signed by hundreds of dentists and doctors. It relies on obsolete satelite data. It misrepresents climate models--with zero sources. Quote mining. They promote the Swindle documentary which misrepresented the comments of climate scinetists and used manipulated graphs and was basically a conpiracy theorists wet dream.
But you guys don't care about any of this because they reinforce your already formed views.
The psople at Heartland aren't scientists. The people at the EPA are. and all the other scientific organizations you love to think are irrelevant.
Is there any bit of evidence that would actually convince you guys? The answer is no.
Er...Got any citations for th
June 18, 2007 - 17:45 ET by sarcasmoEr...Got any citations for these assertions??
JMR
lol - tw in denial
June 18, 2007 - 13:03 ET by SportPoliticsSo the sun heating the reddish dust in the atmosphere causes martian warming... and the sun's effect on reflective vs less reflective reddish dust on the surface of mars causes the differentiating surface area air temperatures that drive winds and dust storms, but the sun itself is not "the cause" of heating or cooling...
LOLOLOL
You're an idiot throatwobbler. A dark cloud has descended above you, and you've cooled off to the point of being in a rut, you and al gore, global warming whore.
It just depends on how much shiney dust settles down in one spot.... or swirls about...nevermind the sun getting hotter or cooler...nothing to do with it...that will be $500.00 for save your *** from extinction carbon credit charges, pay up.
Man, don't call people an idi
June 18, 2007 - 13:08 ET byMan, don't call people an idiot when you post one of the stupidest posts in the history of NB.
Changes in albedo are no changes in TSI.
I'm gone again. It's like arguing with a brick.
TW, but if anyone persists in
June 18, 2007 - 13:16 ET by ThisnThatTW, but if anyone persists in ignoring the data, they are an idiot. That's a fact!
sorry tw, you fool
June 18, 2007 - 13:55 ET by SportPoliticssorry tw, you fool, your theory says it just so happens more shiney dust settled adrift from less shiney dust, by chance, at just this current set of years, and therefore stirred up some extra wind and shot the now more dusty atmosphere into a heat frenzy.
A fool would stop there, but a person with a brain, one unlike you, would ask themselves why is there more activity... and the result would be... a HOTTER SUN...that drove winds a bit more sifting the variously heated sands in more marked separation, and exacerbated the resulting duststorms from the prior increased differential in shiney surface dust and the less reflective alternative.
The dumbest posts are the throat wobbler morons that forget suddenly "root causes" that they seconds ago embraced while whining about terrorism.
Please, just let us talk about everything minus the SUN, I mean how much can the sun have to do with hot and cold, day and night anyway ? said the drooling liberal tw moron.
roflmao - none so blind as the willing.
Oooooh everything's because o
June 18, 2007 - 14:30 ET byOooooh everything's because of the hotter sun...ooooh.
Perhaps you could epxlain why there is stratospheric cooling--a phenomenon that fits in with CO2 warming but not solar? Oh, sorry, a fact. Are your eyes burning?
Yes, of course it is the sun. Because Al Gore has to be worng. He just HAS TO.
PS--There's a reason why being a scientist requires training.
Apparently, AlGore just mag
June 18, 2007 - 14:38 ET by sarcasmoApparently, AlGore just magically transmogrified into a scientist, since I've seen 0 evidence of the required training...And yes, the Sun has cycles of activity which -- especially considering its size relative to Earth, if not its composition -- might just affect a variety of planets in the solar system, and when various other things in space act just like our Earth is acting, we get to distrust the believers in big government who want to expand big government even-more.
JMR
Who cares what Al Gore thinks
June 18, 2007 - 14:48 ET byWho cares what Al Gore thinks? We're talking scinetists here. Don't change the subject.
TW...I guess you missed thisS
June 18, 2007 - 14:50 ET by bassndudeTW...I guess you missed this
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
And what causes the winds, an
June 18, 2007 - 13:10 ET by ThisnThatAnd what causes the winds, and what's causing them to become more violent? Answer: Energy. And where does this energy come from? Most likely the sun. So, we're back to solar, again.
Re-read your quote: "Mars is heating up 4 times faster than Earth". Perhaps the more rapid heating is caused by the dust? But, something has to be causing these winds.
