I'm sure if Gore walked to his lectures, they would criticize what shoes he wore too.

This is pure political science theory. It follows a set formula. Reframe the argument. Exapand or contract the scope of conflict. Look for windows of oppurtunity in the policy process. Exploit the fact that average citizens do not understand complex systems/problems. Paint anyone with a dissenting viewpoint as "un-American" or a "liberal".


"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell
English essayist, novelist, & satirist (1903 - 1950)

2/19/2007 1:12:07 AM

So what are Al Gore's lies again?

You're going to have to cite some random scientist in a canadafreepress article if you expect me to believe that all the major scientific organizations of the world are lying to us.

2/19/2007 1:14:35 AM

^^ I never said any of that shit--I simply disagree with Gore. I do think he is doing a disservice to himself and the world in his search for relevancy, though.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:14:42 AM

we would probably have to give up more rights if some of the potential climate change legislation passed

2/19/2007 1:14:54 AM

Quote :

"Global warming WON'T kill you, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations will!"

i'm gonna take a stab and say that global warming will kill many times more people in the next 20 years than al qaeda. of course it's impossible to say for sure. but one famine can kill 100 times more than al qaeda could ever hope to kill.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:16 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:15:31 AM

yeah because a nuclear bomb couldnt kill that many people

let alone that terrorism has ALREADY killed thousands of people, while global warming MIGHT kill people

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:16:42 AM

we would probably have to give up more rights if when some of the potential climate change legislation the patriot passed


[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:17:32 AM

^^i'm shakin' in my boots over here.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:17 AM. Reason : .]

Quote :

"let alone that terrorism has ALREADY killed thousands of people, while global warming MIGHT kill people"

i'm sure global warming (or at the very least pollution) has killed far more than a few thousand.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:18 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:17:36 AM

what rights? theres no right to drive a wasteful automobile. I would gladly convert my vehicle to run anything else but petroleum.

its not like our right to privacy or our right to a speedy trial, which have been significantly degraded in this current administration

2/19/2007 1:18:01 AM

^^im shaking in my boots from global warming

Quote :

"theres no right to drive a wasteful automobile"

theres also no right to have a private conversation while paying to use a private companies phone service, for example

Quote :

"'m sure global warming (or at the very least pollution) has killed far more than a few thousand"

your mere speculation doesnt seem to hold the same weight as the actual evidence of countless deaths from terrorism

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:19 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:18:02 AM

I'm still waiting for someone to post a canadafreepress article before I believe your assertion that Al Gore is lying.

2/19/2007 1:19:10 AM

Quote :

" theres also no right to have a private conversation while paying to use a private companies phone service, for example"

are you saying we should nationalize our telecom industry then?

2/19/2007 1:20:55 AM

Note to the ill-informed: Famine killed thousands BEFORE "global warming" and it will continue to kill thousands AFTER.

2/19/2007 1:21:48 AM

^^im saying that the rights you think you do or dont have are based on your own interpretation

you could say being able to drive a car is a freedom...you could say being able to talk on a phone is a freedom...neither are explicitly listed rights in any govt legislation

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:23 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:22:22 AM

Quote :

"Air: The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel. Most are in poor countries."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4086809.stm

2/19/2007 1:22:48 AM

Note to the ill-informed: Famine murder killed thousands BEFORE "global warming terrorism" and it will continue to kill thousands AFTER.

I mean, damn. Do you even think before posting?

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:23 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:22:52 AM

^do you even think before coming with horrible analogies?

2/19/2007 1:23:59 AM

Do you question whether it was supposed to be a good analogy before posting?

The analogy is just as bad as the original statement. That's the point, Sherlock.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:26 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:25:03 AM

no the original statement is a lot more valid than your crappy analogy

2/19/2007 1:26:44 AM

so if the WHO is only even 10% right, that's still roughly 100 times what al qaeda has killed in their most deadly years

2/19/2007 1:28:30 AM

so your article shows that pollution has killed millions of people

how does that somehow equate to 'global warming has killed millions of people'?

2/19/2007 1:29:38 AM

considering i said pollution and global warming in my original statement, then yes. i'd say it validates my earlier statement.

2/19/2007 1:30:10 AM

^x5 I don't give a shit what you think, k? Get it? I was addressing an earlier post. And if you don't like reports from outside the MSM of this country, piss off! I'm trying to find the National Geographic article--is that entity acceptable to you?--about a new type of volcano that's warming the ocean. You do know that warmer oceans have been linked to increased numbers of hurricanes and increased hurricane strength, right? Wouldn't that be an important link to establish? STFU.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:30 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:30:33 AM

^x5You mean ignoring the fact that global warming could drastically increase the number of "thousands" that could be killed by famine is valid?

North Korea was killing thousands before "nuclear weapons," and they'll continue to kill thousands after they get nukes, so why bother?

2/19/2007 1:31:23 AM

^^^well you've shown that "at the very least, pollution" has killed thousands/millions

what does that have to do with global warming killing or not killing people

^i'm not ignoring the fact that global warming could kill a lot of people...you're ignoring the fact that global warming could kill a lot of people and terrorism has killed a lot of people

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:31:43 AM

well considering gore is advocating decreasing pollution, i was speaking to how his proposed course of action could save more lives than terrorist concerns.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:33:01 AM

Quote :

"about a new type of volcano that's warming the ocean. You do know that warmer oceans have been linked to increased numbers of hurricanes and increased hurricane strength, right? Wouldn't that be an important link to establish? STFU."

