“…Carnold totally ignored the sarcasm with which Jon Stewart delivered that "poor Al Gore" quote…” Give it a break, Ben. I created this thread for its comedic qualities --- not because I’m trying to create a serious argument using a comedian’s series of punch-lines for my “source”. This clip was put up for a good laugh… not for hyper-sensitive liberals to analyze and make angry remarks and defenses about. It’s a comedy clip. Not some C-Span clip of a Congressional hearing. Geez…. You angry liberals need to lighten up.
“It would seem that our Carnold hasn´t lost the cajones to lie about what´s in a source even as he provides a link to it!” The irony is overwhelming. Ben makes accusations of lying… by telling lies. That’s a bit of a parody in itself. Ben, please be so kind as to show where I’ve *ever* lied “about what´s in a source”. You don’t have to produce a list. Just one example would suffice. I have no doubt that you’d be more successful at snipe hunting than you would be at finding such an instance. However, since you made the disparaging remark, it’s on you to back it up… or be labeled a mudslinging liar that stoops to personal insults in lieu of substantive debate. Happy hunting!
In other words, you can´t point to a single post in any thread where such had occurred.
Once upon a time, you were a great person to debate with. Lately, you´ve become very bitter and angry. I remember a time when you attacked with verifiable facts. Nowdays, you´re quick to lash out with personal smears and attacks, and be damned with even *attempting* to make any sort of substantive or factual post. I expect as much from Hugo and other lesser individuals on this site, but I really expected more from you.
The biggest and most apparent lie was when you said: “The Dow has risen back to nearly 8,500 after closing a thousand points lower than that in September, when Bush was president.”
When I called you out on this clear and obvious lie, you got MEGA pissed! In fact, you sent me a private message that said: “Hey man, want to say, I really appreciate the third degree in the forums. I was just trying to summarize in a hurry the information from my "Stock Markets Continue to Rally on Good News About Banking, Housing" story, and as far as the Dow, I had meant to type 2007 but missed and hit an 8 instead. Rip my head off over a stupid little typo, why don´t you?” (Send from Ben on 5/16/2009 to CArnold)
Not only did you lie in the thread, but you tried to lie and BS me ON TOP OF THAT! Typo my brown ass! The Dow was higher in 2007 than in 2008!
Here are but two instances of your proclivities for dishonesty. See how easy that was? I can rattle off a few more, if you’d like.
Again, I challenge you provide one instance to back up your frivolous accusations.
I used to have respect for you. It´s quite shameful how far down you´ve slid.
"I remember this one post, about global warming, in which you implied that it was a farce. That was a lie."
Okay... first of all, you’re totally wrong. I would *never* imply that global warming is a farce. I´m not one to "imply" that global warming is a farce, a fake, fictional, or anything like that. I´m one to *explicitly* tell you (not imply) that global warming is a farce, a hoax, and just another punch-bowl for the liberal masses to gather and drink their fill of Kool-Aid.
One day our grandchildren will look back at how bitterly stupid some people were for believing this nonsense. Global warming alarmists will be mocked and scorned the same way we mock and scorn those that used to believe that the earth was flat.
Never short-change me, again, and say that I simply "imply" that global warming is a joke.
Note: In 2009, we´ve seen *record lows* around the world. 2009 is one of the top 10 coldest years on record!
If we´re experiencing global "warming", why is it getting colder?
In a world in which anything you say may be ´just a joke´, you have no way of stating anything explicitly. Anything you say, however explicitly, merely implies that you mean it. Whether people then infer that you meant it seriously is another matter.
Semantics aside, you´re an idiot. I mean, really: ´If we´re experiencing global "warming", why is it getting colder?´ That argument is right up there with ´if the Earth is round, how come people in China don´t fall off´. I hope you´re kidding, but I have no reason to assume you are.
And, you asked Ben Reilly to provide an example of a lie of yours. I see no reason to dismiss the first post of this thread as a perfect example.
Hey, that´s cool, man! Maybe I should share some of the stuff you´ve sent me in PMs. I think the fact that you did that reflects poorly on your character ... but your little sh!t-fit was priceless, and I wouldn´t change that for the world. : )
... that my original post about the Dow was wrong and my correction to Carnold was wrong. The Dow plummeted to the 7,500 range in November of last year, which was while Bushie was in office. It plummeted even further in March (under Obama). Obviously now it´s rebounded to 10,500 range, so this is all sort of a moot point, but I did want to set the record straight. In the words of a great Republican candidate for president, "I screwed up!" and I admit it.
Now, Carnold, *you* admit that it´s creepy to hang onto ammo like this to trot out against people you don´t like on SN.
