- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Posts
- 7,426
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 282
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Mavs, NOR * CAL
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Brainwashed. Debate over.
You don't want to even consider contrarian thought... I assume.
How come Fat Gore won't publicly debate global warming
- Thread starter faceking
- Start date
Brainwashed. Debate over.
You don't want to even consider contrarian thought... I assume.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Posts
- 2,422
- Media
- 54
- Likes
- 3,065
- Points
- 443
- Location
- Vienna (Austria)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
lol...Are you still trying to convince every new person who logs on that this thread has any nominal connection to the discussion or "debate" of global warming? This is nothing more then a diatribe against Gore, Carter, Tipper(lol), and any "liberal" or democractic , left wing icon or ideology that just "comes to mind" as you so eloquently put it. You're not looking for any serious answers here, you're just waiting for new people to spew your puerile
rantings upon. You have every right to your opinion but you really titled this thread incorrectly. How long are you planning to beat this dead horse?
rantings upon. You have every right to your opinion but you really titled this thread incorrectly. How long are you planning to beat this dead horse?
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Exactly. And such rants are, as always, framed in a tone of self-righteous indignation.
Note:
ad hominems committed by conservatives are merely for illustrative purposes only. They're not actually meant to cheapen a discussion or assassinate character.
ad hominems committed by the left are just spiteful, vindictive, and inevitably injurious to democratic debate.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,256
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 32,274
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Here's why Al Gore doesn't debate global warming:
He doesn't want to or feel he has to.
He doesn't want to or feel he has to.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
face,
You and I are unqualified to either formulate a contrarian thought on climatology or evaluate one. What is the point. Should we also discuss String Theory, General Relativity, or perhaps brain surgery?
The answer is no, of course, because those other theories are not on the right wing talking point list.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
Shelby,
What is the probability that thousands of career climatologists around the world, working on this issue for the last 30 years, overlooked the sun's energy output and failed to factor it in? What is the probability that you alone are the one person to think of this?
Lex
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Posts
- 8,253
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 118
- Points
- 268
- Location
- In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Lex,
JA--some people just think they are knowledgeable enough to discuss any topic.
I suppose we shall challenge the theories of relativity or gravity next. Or whenever it suits the cause.
The habit of accepting scientific theory when it is aligned with my stock options or political leaning is a very narrow way to think.
There may be a valid topic for debate in the apparent inconsistency between Gore's message and the alleged eco-unfriendliness of his own behavior (flying private jets, owning oversized, energy-gobbling house, ...).
thk8plus4u
Sexy Member
I don't know about all that, but I had a friend who was in the locker room with "fat gore" and said he had a BIG fat dick!
i know i am just some fingersniffing newbie, but.....
A global warming debate would be almost meaningless, since Global Warming is the "effect" not the "cause". It would akin to having a debate about Random Explosions if you were worried about indiscriminate usage of landmines, no thoughtful person is on the side of Random Explosions, or Global Warming. But, there could be someone who could make a interesting case for the impact of Co2 on the atmosphere being exaggerated. I just doubt that you could find someone who does not have vested interest in the current Petro-economy who would be willing to take that risk. Because debating against the side who is counseling caution could be public suicide for a public figure.
A global warming debate would be almost meaningless, since Global Warming is the "effect" not the "cause". It would akin to having a debate about Random Explosions if you were worried about indiscriminate usage of landmines, no thoughtful person is on the side of Random Explosions, or Global Warming. But, there could be someone who could make a interesting case for the impact of Co2 on the atmosphere being exaggerated. I just doubt that you could find someone who does not have vested interest in the current Petro-economy who would be willing to take that risk. Because debating against the side who is counseling caution could be public suicide for a public figure.
And, as we well know, the administration of George W. Bush didn't want the public to know these facts, so they edited the EPA reports:
Climate Change
Excerpt:
Since taking office, the George W. Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine the public’s understanding of the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global warming...
JustAsking
Sexy Member
Yes good point. Why didn't I think of that? And here I was thinking that policy change was the important thing. But you solved the whole problem. All we need to do is expose Al Gore's power meter readings.
This thread is actually viable. If all you would stop giving shit and look through the crap at what faceking is actually asking.
As of late debatable, scientific evidence has come about that calls out Gore's life project. All faceking wants to know is why wont Gore come out and have a scientific debate on this problem he holds so dear? FK is a little heated about his feelings, but thats ok...he can apologize for that later. Whats not ok is all you db's on this site who like to make jokes about everything, with stupid ass comments like "Gore was president" when it was painfully clear he was speaking about Carter, and "Because of tippy there is no global warming" when I know you are intelligent to know thats NOT what he was saying, you were just being an ASS.
CUT THE SHIT PEOPLE...pretty please!:redface:
Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
Warming is probably real... It's cause is at least exacerbated by human industrial activity..
THis much is known.
The result of warming is less known- different weather model predict everything from a frozen ball to superheated waterworld.
There is a good chance it will simply make things somewhat warmer.
The fear is that we DON'T know... it could be very bad...
But here's the thing....
think of all the trouble in the world and from whence it stems...
We can solve it all with one fell swoop..
sink half a trillion dollars and commit US resources to developing a HYDROGEN economy to replace our Oil economy...We are gonna have to do it eventually, when the oil runs out...
Why not now?
We can eliminate the biggest source of human cause greenhouse gas... AND eliminate the middle east as a viable economic entity, all in one throw.
We can burn hydrogen with a clear conscience... and the Arab world can go back to eating dates and bitching about all the sand.
THis much is known.
The result of warming is less known- different weather model predict everything from a frozen ball to superheated waterworld.
There is a good chance it will simply make things somewhat warmer.
The fear is that we DON'T know... it could be very bad...
But here's the thing....
think of all the trouble in the world and from whence it stems...