Don't be so quick to dismiss evidence. In Science, the answers are not all in front of you, so you have to have enough curiosity to ask "why", and "how", and "what if". Then you collect data. Then you begin to analyze the data. The data won't be complete, so you begin to put forth hypotheses to help explain the missing part. Then you test the hypotheses. It's a painstaking process.
The point is, none of the so-called GW alarmists are doing this. Their data is "popular opinion". Their hypotheses are "my agenda". And the way to explain the missing facts is "we can get our way" -- and "their way" takes on several forms: getting even with Bush; getting elections to turn in their favor; get more money; gain control and power.
That's why I say -- bring forth the facts and data, and then evaluate and postulate. But your hypotheses have to be more than talking points. They have to actually make sense. And there is no evidence, now, that humans have enough impact to make a meaningful difference. This might be proven wrong in the future. But the key here is proof. Get some, and your's will be the only viewpoint listened to. Without it, don't try to push it as Gospel -- because it ain't.
You haven't proven that the d
June 18, 2007 - 15:03 ET byYou haven't proven that the dust storms on Mars were caused by increased solar. Since we are in a solar cycle minimum, your claim is contradicted by the evidence.
There is evidence that humans have impacted climate as you would know if you cracked open the Journal of Climate, Nature, Science or any other journal where such studies are published.
Good grief, TW. Do you always
June 18, 2007 - 16:17 ET by ThisnThatGood grief, TW. Do you always just blow thru any discussion, pick out a few words here and there, and then re-combine them into an inane point and useless question?
"You haven't proven that the dust storms on Mars were caused by increased solar". You're correct. I said "probably solar". It's called a hypotheses.
However, I DO KNOW that increased winds are created from energy source(s). Something increased the available energy on Mars that caused the winds to increase. What is this something? Well, I don't know for sure, but solar is defintely the leading candidate, don't you think?
Here's what DID NOT cause the increased winds:
So, if solar didn't do it, and the list above can't be responsible, then what caused the increase in energy?
TW, you HAVE to proposa a REASONABLE answer to this question to lend any credibility at all to your postings. Please provide a resonable, alternative energy source on Mars, and provide coherent, factual arguments on how that energy source overpowers any contribution that could be provided by solar energy.
And, be careful here. You tried a smokescreen with the comment "we are in a solar cycle minimum, your claim is contradicted by the evidence". As you should know (and everyone else on NB already knows), Earth goes through its seasons because it is tilted on a 23 degree angle to the sun. That's why, even though the Northern Hemisphere is closer to the sun during winter, we are actually colder when we are closer to the sun. If the angle changed, the temperature would also change -- and over time, the climate would change. So, while solar cycles have an impact, so does angle. Earth wobbles. Does Mars, and is this a cause of more energy? I don't know, of course -- but neither do you, so don't be dismissive. It's too easy to use scientific principles against your unsupported statements.
Do you think that storms only
June 18, 2007 - 17:57 ET byDo you think that storms only occur when the temperature is rising? SO we should never have storms in the winter? If we received exactly the same energy from the sun would that be an end to all storms?
You are the one throwing out a nonsense theory--that increased storminess must be caused by an increase in solar radiation. This is silly and is falsified by a)no recent upward solar trend b)observation of storms on Earth and other planets.
Yes, Mars could have wobbles that affect storms, and this would also counter your solar theory. I know that some scientists have believed this to be the case, but I know of no published research.
The reason people talk about Mars wamring is to redirect from the fact that solar trends are not increasing by any significant amount. But measuring solar activity by looking at Mars is a stupid way to measure TSI. There's so much we don't know about the climate of Mars that we can't isolate the signal.
TW, you still can't read, can
June 18, 2007 - 20:56 ET by ThisnThatTW, you still can't read, can you? I never said "storms only occur when the temperature is rising", so don't put words in my mouth. My comments are in response to your ealier post, when you wanted us to read all about "Mars temperature rising 4 times faster than Earth's as a result of more dust caused by increasingly violent storms". Try sticking to the topic at hand, will you?
Increasingly violent storms are caused by more Energy, dammit. Identify and isolate the energy source. Since you have, obviously, no capability to engage in or continue a discussion, there really is no sense in my continuing this with you. You are very boring. It's like opening to a page in a dictionary, selecting a word, asking to confirm the definition, and having you open up a telephone book and pulling up a business address. That's how much sense you make.