"If we´re experiencing global "warming", why is it getting colder?"
look up the solar minimum, sun spots and cosmic rays...
we are experience a solar minimum; meaning we have less sunspots.
less sunspots, means more cosmic rays get through to earth atmosphere.
more cosmic rays hitting earth´s atmosphere cause high altitude clouds to start forming.
clouds, esspecially high altitude clouds block sunlight.
the extra amount of blocked sunlight means less energy hitting earth
less energy hitting earth means a colder earth even under indentical conditions otherwise. (while its true the sun is hotter now, which is why planets with little or no atmosphere are having melting poles/warming also, our atmosphere causing a counter-intutive event; cooling... though it makes perfect sense when you undersatnd the relationship between the solar minimum´s reduced sunspots, the reduced sunspots, letting in a increased amount of cosmic rays, also this is a particularly dramatic solar minimum BTW, which should in turn lead to a stronger than normal solar maximum).
also anyone that doesn´t understand the basics of global warming has no call, calling it out as a farce, and by that comment that clearly shows you don´t know the basics of global warming, much less my intricate systems within the global warming effect such as i stated above, which i´m sure many people will have to varify for themselves, and i would encourage you to do the same.
also funny thing about global warming... while the US had a cold winter, ours up here in canada was rather normal, no significant heat waves, but not cold either, infact growing season started 2 week EARLY here... and yes i´m fully aware of the farms all over the US that had frost well into late spring. so no the whole world didn´t experience the same amount of cooling that americans did, the cooling from the last two years, but thats fully explainable even within the global warming models (namely by effect of the solar minimum), which for some reason many people seem to think is supposed to be a perfectly linear occurance... which would be true if not for things like ocean currents, solar or cosmic activity, oceans absorbing CO2 and releasing it peroidically, geological activity, wind speeds, amount of ice to reflect sunlight among other things which complicate simple climate models even above and beyond human activity and things directly related to that.
one things i´ve always HATED about global warming models though is they NEVER take into account the effects to man-made radiant heat (which increases with industiralization of more countries and also in general with world population increases) which will also be trapped by the greenhouse gases as well as geologically created heat and that of sunlight. hopefully they will eventually start taking this into account as well as our CO2, methane and other greenhouase gases as well as outright pollution.
“Maybe I should share some of the stuff you´ve sent me in PMs.” Go for it.
“I think the fact that you did that reflects poorly on your character.” You brought this on yourself. I merely demonstrated how easy it was to prove someone is dishonest by using their own words. Maybe next time you’ll temper your words unless you can back up the slanderous things you say.
“but your little sh!t-fit was priceless” Terd-fit? My post was very well composed and to the point. You’re the one that needed 3 posts to get your feeling off your chest. Perhaps if you weren’t so angry…
“I hope your brown ass can read charts ...” Sure can. And the one you provided further backs what I said: The Dow was higher in Sept of 2008 than it was when you wrote your false claim. The Dow was even higher in Sept of 2007 than it was in 2008, so your BS claim of a typo was more lies.
Did you purposely make this chart inaccessible to the masses to protect yourself from more embarrassment? Why didn’t you just post a link to the web-page so that everyone could view it? Instead, you posted a link to an svg file that you have to download and view with either Adobe SVG Viewer, Adobe Illustrator, or Microsoft Visio. Not everyone has those applications.
“"I screwed up!" and I admit it.” Yes, you screwed up. You also lied. You attempted to mislead readers with bullcrap info you attempted to pass off as fact.
Like I said, this is just one instance. I can present more (and probably will) unless you either 1) retract your libelous statement and admit it was false or 2) you present proof to substantiate it.
"...you have no way of stating anything explicitly..."
But I already did. Re-read my last post. If you don´t know how to interpret my posts (or anyone else´s for that matter), all you have to do is ask for clarification. It´s that simple. I´m very stern in my views and beliefs and will not alter them for you or anyone else that may disagree.
"Semantics aside, you´re an idiot." Yes, and you´re coming across as being very smart right about now. I see you´ve embraced the debating methods of stereotypical Liberals: If you can´t win the debate with facts or logic, start name-calling and character assasinations. This is very typical desperate of non-thinkers.
"I see no reason to dismiss the first post of this thread as a perfect example" Errr... maybe because believing global warming is a sham and hoax doesn´t make someone a liar? In fact, most Americans agree:
“Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.” http://www.examiner.com/...
Okay... Let me get this straight: When it´s cooling down, it´s global warming. When it heating up, it´s global warming.
Meanwhile, John Coleman (the founder of The Weather Channel) and 30,000 scientists have sued Al Gore over Global Warming fraud. http://www.youtube.com/...
*Another* scientist (Dr. John Christy) with the UN Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change said that he and many other UN scientists believe Climate Change is a hoax. Christ is a the Director of the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama. He and other scientists share half the Nobel prize that was also awarded to Al Gore for climate change. http://www.youtube.com/...
global warming is a long term trend... not a year to year thing as you make it look like.
