Quote :

"Gore’s clones – the Goretians are coming! Drudge is reporting that former Vice President Al Gore is creating even crazier protesters. Goretians will be protesting outside of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and demand that scientists resign for sticking to the fact that there is no proof that global warming is creating more severe hurricanes: Hundreds of concerned citizens and leaders from across the nation will join Hurricane Katrina survivors Wednesday to call for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the NOAA Headquarters just outside of Washington, D.C. During an 11 a.m. demonstration, advocates will demand that NOAA stop covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming while insisting on real solutions to the problem of global warming. "

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/cartoonarc/Helmet.htm

8/4/2006 12:52:39 AM

8/4/2006 12:53:42 AM

he is looking for manbear pig

8/4/2006 12:55:41 AM

^^was he one of them?

what evidence are they using to try to get rid of people who DARE deny "global warming"?

8/4/2006 12:57:04 AM

Quote :

"stop covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming while insisting on real solutions to the problem of global warming."

this issue has been covered up?

8/4/2006 1:00:35 AM

According to these liberal "scientists", i guess so.

How do you cover up something that was never proven or true?

8/4/2006 1:04:34 AM

good question.

i have no idea.

but it happens all the time... not mentioning any forums *cough*Soap Box*cough*

the controversies/conspiracies/etc that is

[Edited on August 4, 2006 at 1:07 AM. Reason : ]

8/4/2006 1:06:33 AM

well, when you get any liberals together, its bound to happen.

i mean, look what happens when they watch the propaganda from the man pictured on this page.

8/4/2006 1:08:20 AM

If you post stuff from iowapresidentialwatch.com no one is going to take you seriously.

Actually no one is going to take you seriously anyways, so go for it.



THA BIG GIRL STRIKES AGAIN

8/4/2006 6:16:29 AM

it's like half man, half bearpig.

8/4/2006 8:03:49 AM

I like the idea of protesting scientists for their scientific opinions.

I say we all protest Stephen Hawking...god damn gravitists.

8/4/2006 9:24:37 AM

are you cereal?

8/4/2006 10:35:16 AM

Is this any different than Christian foundamentalist wackos denouncing scientists who believe that the earth is more than six thousand years old? And do you think that putting key words in "quotations" helps your case? Global warming is occuring. No one is saying anything to the contrary. The problem lies where some do not want to acknowledge the responsibities of human activity.

8/4/2006 10:38:51 AM

Quote :

"Global warming is occuring. No one is saying anything to the contrary. The problem lies where some do not want to acknowledge the responsibities of human activity."

First off, we acknowledge that the earth is warming, but take issue with what is actually causing it. See the consensus thread(s) for that debate, we need not take it up here.
Second, as you asked, there isn't any difference in those fundamentalists, except that you probably decry the fundamentalists while embracing these leftist fuckheads.
Third, I don't care if people bitch and moan about global warming, it is their right. The thing that's funny is that these people are actually protesting scientists for not finding any evidence that global warming intensifies hurricane activity.

What basis do they have for believing it would that should be considered better than NOAA's own research?

Nothing...about the same amount of basis as fundamentalist christians have to believing the earth is only 6000 years old or so.

8/4/2006 10:46:38 AM

Quote :

"global warming intensifies hurricane activity."

The evidence is self explanitory. A warmer planet inherently means more storms/hurricanes. At the same time it means greater desertification. The kicker is that you can't pin the here and now on evolving weather patterns persisting over the course of decades or centuries.

8/4/2006 10:53:54 AM

Show me a study from a peer-reviewed journal that says there's no global warming.

8/4/2006 11:05:38 AM

Quote :

"A warmer planet inherently means more storms/hurricanes."

No. Please read this: http://www.prh.noaa.gov/cphc/pages/FAQ/Climatology.php#3

Quote :

" In summary: * Modeling and theoretical studies suggest hurricanes will have no major changes in WHERE they form or occur. * Preliminary analyses hint that globally only small to no change in the NUMBER of hurricanes may occur and that regionally there may be areas that have small increases or small decreases in frequency (on order of +/- 10%). * The PEAK and AVERAGE INTENSITY of tropical cyclones may increase by about 5% in wind speeds. * Storm total RAINFALL may also increase on the order of about 5% more precipication. These are hypothesized changes that may occur around the end of the 21st Century, when a doubling in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be observed. Changes seen today are likely to be on the order of a 1% alteration in frequency, intensity and rainfall in hurricanes - not even measurable by today's observational techniques. "

8/4/2006 11:08:16 AM

jesus christ, aren't the "gore clones" protesting the noaa? why would stuff from their website prove much of anything?

