Posted on 10/19/2007 9:34:45 AM PDT by cogitator
Context: last Friday, same day as when Gore and the IPCC received the Peace Nobel, the WashPost put out a "Fact Checker" article about the UK decision regarding the showing of AIT in schools. They got a lot of responses, in the blog and in the blogosphere.
Because of this, the Fact Checker published a follow-up, and a response from "Team Gore". The links are below; I can't post them due to source restrictions, and to read them in entirety you probably have to register.
I'm posting these for information only. There has been a lot of discussion about this, obviously. While I will certainly comment on other aspects of the topic, I won't participate in extended discussion on this thread, because it would likely take way too much time. So if you are so inclined, consider these as part of a careful consideration process over the entire issue of global warming and climate change.
In the first comment, I am posting the introduction from "Team Gore Responds".
Finally, regarding the fourth point: I invite interested parties to read point #5 in my profile. It's considerably more in-depth than anything RealClimate has produced on this topic thus far.
An Inconvenient Truth: Part II
An Inconvenient Truth: Team Gore Responds
FAct Checker at the Washington Post? Oh My Sides........Bwahahahahaaaaaa!!!
If he couldn’t explain it to us unwashed masses, then perhaps he should have foregone the lil movie altogether, hmmm?
The WaPo doing its best to polish this turd.
No he has NOT!
All the stuff in his books is simply cut & pasted from others.
I’m reminded of another movie’s tagline...
“Keep repeating: It’s only a movie! It’s only a movie! It’s only a movie!”
How much of your profile did you write yourself?
You don’t do much bowling, do you?
You and Al Gore can go ahead and have your fun. As time proves both of you wrong, I am wondering what your reaction will be.
How long can you go on looking for loopholes, and ignoring many facts. In other words, I am wondering how long and how deep in denial will you sink.
A movie can't reflect the difference between AlGore's 20 feet of ocean rising and the IPCC's 20 inches?
What is most incredible in the materials you have provided is the complete collapse of critical facilities with regard to the CO2 level/warming timing. If temperatures rise first, then CO2, as appears to be the historical record, how well the curves “fit” is entirely irrelevant, since the overall question is one of causation. Could the Fact Checker be so unintelligent as to not perceive this? More likely, he is trying to “polish the turd”.
Clearly, you have bought into the global warming myth in a big way.
One question for you: do you think the warming trend is so dangerous, and the science is so settled, that there should be no further skepticsm among climate scientists, and that skeptics of all stripes should be treated as dangerous and silenced and ostracized from their communities (whatever their community might be)?
However, the facts do not really matter here. What matters here is the interpretation of observed facts, the creation of emotionally appealing stories based on the observations, and endless repition of them until they become part of folklore.
Honestly fellas, you would be better off trying to stamp out nursery rhymes. You might as well try and talk to Muslims about Baby Jesus. What the Global Warmers have done (and rather brilliantly) is confuse two concepts in the public mind (Not all that hard, now is it?):
Pollution can be very nasty. It really doesn't cause global warming ... or cooling. One healthy volcanic burp puts more crap in the atmosphere than 3 centuries of industrial development, and can actually kill people, rather than offer them useful work.
Big deal. This argument is over. You can point out that CO2 has got nothing to do with it until you are blue in the face.
That will merely be attributed by Al and the Warmers as yet another symptom of Global Warming.
They check the court’s facts, but never bothered to check Al’s? Why, I’m sooooo surprised.
So is Cogitator.
Who placed such "restrictions" on Gore? Why nobody, but Gore himself! If there is "scientific evidence" to explain, you explain it, no matter how many "slides" and minutes you need. The fact of the matter is, Gore's method did a fine job of explaining his "scientfic evidence". The fact of the matter is, when you boil it all down and reduce it into as simple an explanation as possible and it looks like B.S., that's what it was in the first place. Al Gore is not a 'scientist'. Al Gore did not spend 30 years studying the science surrounding the earths climate.
He spend 30 years regurgitating idiotic B.S. and UN world government strategy, Gaea mother earth religion and ways of implementing it. In fact Gore, a fanatic Gaea worshiper, he participated in the carrying of it's "ark of the covenant" ceremony, the official UN launch of the new "one world religion" to replace all others. Climate change fearmongering is one of the methods used to sign up countries to this one world government 'earth charter scam.
Had he studied the science, then he could claim to be somewhat of a scientist. He studied B.S. however, so that makes him a B.S. artist. He studied Liberal elitist idiocy, which makes him an idiot. He studied UN Marxist on world government strategy and how to destroy the US constitution and sign the USA up to be governed by unelected, elitist UN marxists, which makes him a traitor.
Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):
Other References:
Antarctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004:
This map (left) shows key areas of Antarctica, including the vast East Antarctic ice sheet. The image on the right shows which areas of the continent's ice are thickening (coloured yellow and red) and thinning (coloured blue). © (Left)British Antarctic Survey, (Right)Science
Mr Science gets the Nobel Piece Prize.
Why am I not surprised?
I've read elsewhere on this forum that Al scored a "D" in his college science course.
I’m glad Al Invented the internet so we can check up on him.
To check facts first you have to start with facts.
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.