"Scientists and professors speak out against the sham that is global warming."
yet they can´t disprove it and it is falsifiable.
global warming is very much real, unless they are hoaxing the increasing ocean level (only a few mm per year but it is an increasing rate, and it does add up), the massive sheets of ice that are melting are at an increasing rate, the ocean temperatures warming, the greenhouse effect, the urban heat island effect, and the overall trend for warming temperatures.... probably alot more aspects too.
the bottom line is you don´t understand it, even on a basic level, hence some of your assine comments about it... that and they are HUGE right wing talking points which is where you seem to get all your information from.
E: "...you have no way of stating anything explicitly..."
C: "But I already did. Re-read my last post."
No, you didn´t. Re-read my last post, in which I responded to your previous post.
Hang on, I should probably give you a minute to read that again: In a world in which anything you say may be ´just a joke´, you have no way of stating anything explicitly. Anything you say, however explicitly, merely implies that you mean it. Whether people then infer that you meant it seriously is another matter.
"Errr... maybe because believing global warming is a sham and hoax doesn´t make someone a liar?" You used a source that didn´t support your claims. That makes you a liar. How do I know? Check out Wikipedia´s article on ferns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/... It shows what I mean.
"In fact, most Americans agree" Wow. Many Americans wouldn´t believe that positive ions can harm you. Many Americans use homoeopathic ´medicine´. Citing the opinions of ignorant people doesn´t help your case.
Global warming is a hoax. UN´s own scientific community agree. We´ve had record lows this year and the next 8-9 years are also expected to break all-time record lows. I don´t need a politician to tell me the world is getting hotter when I can feel that its getting colder.
I want to apologize for calling you a liar. That wasn´t cool, or called for. I just got mad.
I´d also like to call for respect for one another here on the message boards -- good debates shouldn´t turn into personal squabbles. I know I can be one of the worst about that, but I´ll try to do better. : )
and probably none of those aspects that i mentioned, so talking to you about global warming is like talking about the scientific origins of life on earth to a creationist.
also again you seem to think global warming is a linear simple process, its not. it getting colder locally for a few years doesn´t.
NO-ONE is denying the last two years defy the trends, but there is a perfectly reasonable answer for that, as i already gave in regards to the solar minimum were experiencing... which is responsible for temperature drop for the last two years (almost record breaking durations without sunspots)... but nor does it disprove global warming as you and many ignorant (and they are; they don´t understand global warming, and moreover most make no attempt to either) folks seem to think.
We just need to agree to disagree on this point. Feel free to provide links and videos to support your claims. I´ll review each with an open mind, but unless there is some spectacular piece of evidence that will radically transform my opinion, this debate is moot at best.
Did Ben just hit the pipe? That was nice & very unexpected.
@HAVOC666 I´d suggest changing your tactic. Telling people how stupid they are & how they don´t get things doesn´t help you to communicate yourself better. Just some friendly advice. Also, what really is happening is whats always has happened. Climate change. Life is always changing. To say we don´t have an affect is to deny yourself of your very own existence. To say that what is happening right now is in our hands is a very far stretch when we still don´t know what is going to happen, or what is really happening. Global Warming is a term now that is not very beneficial to us as it is more used to scare than to inform people the very basic of action & that is to be responsible for yourself. Geh, who am I even talking to?
I hope that the following makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand and how only 20 – 30 paleoclimatologists and super computer programming specialists can create the entire “consensus” that man is causing global warming.
ClimateGate emails and computer programs were taken from a main server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. It is not known if this was a theft or the actions of a whistleblower, disgusted with what the lead scientists at CRU were doing.
ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists (not just at CRU) that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”. They owned the peer review process.
ClimateGate exposed that this small group has been adding positive corrections to the raw global temperature data, inflating the amount of published temperature rise over the last 50 years. Both CRU in the UK and NASA-GISS in the US add these biases. At CRU, the programmers did not even know what and why some corrections were added every month. Only since satellite monitoring for comparison have the amounts of biasing leveled off.
ClimateGate exposed the leaders of this cabal instructing each other to delete emails, data files, and data analysis programs ahead of already filed Freedom Of Information Act requests for raw data and computer codes, clearly a crime.
ClimateGate exposed the “trick” about the Hockey stick figure and other studies that performed proxy construction of past temperatures. After all, reconstruction of the last 1,000 years of climate is the first step in predicting the future with super computer programs as explained below:
Everything about all 21 super computer programs used by the IPCC to determine future global warming rely on best-determined past sensitivities to solar and volcanic effects (climate forcings) from the proxy temperature record.
1. The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (the handle of the hockey stick) was necessary so that past solar effects could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all of the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on Greenhouse Gasses. Raw data (like tree-ring thickness, radioisotope of mud layers in a lake bottom, ice core analyses, etc.) are used as a proxy for reconstruction of the temperature record for 1000 AD to 1960 AD. To ensure desired results, statistical manipulation of the raw data and selecting only supporting data, cherry-picking, was suspected and later proved to make the hockey stick graph. Look closely at the plot here where the hockey stick is one of the plots: http://www.theregister.co.uk/...