Holy crap you're dumb.

1. You've already posted it.

2. It's not about a "new" type of volcano. It's about a "newly discovered" type of volcano that's been doing its thing for millions of years


^^ That has nothing to do with it. He was arguing for inaction because x would happen regardless of what we do, ignoring that fact that action could have an impact on how severe x might be. Past events don't even play in.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:35 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:33:25 AM

^^i agree that decreasing pollution would be great on many levels and would certainly save many lives but still dont see what that has to do with deaths from global warming...pollution is causing those deaths...if pollution is one of the things causing global warming, its still the pollution thats causing the deaths...not the subsequent heating of the earth and rising sea levels or anything like that

nobody is going around preaching "automobile exhaust is killing millions"...they're saying "if we dont do something about exhaust, millions could be killed"

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:36 AM. Reason : ^^]

2/19/2007 1:35:41 AM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060727-new-volcano.html

2/19/2007 1:37:09 AM

Quote :

"nobody is going around preaching "automobile exhaust is killing millions""

the WHO is.

2/19/2007 1:37:14 AM

^^Holy crap you're dumb.

1. You've already posted it.

2. It's not about a "new" type of volcano. It's about a "newly discovered" type of volcano that's been doing its thing for millions of years



But we've already discussed this. I asked you if you wanted me to cite a dozen NG articles supporting human-caused global warming, and you signed off.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:40 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:37:57 AM

kinda like how the earth has been naturally going in and out of ice ages for millions of years

^^I mean no activists are preaching to the public that that is happening...Al Gore isnt saying "millions of people are dying"...he's saying "millions of people could/will die"

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:41 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:39:55 AM

^^ YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT! FUCK YOU, YOU GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! YOU ARE THE FUCKING DUMBASS! DO YOU HEAR ME?! YOU, MOTHERFUCKER! GOD DAMN YOU!

PS: I'M OUT FOR TONIGHT. TAKE GLOBAL WARMING AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS, MOTHERFUCKERS! GOD DAMMIT!

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:43 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2007 1:40:52 AM

^^And kinda like its had humans dumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air for millions of years.


^Don't get so angry. At your age, you're likely to have a heart attack.

Either way you're not too bright. You either misinterpreted a very simple article, or you're trying to tell me that a natural phenomena that's been occurring for millions of years is somehow suddenly responsible for recent warming.



[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:44 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:41:14 AM

looks like we've made the old man angry.

2/19/2007 1:41:53 AM

Hilarious

2/19/2007 1:46:17 AM

Quote :

"you're trying to tell me that a natural phenomena that's been occurring for millions of years is somehow suddenly responsible for recent warming. "

sounds about as absurd as thinking the recent warming couldnt be part of a natural phenomena thats been occuring for millions of years and that it must definitely be some recent human activity thats suddently responsible for it

2/19/2007 1:46:17 AM

if by suddenly you mean "increasingly as we've been polluting more", then yes.

2/19/2007 1:50:37 AM

you feel awfully confident in something that requires assuming a bunch of unknowns dont you

2/19/2007 1:51:55 AM

Nothing unnatural about this.


And, you know what... This is dumb.

Either post some serious peer-reviewed evidence that is contrary to the scientific consensus, or shut up about this. Seriously. You're using speculative powers to try and tell 98% of experts in this field that they're wrong.

It always devolves into pure speculation by non-experts, and it's pointless.

So here's my source:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Beat it.


(lol, hooksaw's still on)

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:53 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:52:52 AM

actually i wouldn't say 'definitely', but i'm confident enough in it that i think more action should be taken in case it's true than currently is in this country (and worldwide)

2/19/2007 1:53:24 AM

^^what kind of inept scientist is content with something just because its the consensus?

^well maybe so

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:53:39 AM

They aren't. They're still conducting research.

What kind of scientist argues against scientific research wit speculation (aka what you've been doing)

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:55 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:55:11 AM

the burden of proof isnt on me

Quote :

"What kind of scientist argues against scientific research wit speculation "

actually all good scientists do that

gg

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:55:45 AM

so since science can never be proven, only disproven, should we never then use science as a basis for legislation and/or action?

2/19/2007 1:57:08 AM

^^Yes it is.

With all the evidence that's currently out there, yours is the bold claim, not theirs.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:57 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:57:35 AM

^^no, we should use good science

Quote :

"yours is the bold claim, not theirs"

thats completely irrelevant

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:57:46 AM

1. The burden of proof is certainly on you to demonstrate why they're using "bad" science.

2. It's very relevant; it's how the burden of proof is established.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:59 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:58:23 AM

Quote :

""'m sure global warming (or at the very least pollution) has killed far more than a few thousand" your mere speculation doesnt seem to hold the same weight as the actual evidence of countless deaths from terrorism "

They're drastically different issues and it's fallacious to try and compare them.

2/19/2007 1:59:12 AM

^one of the differences is that terrorism has concrete tangible resulting deaths that we have seen without any doubts whatsoever

2/19/2007 2:00:42 AM