You obviously are not looking to engage anybody in thoughtful discourse. I gave it my best try, and will never do so again. IMO, your contributions to this blog are rather worthless, and I'm sorry to see you take up so much space and energy.
Those organizations are comp
June 18, 2007 - 06:51 ET by dahliatraversThose organizations are comprised of individuals. I'll take a breakdown of how every person in each of those organizations stands on global warming.
Further, it is difficult to believe that each organization's stance on AGW was reached democratically. It is far more likely to have been established by a small group within the organization, such as a committee or a Board of Directors, rather than a comprehensive poll of all scientists in the organization.
Grasping at straws. Newt Ging
June 18, 2007 - 07:17 ET byGrasping at straws. Newt Gingrich is a commie according to Noel.
Do any of the intelligent l
June 18, 2007 - 07:23 ET by sarcasmoDo any of the intelligent lefties like Balboa ever ask you to stop this boring, dimwitted crap?
JMR
I'm sorry, is he in on the sc
June 18, 2007 - 07:39 ET byI'm sorry, is he in on the scam or not?
Huh?? The only person who h
June 18, 2007 - 08:04 ET by sarcasmoHuh?? The only person who has mentioned Gingrich is you. Why be stupid? Why not at least make an attempt at debate??? Are you THAT much of a loser intellectually? (Don't answer that!)
JMR
Noel seems to think everyone
June 18, 2007 - 10:32 ET byNoel seems to think everyone who believes the scientific evidence on AGW is "in on the scam." Newt Gingrich believes the scientific evidence. Ergo, the question: Is Newt Gingrich now in on the scam (you know the socialist/communist scam)?
Do these things really have to be spelled out for you?
Throatweenie, That makes twice you have accused Noel
June 18, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Dave RThroatweenie,
You know, perhaps if I were to take up smoking crack, drinking heavily and ingesting mass quantities of mind-altering drugs, all at the same time, your comments would start making some kind of sense.
That makes twice on this thread that you have accused Noel of implying that Newt Gingrich is a communist.
Care to provide a link to said comment?
Can you not follow a simple a
June 18, 2007 - 11:45 ET byCan you not follow a simple argument? Maybe if I number it?
1. Noel thinks anyone who believes the scientific evidence for AGW is "in on the scam."
and
2. Newt Gingrich believes the scientific evidence on AGW.
Therefore
3. Noel must believe Newt Gingrich is "in on the scam."
Maybe I'm wrong and he doesn't believe that Newt Gingrich is "in on the scam." Does he then believe Newt Gingrich is stupid? Deceived? It's hard to call anyone who believes in AGW a raving liberal socialist when Gingrich believes in it. And it goes to show how far out there NB really is. Think fringe.
wobbly one: You've gone from
June 18, 2007 - 11:58 ET by QueenMumwobbly one: You've gone from using the terms "Noel seems to think"
throatwobbler Says:June 18, 2007 - 11:32
Noel seems to think everyone who believes the scientific evidence on AGW is "in on the scam." Newt Gingrich believes the scientific evidence. Ergo, the question: Is Newt Gingrich now in on the scam (you know the socialist/communist scam)?
(which implies that this is your opinion based on your own bias and your own understanding of his statements) to "Noel thinks". Did you think no one would notice? Perhaps you should revise your argument if you wish someone to respond to your flawed logic.
BTW, if Noel has indeed stated specifically that he believes that "anyone who believes the scientific evidence is 'in on the scam'", could you please provide documentation to support your allegation. Please also provide documentation re: your accusation that Noel has stated that "anyone who believes in AGW is a raving liberal socialist". If you wish to engage in serious debate, you must learn to leave out the emotionally charged adjectives.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Are we talking about the same
June 18, 2007 - 12:04 ET byAre we talking about the same Noel? Of course it's my opinion based on his statements. I can't know what he really thinks. But he is always talking about the "scam." It's a fair question to ask what he thinks of Ginrich's view.
No answer for the Gingrich question, huh?
tw: Looks like your beginning
June 18, 2007 - 12:13 ET by QueenMumtw: Looks like your beginning to "wobble".