2. The slope of long-term 10-year running average global temperature using thermometers from 1900 to present (the blade of the hockey stick) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code, Urban Heat Island effects, hiding the declines, and even fabricating data (documented in the leaked source code comments revealed with ClimateGate). This ensured that the Greenhouse Gas sensitivity coefficients in all 21 of the super computers was maximized, and that maximizes the temperature result at year 2100 based on Greenhouse Gas increases. This thermometer data was used to replace the tree ring-divergence after 1960 and plot this over the climate history data of (1) above giving the false impression that the reconstructed 1000 AD to 1960 AD results are more accurate than they are.
3. Because tuning of the super computer programs uses back casting, the computer outputs could always replicate the 20th Century (by design); therefore it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them. Because of (1) and (2) above, nearly all climate change predicted by the models was due to CO2 and positive feedbacks and hardly any of the climate change was for other reasons like solar, understood or not.
4. Over the years, when better numbers for volcanic effects, black carbon, aerosols, land use, ocean and atmospheric multi-decadal cycles, etc. became available, it appears that CRU made revisions to refit the back cast, but could hardly understand what the code was doing due to previous correction factor fudging and outright fabricating, as documented in the released code as part of ClimateGate.
5. After the IPCC averages the 21 super computer outputs of future projected warming (anywhere from 2-degrees to 7-degrees, not very precise), that output is used to predict all manner of secondary effects / catastrophes. (Fires, floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, insects, extinctions, diseases, civil wars, cats & dogs sleeping together, etc.) This results in massive amounts of government funding for the study of secondary effect
This results in massive amounts of government funding for the study of secondary effects, employing tens of thousands of scientists and engineers worldwide, thus the consensus.
So shut-up or be called a denier, live the way we tell you to live, pay more for everything, and just send money for someones research on the effects of global climate change on horseshoe crabs (which have been around for about 440 million years through all possible temperature ranges).
I hope that this makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand and how only 20 – 30 paleoclimatologists and super computer programming specialists can create the entire “consensus” that man is causing global warming.
so what do you call people lacking the intellectual capacity to thik a problem through, consider variables ect... its certianly isn´t intelligent, logical or aware..
people can dance around and insist i call a spade, a diamond all day long but at the end of the day the spade is still a spade, regardless of whether someone is ballsy enough to point it out or not.
i´d rather live in a world where stupidity and ignornace is pointed out, called out and stamped out... not ignored and allowed to propagate.
and global warming is a perfectly acceptable term, THATS WHAT HAPPENS; the globe warms, but as i´ve repeatidly said this is not a linear process due to many factors.
and contrary to popular though some people actually do know whats going on, the problem is that the data changes so fast (computers can only do these massive model do fast, and with a constantly influs of newer data) that no-one knows quite how extreme the changes will get, or what the breaking point its for the ocean currents that regulate temperature to the planets land masses, or exactly how much oceans will rise, or exactly how climate will shift, but they most certianly are aware of the processes that cause global warming, and i´ve mentioned many of them, including the recent reason of defiance against the global warming trend (solar minimum). we are more definately aware of whats happening and some of it is indeed natural and out of our hands (like solar minimums and maximums) but other things are DEFINATELY within our control like CO2 emissions (and even methane emissions) and deforestation... and even reducing radiant heat (which is NEVER talked about but which also must play some kind of role, even if only a small one, the greenhouse effect would trap that heat just as easily).
"people can dance around and insist i call a spade, a diamond all day long but at the end of the day the spade is still a spade, regardless of whether someone is ballsy enough to point it out or not."
Boy, didn´t your parents teach you anything? If you got nothing good to say, then don´t say anything. No one is telling you to call a spade a diamond, just not insult someone while explaining yourself, because in the end your insulting yourself.
"i´d rather live in a world where stupidity and ignornace[sic] is pointed out, called out and stamped out... not ignored and allowed to propagate."
Then you´d be asking for a death sentence buddy. We all started ignorant, & we are still to this day to a certain point. Because of this, we should be humble to another ignorance as a great opportunity to teach & learn from them while helping them out. You seem to praise intelligence yet go about it in a very barbaric way.
"and global warming is a perfectly acceptable term, THATS WHAT HAPPENS; the globe warms, but as i´ve repeatidly said this is not a linear process due to many factors."
Well, thank you for ignoring what I was saying about how its not acceptable because you don´t learn nor grow from fear. Fear brings panic which leads people to making rash short term decisions. So, to rephrase, its not global warming, its climate change. Natural, normal, been happening a hell of a lot longer than you. Now go back & reread what I said in my last post to see if you can "logically" see my point without your "emotions" making you see things that are not there, & things that your obviously missed.
The rest of your shtuff I ignored because you just as well ignored NucEngineer very informative post. Actually I lied, I scanned it & don´t know why your even telling me this. Your not flaunting your "intellectual capacity" are you?
