Is Gore that much different than Cheney?

[DadsAreUs]

Is Al Gore really that different from Dick Cheney? A great number of Cheney-haterz on this site have continually claimed that Cheney leveraged politics for personal financial gain.

Al Gore has masterminded a hoax designed to incite worldwide panic - only to reap financial gain. He, of course, chairs GIM and is positioned to cash in BIG-TIME if carbon emmissions trading comes to the U.S. amidst his hysteria-baiting agenda. He has been suspiciously tight-lipped about all things financial relating to GIM's fundraising efforts and the organization's agenda.

Equally disturbing, he refuses to debate anyone on the subject of global warming or climate change.

Interesting.

And, oh by the way:

Record low temperatures possible through Sunday | New Orleans, LA Weather Forecast - - NOLA.com

Cold's grip tightens as Brevard hits record low temperature | floridatoday.com | FLORIDA TODAY

Record low temperatures hit Bay area | abcactionnews.com

Record low temperatures hit state

I wonder if the earth is just correcting itself from the global warming phenomenon?

What a sellout, and what a coward for not accepting a debate from anybody.

Happy Holidays. Whatever one thinks of Al Gore, the debate is over on global warming. It would be great to have an actual debate with a conservative but the decision of the right to rely mindlessly on talking points and to willfully deny reality for the sake of having some argument to make seems to pervade your posts. Example: you are an obviously smart man who willfully conflates weather and climate. You know, sometimes it rains in the desert. When it does, it comes down really hard and sometimes for many days. However, the desert remains a desert. Global warming is real. There was no climate-gate, just a climate-gate-gate. Human activity causes global warming. What policies we put in place to deal with it is open to debate, certainly. Cap and trade was originally a Republican idea.

In any case, a real discussion would be great. But debating on the terms of a false reality is not really worth it. That's why my comment in your "disappointing" thread was so curt. You're not disappointed in Obama. You never liked his agenda. So how can you be disappointed? And not to rely too much on Stephen Colbert, but the choice you offer in that thread of Obama vs. Tiger is a false choice, akin to Colbert's "George W. Bush: Great president? Or greatest president?" which he asks every Democratic congressperson he interviews.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

I'm not sure you're ever going to get star to understand what a peer-reviewed scientific journal is. He is used to citing opinion-articles such as that stuff on Fox "News", you know, where they say "I does think this and God damn those who doesn'ts, y'hear".

I mean, he fucking thinks seasonal weather is the same as the world climate!

 

[HazelGod]

I mean, he fucking thinks seasonal weather is the same as the world climate!

Doubtful. He does have an apparent grasp of what will get a rise out of a good number of denizens of this forum...who, like easily-baited guppies, keep right on doing exactly what they're led to do. It's why this place is littered with the same nitwits lobbing the same tired-ass "arguments" at each other with ears disengaged across the same tired-ass lines of battle.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

So, what, does that make the joke on us? Hahahaha! No.

 

[B_starinvestor]

All too easy. Do you even read your links?

From the very link you posted:

That's not the link I posted.

Again, here was my link:

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Proved: There is No Climate Crisis


Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.‘
“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”


Nice maneuver, Spinwin.

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

I'm sorry, I figured you had clicked the link leading off that page to document in question. Do so and you'll find the quote.

The link is to the primary source on the APS site. I forgot you don't deal with primary sources.

 

[DadsAreUs]

That's not the link I posted.

Again, here was my link:

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Proved: There is No Climate Crisis


Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.‘
“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”


Nice maneuver, Spinwin.

You want to talk about nice maneuvers? The link to SPPI's website shows that one University of Hartford professor was impressed by a presentation given by Lord Christopher Monckton, who has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He is not a scientist. Just a conservative British aristocrat and a member of SPPI. SPPI is an organization with secret funding that is dedicated to over turning the consensus on climate change (or at least muddying the waters) by introducing seemingly scientific studies into the discussion. These studies are conducted by their own members. Then they find some university in the states (there's a million of 'em) with one sympathetic faculty member to book a talk with their member/researcher (the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, no less) and then that faculty member comments on their website that he was impressed by the presentation. This gives the impression that 1. SPPI is an organization dedicated to unbiased research on climate change 2. SPPI contracted an outside scientist (who turns out to be one of their own members, a cranky old Brit who can read Latin and Greek and, oh did I mention he is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?) who comes up with a seemingly scientific report, which is really just fiction), then they send the Viscount to speak to a sympathetic faculty member who blurbs the talk on their website, giving the impression of three independent parties just doing the hard science and coming up with some startlingly unconventional conclusions. That's a nice maneuver.

Weather is not Climate. And this is not science.