"Of course it's my opinion based on his statements. I can't know what he really thinks."
Why didn't you just ask the question straightforwardly in the first place: "Noel, what do you think of Gingrich's view?" See? No need for all the theatrics.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Queen
June 18, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Cool ArrowIt's easier to draw conclusions:
Makes perfect sense.
"Doughnuts are more impo
June 18, 2007 - 12:38 ET by QueenMum"Doughnuts are more important than life." - Homer Simpson
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
I thought it would be obvious
June 18, 2007 - 12:24 ET byI thought it would be obvious that I cna't know what he thinks. But it's absurd to continually call people who accept sicnetific evidence "in on a scam." This is Noel's position as repeated ad nauseum here. It is a position to be ridiculed, not engaged.
Look, I happen to think New
June 18, 2007 - 12:36 ET by sarcasmoLook, I happen to think Newt's not a particularly small-government guy, despite his rhetoric to the contrary. So your argument's really going nowhere with me. Why should conservatives trust an inside the beltway for years guy like him? I dunno, but they do. Still, they're not me, and your "argument" remains so weak that the idea you're able to ridicule anything is laughable.
JMR
Hate to burst your bubble throaty... but...
June 18, 2007 - 12:00 ET by acaiguanaHate to burst your bubble throaty... but...
Contrary to your base assumption that Newty is the cat's meow for us conservatives, not all of Newt's thinking is scientifically based.
For example, he is a politician.
Not a scientist.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Throat, your logic is Wobbly
June 18, 2007 - 12:00 ET by RJFirst, you claim that not agreeing with your fevered ramblings is tantamount to stupidity. Then, you say that you might be wrong. Then, you bounce back and infer again that Noel has called Gingrich a socialist. (still with no reference to prove that contention)
"Wobbler" is certainly appropriate. You're all over the place. Not very strong in the critical/logical thought department are you?
you're having a bit of troubl
June 18, 2007 - 12:12 ET byyou're having a bit of trouble with what an argument is.
Here's a simplistic, less snarky quesiton. If Noels thinks that NG is in on a scam because they believe the sicentific evidence of GW, does he also believe this about Newt Gingrich? Is he applying different standards? Aren't you guys at least pretending to be interested in fairness and constancy?
tw: Just when I thought there
June 18, 2007 - 12:19 ET by QueenMumtw: Just when I thought there might be hope for you. If Noel believes that there are those who are "in on the scam" and NG is one those entities that he believes are "in on the scam", how does it follow that Noel believes that everyone who believes in the pseudo-science version of GW is "in on the scam". What does "different standards" have to do with it? I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe in the Science According to Gore. They may be mislead, misinformed, or biased. But it doesn't logically follow that therefore they must be "in on the scam".
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
throaty, give it up.
June 18, 2007 - 12:23 ET by acaiguanathroaty, give it up.
Your take on Noel's consistency has no credibility when taking into account your consistency. Noel and others are fundamentally opposed to propagandizing GW as man made; primarily because of the amount of funds available for the silly research on it.
This money would probably be better spent fighting diseases.
Your feeble attempt to conflate Noel with the crime of painting with a broad brush does not begin to hold a candle to your sins of the same.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
No "trouble", Wobbly, except your illogic
June 18, 2007 - 12:28 ET by RJThe only "trouble" I have is when fringe dwellers like you and Monty go on your funny exercises of warp-think, Wobbly.
As for your questions, they're foolish, illogical, and specious.
Try to follow, Wobbley: Just because AGW is a scam, it doesn't mean that all those who profess to believe it are "in on it." That's the point of a scam.....to convince the foolish or gullible. ;^>
throat,No one on this site ha
June 18, 2007 - 12:15 ET by Dave Rthroat,
No one on this site has ever suggested that everyone who is concerened with environmental issues, nor that everyone who believes GW is occuring or even man-made is a flaming socialist. However, It has been suggested, and reams of information have been provided to back up this assertion, that a desire for a socialist form government is what drives many, if not the majority, to support the GW alamist's view.
All I was questioning was your assertion that Noel thinks Newt is a commie.
Now, where'd I put that crack pipe........
Spawn of Gorenstein
June 18, 2007 - 07:02 ET by Cool Arrow