"Boy, didn´t your parents teach you anything? If you got nothing good to say, then don´t say anything."
sure they tried... but there´s not a person on this planet or any other that will force to to sit idly by and watch the stupidity and ignorance that are a bane to my existance.
"No one is telling you to call a spade a diamond, just not insult someone while explaining yourself, because in the end your insulting yourself."
LMAO... yeah, yeah and when i give a finger i have four pointing back at me...lol
bottom line, i call a spade a spade... if people don´t like it, TOUGH.
if people think stupidity and ignorance is an insult (rather than a charactistic/observation), well that only furthers my point about stupidity, ignorance and its sheer abundance...
i really couldn´t give to shit if people like me or not... i´d rather be right than liked any day.
"Then you´d be asking for a death sentence buddy. We all started ignorant, & we are still to this day to a certain point."
sure we are all born ignorant... but *SOME* people choose not to remain that way... unfortunately most do remain that way, beit by choice or manipulation.
"You seem to praise intelligence yet go about it in a very barbaric way. "
perhaps so, but stupidity, and willful ignorance (people that choose ignorance over knowledge/awareness) should be painful. nothing would make me happier than a world in which stupidity and ignorance were punished rather than rewarded, no two things in the world piss me of more.
"So, to rephrase, its not global warming, its climate change. "
NO, its global BLOODY warming what is so bloody hard to understand about a long term trend of rising global temperatures being called global warming... its not rocket science its COMMON SENSE... they don´t call it global warming to confuse people they call it that because that the simpliest way of expressing what it is... climate change a VAGUE term that decribes global cooling as accurately as global warming, or even the after effect of a major asteroid hitting earth (that would cause climate change too), or major volcanic activity and all it does in the long run is muddy the water by confusing or ignoring the problem through inpercise language... only a global warming trend can be called global warming.
"Natural, normal, been happening a hell of a lot longer than you."
not the 60% of CO2 which were reponsible for in the last 260 years alone, or the 70% of methane, or the full 100% of cfc´s... and i guess all the trees on earth from the depleted forests were cut down by beavers.
there are most certianly natural aspects but to deny the human effect its absolutely nothing short of ignorant... and more likely indictative of an greater problem; stupidity.
"The rest of your shtuff I ignored because you just as well ignored NucEngineer very informative post."
so lets get this right... you choose ignorance, because i didn´t get to someone´s else post.
... and am i EXPECTED to reply to EVERYONE now?
and just from the first little bit it appears he´s trying to make it look like 20-30 scientists for global warming compare to the rest (31,000; mostly not scientists, and fewer even in those fields), which is clearly not the case as support is still vastly on the side of global warming; to the effect of 85%+ to the 97%+ of a few years ago, pending of the source of course.
as for these parts
"The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age"
the gulf steam stopped hence the mini ice age... not a lack CO2, nor too much... it was about ocean currents, which play a vital role in global warming (or cooling) as they moderate earth´s land mass temperatures, but hell why mention the cause.
as for point 2, the heat island effect IS part of global warming specifically the man-made-global warming aspect.
as for point 3, it was already determined that TYPICALLY the sun isn´t a primary factor in global warming, because for the most part its constant. aside from solar maximums and solar mimimums (like the one we have now) that in and of itself can explain the deviation from the global warming trend.
point 4, plugging in new infromation (as long as its accurate) is part of the scientific method, not an abuse of it.
as for point 5 2-7 deegree (if in farenheit) is more an a reasonable projection, in the last 50-60 years ALONE the temperature increased more than 0.6C, which is less than it dropped by (roughly 0.4C) in the last to year leaving STILL a net warming effect.
and in the end he completely ignores the tens of thousands of scientists to study global warming to the point of scientifically proving it as "well they were funded by a small group" SO WAS THEIR OPPOSITION... which he dones´t even mention once.
so are you happy that i finally got to his post and picked it clean too? or are you still going to claim ignorance on my part.
while informative it doesn´t change a thing... much less global warmin
Your article attacks Hannity for crediting ClimateGate as the reason for canceling his appearance in Copenhagen. I and the majority of Americans agree with him. Gore hasn´t come out and openly proclaimed, "I´m going to keep my head low until this ClimateGate blows over." Nor does anyone expect him to. But, we can deduce with a great deal of confidence what his reasons are...
The Copenhagen event was also to promote his book, where he has much to financially gain. I suppose he has more to lose if he shows up and gets hammered with questions about the credibility of Climate Science in the wake of ClimateGate:
"As described in The Washington Times´ Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore´s new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."
Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Mr. Gore´s program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.
"We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. . . . We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation," said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company." http://www.thenewamerican.com/...
Plenty more to read on this story.
Why else would Gore not keep his commitment at Copenhagen, if not for ClimateGate?
"Your article attacks Hannity for crediting ClimateGate as the reason for canceling his appearance in Copenhagen."
