Posted on 03/12/2007 2:43:36 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
Edited on 03/12/2007 11:45:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
NY TIMES PLANS TUESDAY HIT ON GORE, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE: 'Scientists argue that Gore's warnings are full of exaggerated claims and startling errors'... Developing..
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
"Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”.."
So the global warming/climate change scam is overheating.
Kooks are going to begin demanding things to fix it democrats can't and won't deliver
Al Gore is appearing to the base as more presidential than Hillary
Ergo, a carefully worded story that purpetuates the myth of man made climate change while scaling back the graveness of the situation.
Al Gore discredited slightly
Man made climate change remains a political hoax/win for dems
Hillary position as front runner reinforced.
Obama will be slow bled. PIs hard at work looking for the silver bullet in his past. Expect some 'mistake' to emerge regarding some terrible thing he did in elementary school.
I didnt see your post on the global warming swidle and posted the same link.
I was told about it by WGFlyer and hadnt seen it when I posted it.
I just got done watching it for the first time from my own post. Wow~! just Wow!
That film summarized everything that I have been saying for years but did it in a cohesive way that I could never muster.
And they hit on one of my pet peeves. The same folks who gripe about global warming are the same folks who gripe about the poor.
I always just thought they were stupid hypocrites, but the film has opened my eyes to the fact that there are leaders amongst them who WANT to hold the 3rd world back and dont give a damn about theyre suffering.
Finding the cause? We should at least look at the elephant in the room. In other words look at that big flaming ball in the sky that appears every day.
Will do.
A strong indicator that Gore is correct?
A strong indicator that Gore is correct?
God, It's unbelievable how fast the posters here read through the actions of the DBM and yet this crap will never be discussed on TV...Amazing....
God, It's unbelievable how fast the posters here read through the actions of the DBM and yet this crap will never be discussed on TV...Amazing....
It's not news. The NYT is just learning what every thinking individual has known for years.
And lo-o-o-o-ong hot baths with the AC running full blast.
Bull! Do a simple experiment.
Fill a glass with ice and add water up to the very rim. The ice floats above the surface. does the water overflow the glass when the ice melts?
Nope. because the ice displaces the same amount as water or ice.
Yes: I read that somewhere, but what is a rule compared to making a political statement at a gathering of rich idiots, whores and learned High school scholars.
and it has the funding and distribution
No, I consider both Gore and the NYT despicable, liars, and almost always wrong. And using "almost" is probably way too forgiving.
When I saw this, I thought for a moment I'd accidentally stumbled into Unreality again.
By the way, is it just me or do we never really hear the term "greenhouse effect" anymore. I recall hearing the term "greenhouse effect" some time before I first heard the term "global warming". Is it just me or is this some kind of Orwellian trick? Did "global warming" test better in the focus groups or something?
I think your faith in anything that smacks of technology or science is well meaning but you are going to be disillusioned in due course. First of all, "groups" do not agree or disagree, and even if they do it is a policy decision not a scientific one. Secondly, the people who make up these groups you trust so deeply are human beings who have their jobs and careers to protect and advance. If you have been following this issue as closely as you seem to be, you are well aware that already, for a reputable scientist to publish good solid data which leads to skepticism, is to risk killing his career.
This is a political issue, not a scientific one, as the Czech president said last week. Sad--but reality, so deal with it. Science is playing a distant second fiddle right now, and will be until the debunkers marshall overwhelming proof and the GW enthusiasts' predictions continue to fall flat.(In case you missed it, the IPCC's first round of predictions failed completely--that's why they came up with new ones!) In the meantime be of good cheer-- the world is not going to fry or drown.
Ive met many a PHD that didnt know what the red light on the dash that said "oil" meant
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.