8/4/2006 12:01:37 PM

Quote :

"where will they stop?"

When will The Big Girl finally stop?

8/4/2006 12:57:13 PM

they'll probably stop when the Dems nominate someone other than Gore for the 08' Presidential race

8/4/2006 1:01:08 PM

^x4 Good find. Thank you.

8/4/2006 1:21:07 PM

duke....this is blatent trolling

8/4/2006 1:47:39 PM

Quote :

"prominent scientists proposed that the intense 2004 hurricane season and its considerable impacts, particularly in Florida, could be linked to global warming resulting from the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (e.g., Harvard Medical School 2004; NCAR 2004)."

FROM YOUR OWN LINK

Quote :

" The PEAK and AVERAGE INTENSITY of tropical cyclones may increase by about 5% in wind speeds. Storm total RAINFALL may also increase on the order of about 5% more precipication. "

id say thats 5% we all dont need.


[Edited on August 4, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ooo]

8/4/2006 1:50:04 PM

THA BI GIRL

8/4/2006 2:11:47 PM

lock

8/4/2006 3:34:48 PM

Where will you stop, Big Girl?

8/4/2006 3:41:06 PM

Quote :

"id say thats 5% we all dont need."

The link also said that those changes would be the final result at the end of the century if atmospheric CO2 doubles. What we see today is not that five percent.

Also, 5% of....Andrew had 145 mph winds when it came ashore--a 5% increase in wind speed would have been ~152 mph. Windspeed in a minimal hurricane would increase from 74 to 77 mph. As for rainfall, 5% is an extra .5 inches for every 10 inches of rainfall. These are not whopping changes.

------------------------------------------

And that's some creative cut and pasting you have there

Quote :

"At the end of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, many scientists, reporters and policymakers looked for simple answers to explain the extent of the devastation, which totaled more than $40 billion according to the National Hurricane Center. Some prominent scientists proposed that the intense 2004 hurricane season and its considerable impacts, particularly in Florida, could be linked to global warming resulting from the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (e.g., Harvard Medical School 2004; NCAR 2004). But the current state of climate science does not support so close a linkage."

[Edited on August 4, 2006 at 4:41 PM. Reason : The very next sentence in the paragraph....]

8/4/2006 4:38:10 PM

then cut off 5% of your face.

8/4/2006 4:39:29 PM

What a snappy comeback!

8/4/2006 4:42:08 PM

i thought 5% wasnt a big deal

8/4/2006 4:46:01 PM

lets put 5% more water in the sea......

would you be underwater? first....guess?

8/4/2006 4:48:36 PM

another thread ruined without my help

8/4/2006 4:50:12 PM

Yes, because cutting off body parts is comparable to a half inch of rain.

8/4/2006 5:08:34 PM

there is nothing in that source about .5 inches of rain

5% is 5%

When hurricanes cause billions in damage....im sure you youself could cover that extra 5%

8/4/2006 5:11:47 PM

Quote :

"there is nothing in that source about .5 inches of rain"

The link said that rainfall could possibly increase by 5% over the next 100 years. 10 inches * .05 = 0.5 inches. What's so hard to understand about math? Or are you one of the 5% who sucks at math?

Quote :

"When hurricanes cause billions in damage....im sure you youself could cover that extra 5% "

There was certainly nothing in the article about damages or deaths increasing by 5%.

8/4/2006 5:27:06 PM

Quote :

"10 inches"

i see nothing about that

8/4/2006 5:37:57 PM

Here's what the article said:

Quote :

"Storm total RAINFALL may also increase on the order of about 5% more precipication."

Here's what I said:

Quote :

"As for rainfall, 5% is an extra .5 inches for every 10 inches of rainfall."

What do you not follow?

8/4/2006 10:40:05 PM

If 5% is meaningless, the cut off 5% of your face.

8/4/2006 10:54:20 PM

What the fuck is your problem? Why can't you make some sort of argument about why the extra 5% would represent a significant increase in hurricane severity? Why do you have resort to "Well, why don't you cut your face up. haha It's only 5%!"