You mean that Gore is canceling *one* of his *several* appearances in Copenhagen, and will make the others, right? Because the very first paragraph of ichi´s link noted, "While it’s true that Gore has canceled an appearance there, Hannity presented no evidence to indicate Climategate had anything to do with it. Furthermore, Hannity neglected to mention that Gore will make other appearances at the summit."
"I and the majority of Americans agree with him."
You and the majority of Americans agree with Sean Hannity, that Gore canceled an appearance at Copenhagen because of these hacked e-mails? Do you care to show a poll that supports that claim, or do you now have a psychic connection with the brains of other Americans?
As a software developer with over 20 years of professional experience, I often am asked for advice by family, friends, business associates, and acquaintances. Often times, these people come to me after already having received info/advice from someone else, but that advice wasn’t a bit helpful because that person threw so much technical jargon at them that they left more confused than when they asked their question.
I warn everyone to beware of people that render such advice. My advice is, “If you can’t understand what they’re talking about, chances are that they don’t either.” From my experience through interviewing potential employees and from working with past co-workers, there are a lot of people that seem to have a real aversion to admitting that they don’t know the answer to your problem and would rather obfuscate their ignorance with a bunch of technical jargon rather than simply saying, “I don’t know… let me look that up and I’ll get back to you.”
With that said, I was able to read and fully understand what NucEngineer posted. I was able to read, follow along, and I came away feeling like I learned something. Although your posts weren’t filled with a bunch of confusing jargon and terms, I was left with more questions than anything else. Like, where did you get this info? Is it from a reputable source, or is it from a shade-tree climatologist that mistakenly believes to know more than he actually does? Is there someplace that I can go and verify what you said?
I greatly question your responses to my posts. I point out that 2009 was one of the coldest years on record, and you respond telling me it’s lack of sunspots and make as if it’s no big deal. If it’s that easily explainable, then why are scientists that support the Global Warming theory up in arms about *NOT* being able to explain it?
From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models): "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
And if Global Warming can be backed up and proven, then why are scientists manipulating data to produce desired results? Why did Phil Jones, the scientist in the center of the ClimateGate scandal, step down? Note that there have been no denials from these scientists as to the authenticity of the ClimateGate documents/e-mails.
"You mean that Gore is canceling *one* of his *several* appearances in Copenhagen, and will make the others, right?" Yes. He´s canceling on the *one* where he would be speaking and vulnerable to questions being asked. He is not speaking in his other "appearances" --- he´s just going to be in attendance because the global warming alarmists feel his attendance is necessary to make the event certifiable.
"Do you care to show a poll that supports that claim, or do you now have a psychic connection with the brains of other Americans?" I can´t point to any specific poll about Gore´s absence. This is what I´ve gathered from comments/forums in news sites I´ve recently visited to procure information in re to this discussion. They´re flooded with people with similar sentiments: "Of course ClimateGate has prompted him to bail on his speaking engagement."
What do you predict it is, Ben? Given that he seems that he can predict our weather years and decades in advance, does he also believe he can predict when he´ll become ill or catch the flu? Why else would he have cancelled?
"Al Gore’s scheduled December 16th speech with the auspicious title “Climate Conclusion” has been canceled amid the scandal of Climategate. About 3,000 Danes had tickets for the Berlinske Media event that was announced in August.
Al Gore has been the poster child for Global Warming, but has been under scrutiny from scientists who argue against the findings of humans’ involvement in our climate. This was highlighted in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. A British court had ruled that there were 9 factual errors in An Inconvenient Truth, yet it still won an Academy Award in 2007, along with the Nobel Prize shared with the IPCC. Again in November, mistakes were found in Al Gore’s new book begin with the cover. While some are trying to explain away the cancellation, it seems pretty obvious that there is too much skepticism to show up in a large public forum like this. Mr. Gore had to deal with some hard questions at a book signing this past week, and had the readers escorted away rather than discuss Climategate." http://canadafreepress.com/...
"sure they tried... but there´s not a person on this planet or any other that will force to to sit idly by and watch the stupidity and ignorance that are a bane to my existance."
So you bitching & calling people names is helping us to be greener? Is anyone asking you to sit idle?
"i really couldn´t give to shit if people like me or not... i´d rather be right than liked any day."
So you believe your right huh? How old are you? Are you still a kid? Do you honestly think how you view the world now is actually how it is? Has your view never changed? Do you think you will think the same way in another 10 years? No one is asking you to be liked you can express yourself how ever you want, but to think your right always is very egotistical. Don´t you think your getting in your own way of progress?
"nothing would make me happier than a world in which stupidity and ignorance were punished rather than rewarded"
How simplistic you see the world. You see someone getting rewarded & think that is the end of that? That their actions of ignorance has no consequence?
´there are most certianly natural aspects but to deny the human effect its absolutely nothing short of ignorant"
Funny you think I am denying anything. Are we even on the same page?