We can solve it all with one fell swoop..
sink half a trillion dollars and commit US resources to developing a HYDROGEN economy to replace our Oil economy...We are gonna have to do it eventually, when the oil runs out...
Why not now?
We can eliminate the biggest source of human cause greenhouse gas... AND eliminate the middle east as a viable economic entity, all in one throw.
We can burn hydrogen with a clear conscience... and the Arab world can go back to eating dates and bitching about all the sand.
You could go back one hundred or so years back to check out the climate effects of The London Fogs, the dense dark fogs they wrote about in novels and show up in movies. They were real. The fogs have long gone because England pushed for the burning of harder coal which had less particles when burned, and less sulfur.
Cause--effect. Solution.
The weather patterns have been getting a bit hectic, and ice caps are shrinking, and there are large deposits of methane gas in the frozen areas of the tundras in Siberia that could cause further problems if they start to melt.
The idea of trying to keep CO2 emissions at bay seems to be a good idea, as is eliminating dependence on oil. The US of A would rid itself of a problem.
I had a question which I asked others on this board, when did science become a tool of politics?
Cause--effect. Solution.
The weather patterns have been getting a bit hectic, and ice caps are shrinking, and there are large deposits of methane gas in the frozen areas of the tundras in Siberia that could cause further problems if they start to melt.
The idea of trying to keep CO2 emissions at bay seems to be a good idea, as is eliminating dependence on oil. The US of A would rid itself of a problem.
I had a question which I asked others on this board, when did science become a tool of politics?
- Qua,
Possible relevency issue here, but I thought it was a good place to bring it up, since coal emissions and dependence on foreign oil goes hand in hand with global warming.
The problem with nuclear waste is that most of the "waste" is not such at all. In the 1970s Carter banned the recycling of all used nuclear material, some 95% of which is simply uranium 238 (i.e. the same stuff that went into the reactor) and only a fraction of the remaining material is unusable and must be stored. So the issue of storage shouldn't be one, but the outdated fear that countries would steal the plutonium in spent fuel rods for bombs (when they actually do it through their own reactors; much more viable in the long term) has made it such.
I'm not a fan of this college, a small conservative (albeit, principled conservative, nee more classicaly liberal) liberal arts school near Jackson Michigan (I turned down a scholarship here to go to Cornell...so my views are quite different, though not inline with the knee-jerk PC liberalism of Cornell). However, this article from their newsletter is absolutely fascinating and makes a very very good case for nuclear power. I don't know if it's really relevent to Gore's weight, but it'd stop the pollution and emissions of coal plants which are the largest cause of greenhouse C02 and such.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/smaxwell/Page_4221/ImprimisFeb08.pdf
For the record, the largest contributor to atmospheric methane levels is bovine flatulence.
The problem with nuclear waste is that most of the "waste" is not such at all. In the 1970s Carter banned the recycling of all used nuclear material, some 95% of which is simply uranium 238 (i.e. the same stuff that went into the reactor) and only a fraction of the remaining material is unusable and must be stored. So the issue of storage shouldn't be one, but the outdated fear that countries would steal the plutonium in spent fuel rods for bombs (when they actually do it through their own reactors; much more viable in the long term) has made it such.
I'm not a fan of this college, a small conservative (albeit, principled conservative, nee more classicaly liberal) liberal arts school near Jackson Michigan (I turned down a scholarship here to go to Cornell...so my views are quite different, though not inline with the knee-jerk PC liberalism of Cornell). However, this article from their newsletter is absolutely fascinating and makes a very very good case for nuclear power. I don't know if it's really relevent to Gore's weight, but it'd stop the pollution and emissions of coal plants which are the largest cause of greenhouse C02 and such.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/smaxwell/Page_4221/ImprimisFeb08.pdf
For the record, the largest contributor to atmospheric methane levels is bovine flatulence.
The term should not be "global warming" as such, but climatology alterations.
I mean, it's snowing in Alabama as I type. Tornados have been cropping up in December. Midwest gets tons of snow. Southeast gets rain. It snowed in Israel.
So maybe it's not "warming", but some activity has shifted.
I mean, it's snowing in Alabama as I type. Tornados have been cropping up in December. Midwest gets tons of snow. Southeast gets rain. It snowed in Israel.
So maybe it's not "warming", but some activity has shifted.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
In its modern form, science denial politics was perfected in the 60s and 70s by oil and tobacco companies. They did some early experiments and realized that the American public was susceptible to anti-science propaganda due to the unique American psyche.
The PR formula is remarkably effective, and the PR public and political lobbying firms are very well funded. For example, global warming's denalist homebase is the Heartland Institute in Chicago, heavily funded by oil companies, auto companies, tobacco companies, and right wing conservative groups. On their website, notice the prominent anti-Al Gore campaigns (specifically the one that calls for Al Gore to debate global warming, as if Al himself invented the climate science behind it, instead of the worldwide community of climatologists).
This is how you can spot a junk science organization, when their main strategy is Ad Hominem attacks on public figures. When something like "debate Al Gore" appears on these homebase sites, you will suddenly see forums like ours and all the comment sections in the Blogs light up with the same talking points from "concerned" individuals like facebook. It only takes about a day for it to spread across the country, once it is posted on these lobbying sites.
The Evolution/Intelligent Design homebase is the Discovery Institute in Seattle. They are a multi-million dollar PR firm that lobbys the public, and federal and state legislators, and state boards of education. The recent attempts in Florida to write "Teach The Controversy" and "Critical Analysis" language into the state science curriculum was taken verbatim from the Disco playbook. It didn't work, so now they are using the Disco's "Academic Freedom" ploy in Florida.
All of this is aimed at changing public opinion, not furthering the actual science. It is a political/cultural/religious war that seeks to affect public policy directly.