[Edited on August 4, 2006 at 11:06 PM. Reason : Never mind, I figured it out: 0.05 * Josh8315 = stupid]

8/4/2006 11:05:24 PM

Quote :

"Why can't you make some sort of argument about why the extra 5% would represent a significant increase in hurricane severity? "

becuase 5% more predicted severity is by definition 5% more predicted severity.

there is no argument, there is only fact.

8/4/2006 11:16:20 PM

By those measures, hurricanes might be more severe by 5%. But that doesn't mean that it's a significant change, or that it would have an appreciable impact on damage and deaths.

predictions != "there is only fact"

[Edited on August 5, 2006 at 12:05 AM. Reason : ]

8/5/2006 12:05:08 AM

8/5/2006 12:08:09 AM

Quote :

"But that doesn't mean that it's a significant change,"

so 5% isnt significant? then cut off 5% of your face.

8/5/2006 12:26:50 AM

i want to see more of Randy and Fry jacking each other off.

8/5/2006 3:06:29 AM

Quote :

"Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'Inconvenient Truth' Spoof By JAKE TAPPER and MAX CULHANE Aug. 4, 2006 — A tiny little movie making fun of Al Gore, supposedly made by an amateur filmmaker, recently appeared on the popular Web site YouTube.com. At first blush, the spoof seemed like a scrappy little homemade film poking fun at Gore and his anti-global warming crusade. In the movie, Gore is seen boring an army of penguins with his lecture and blaming global warming for everything, including Lindsay Lohan's thinness. But when the Wall Street Journal tried to find the guy who posted the film "Al Gore's Penguin Army" — listed on YouTube as a 29-year-old — they found the movie didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement. The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client. Exxon denies knowing anything about the film, and DCI says, "We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients." Distrust of Mainstream Media Media ethicists say that if DCI is behind the spoof, they should fess up. "Without the disclosure, it's really ethically questionable," said Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Another question is why would this movie be done in a seemingly unprofessional way, to be shown alongside YouTube's mostly amateur videos, which feature lip-synching, odd performances and funny satires? "They want it to look like this came from someone who really believes this, who is really critical of Al Gore and global warming," Farsetta said. Ana Marie Cox, the Washington editor of Time.com, said Americans have come to distrust the mainstream media. "They're more likely to believe something that comes straight from the horse's mouth," Cox said. Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called "Astroturf." Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films. "People will become more savvy, and then the people who are making the fake videos will become more savvy about how to cover it up," Cox said. So next time you're reading something on the Internet from a "real person" pushing a movie or defending an actor's alcohol-fueled rant — be wary. That real person might actually be a hired gun, selling you an idea through deception. "

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2273111&page=1

8/6/2006 11:21:08 AM

ahaha

so. effing. evil.


P.S. DCI are the same people who host Tech Central Station.

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2006 6:19:22 PM

GOD DAMN THAT AL GORE FOR HAVING AN OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!

AND OTHERS HAVE THE SAME OPINION!!!!!!!!

RABBLELELLELELELELRABBLELELELE

8/6/2006 6:39:48 PM

i'm thinking about seeing that movie soon

maybe tonight

8/6/2006 7:11:07 PM

I'll preface this by stating that yes, concealing the origin of the video is disingenuous.

To tie this with some of the other threads going on right now, this article is an example of bias.

Quote :

"The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client."

- The word 'slick' is not an objective word. It's subjective and the context in which it was used lends some very negative connotations.

- DCI has many clients: AT&T, Avue Technologies, Coca-Cola, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, NAQ, PhRMA, Qualcomm, and Exxon. Exxon is the only business mentioned, though. Through a nice little piece of demagoguery and perhaps a loaded question or two, the article implies--with no actual evidence whatsoever--that Exxon is the particular client behind the movie.

- DCI is listed as a "Republican public relations firm" which it most definitely is. From looking at DCI's website, they are unabashedly so. However, while pointing out that DCI is Republican, the article fails to mention that the Center for Media and Democracy could easily be considered equally Democratic. Google shows the Center for Media and Democracy, its founder John Stauber, and Diane Farsetta are not neutral parties: they are environmenatlists and politically active. Which is fine, but they're certainly not the unbiased commentators they are treated as.




And before you get your panties into too big of a wad, let me remind of Marty Meehan

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 7:56 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2006 7:55:57 PM

Quote :

"Exxon is the only business mentioned, though"

Possibly b/c Exxon's leaders deny that fossil fuels are involved in climate change.

8/6/2006 8:13:21 PM