Well to end this I just wanted to say why are you so hateful? I bet you even hate yourself. You sound very misanthropic. Almost sounds like you have given up & now are bitter young boy who has no advise to offer but excuses & bitching that do nothing but strengthen your own hatred. You ever fear your stuck in a downward spiral? The only people to be bitter about is our selves because that´s the only ones we are responsible for. Taking your hatred out on others isn´t going to solve your lunacy. Showing compassion & being humble along the way is a good start. Hatred begets more hatred & treating others with no respect deserves no respect.
Your at a loss my friend. Thanks for having a one way conversation with me.
No, Gore´s still delivering a speech at the climate summit, and he´s still having book signings all over Denmark. He´s canceled one book promotion -- one out of many stops he making that coincide with the climate summit -- to focus on the actual treaty talks.
As far as what you glean from message boards, you know you can´t surmise from reading internet message boards what the majority of Americans think. You should have been more clear about that rather than baldly stating that the majority of Americans agree with you.
Update: More support for skeptics came on December 4th when the earliest snow on record fell on Houston, beating the previous record of December 10th, last year and 1944. It was also the first time snow was measured there two years in a row. Snow also fell for the ealiest date on and around New Orleans.
You´ve dodged the question, twice now: Why do you think he´s cancelled his appearance in Copenhagen?
Given that there are no actual polls in re to Gores sudden cancelation, the forums/comments in news sites are about the only barometer to guage popular sentiment. Do you have a better or more accurate barometer?
In addition, there are many news outlets that are reporting that Gore has cancelled because of ClimateGate:
And this video, below, shows why he *will* be attending his book-signings, but not the speech at the UN Climate Summit. http://www.youtube.com/...
In this video, you see several people asking him about ClimateGate, and they are quickly apprehended and wisked away. They´re on private property and therefore can be charged with trespassing. Had this been in a public forum, Gore would not be able to have his henchmen man-handle these individuals for merely asking a question.
Forgive me if I don´t take your collection of right-wing biased sources seriously. They don´t actually demonstrate a connection between the hacked e-mails and Gore canceling one of many stops he´s making in Denmark, anyway. Did you even look at *my* source? It´s actually from a mainstream news outlet rather than from a site created to promote conservative politics.
The canceled appearance is clearly a book promotion, not some sort of round-table discussion, town hall or press conference, as you (Carnold) have repeatedly tried to represent it as. You apparently ignored the fact that I brought up previously -- Gore is still going to give a speech at the summit.
"The canceled appearance is clearly a book promotion, not some sort of round-table discussion, town hall or press conference, as you (Carnold) have repeatedly tried to represent it as."
Is it? I realize that your source plays down the event as "just" a book-signing/promotion. Other news outlets tout is as a combination of book-promo and summit speech. See below.
"Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week." http://michellemalkin.com/...
"The conference on Global Climate is still scheduled to include 100 world leaders, but has come under attack for fraud and deceit." http://www.examiner.com/...
Look at that last quote and link. When was the last time you *ever* saw or heard of "100 world leaders" at a book signing?
Perhaps you´re becoming a bit overzealous in your defense of Gore that you´re excessively attempting to play-down the function he cancelled out on?
@CArnold: sensitive about misleading talking point
"Update: More support for skeptics came on December 4th when the earliest snow on record fell on Houston, beating the previous record of December 10th, last year and 1944. It was also the first time snow was measured there two years in a row. Snow also fell for the ealiest date on and around New Orleans." - CArnold.
You´ve made a poor choice in picking an argument which has been proven misleading and misguided time and time again.
Well, I just lost an internal wager with myself on ... never mind : )
Let´s stop playing games here. You know that calling MichelleMalkin.com a "news outlet" is like calling Rush Limbaugh´s or Keith Olbermann´s web site a news outlet. None of those other sites you supplied are news outlets, either -- as I´m positive you knew when you posted them.
There are going to be many talks, events, roundtables, speeches, demonstrations, etc. over several days at this summit. Again, Gore is skipping one, a promotional event for his book, in order to attend a more serious event -- climate treaty talks. He´s still making a speech and other appearances.
"You know that calling MichelleMalkin.com a "news outlet" is like calling Rush Limbaugh´s or Keith Olbermann´s web site a news outlet."
Fair enough. I´ll give you that. However, the quote I provided was from a Washington Times article that was quoted in the link I provided. It wasn´t from a writer affiliated with the site.
"None of those other sites you supplied are news outlets, either..." Why not? Because they don´t endorse global warming? Again, you´re attacking sources and not content. Do you care to explain your comment? Why do they not qualify as news sources, especially when ShortNews considers them news sources?
Here are a handful of news articles featured on ShortNews that used Examiner.com as a source:
The fact that SN summaries have used those sources doesn´t legitimize them. And I think Gore canceled for the reason stated in the objective news organization´s report that I cited:
"“He is giving a speech, at the Bella Center — the site of the summit — on Dec. 15,” [Gore´s spokeswoman] wrote in an e-mail message. “Unfortunately, because of all the breaking issues around the treaty talks, we did have to cancel an event the following day.” ... Dec. 16, the day of Mr. Gore’s canceled event, is the start of the ministerial segments of the conference."
As for those sources, they are conservative-leaning and can be expected to try to maximize any embarrassment to Gore they can spin. Again, this is something you already knew.
You´re just grasping at straws now. No offense, but I don´t consider you to be the authority on what is or not a "news source". Especially when the best explanation you have for such a rediculous argument is "they´re right-leaning". First off, if that´s the case, then we´ve got plenty more "news sources" that should have their credentials revoked for being "left leaning". Secondly, you can´t prove or show that they´re right leaning. You feel this way simply because they´re objectively reporting on the fraud of global warming.
Your silence to my repeated question speaks loudly enough. You, too, believe that he cancelled because of the fraud and misconduct exposed in ClimateGate. You would just rather not admit to it.
"In other words, the same fraud Esquire magazine referred to as a “lunatic” for claiming “the Earth’s got a fever” is also a full-blown scaredy cat when it comes to undergoing a critical examination of his science claims.
And while everybody has known this, most have put up with Gore’s incoherent ramblings — until now.
In the wake of Climategate, his continued global warming proclamations and his refusal to debate are simply untenable. Thus after Britain’s Lord Christopher Monckton recently challenged Gore to a debate, Monckton afterwards added: “If you don’t dare [debate], I want you to remain silent about [global warming] forever from now on.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has grown so tired of Gore’s unwillingness to debate that they are openly mocking him — offering to pay him $500.00 if he’ll debate Monckton. But with all due respect to CEI, there’s no reason to believe a scaredy cat like Gore, who is positioned to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” will expose the error of his ways to a sound thinker like Monckton.
Instead, he’s more likely to make himself even harder to reach in order to be sure he doesn’t have to defend his global warming assertions. There’s a good chance this was the motive behind the cancellation of his scheduled appearance at the Copenhagen climate conference later this month. Although people had already paid $1200.00 to meet the former vice president, the outcry over Climategate may have persuaded Gore that allowing people to get close enough to shake hands would be tantamount to allowing them to get close enough to ask tough questions.
Regardless of Gore’s motivation in backing out of Copenhagen, it’s understandable that he avoids debate at all costs. He is, after all, a fraud — about whom Bob Carter of Australia’s Marine Geophysical Laboratory, said: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic.”
"Is there someplace that I can go and verify what you said?"
oh sure... its all over the internet... but you need to do some leg-work yourself... i already explained how it works, your more than free to go verify it.
" If it’s that easily explainable, then why are scientists that support the Global Warming theory up in arms about *NOT* being able to explain it?"
personally, i think its because they´re so focused on CO2 that they aren´t seeing the big picture... CO2 is only part of any good global warming model... hell a GOOD model would even have to include wind speeds because that impacts relative cooling and in the case of places like the arctic and antarctic it can actual mitigate the melting of ice, just by circulating the air faster. but some have some out and explained global warming in a far more comprehensive way then most people understand... of course no model will likely ever be perfect, its hard to account for increased or decreased solar activity, or geological activity, in advance, and this becomes much harder the longer the models runs for, for instance a 5 years global warming model should be more accurate than a 50 years model, but even a 5 year model can´t account for an unexpected major volcanic eruption, or a increased or decreased length in the solar minimum or maximum (such as the current solar mimimum, hence why some scientists can´t account for the lack of warming).
"And if Global Warming can be backed up and proven, then why are scientists manipulating data to produce desired results?"
i can´t say for sure (obviously) but my bet would be to convince the deniers, which ironically had the opposite effect.
that... or like i said above they are only seeing the CO2 aspect of global warming (in which case they can´t explain the recent lack of warming) and not the bigger picture of the inter-connected system that control the climate on earth.
"Why did Phil Jones, the scientist in the center of the ClimateGate scandal, step down?"
i haven´t a clue, i´ve not heard of him before now, or at least i can´t recall knowing about him. it might just be to distance himself from it... i´ve not really follew it, it seems irrelevant, as it doesn´t changes the facts, such as how all those interconnecting, climate-affecting system work, and how they interact.
Thanks for the explanation, but I think you´re in over your head on this one.
You simplify the reason as "sun spots" and then tell me I need to verify your argument myself. And when I show you where pro-climate-change scientists directly related to IPCC were stumped as to why there has been no change in rise in temperature (but a decline), you speak of them as if they´re mere ameratures and not up to "your level" of understanding of Global Warming.
Combined, these comments don´t inspire confidence or credibility to the explanations offered in your posts. If anything, your explanation raises more questions, like why such a deviation in practice for explaining the drop in temperatures. After all, you claim the reason to be solar... and then assume that the scientists are stumped because of their focus on CO2. Isn´t the whole global warming debate and the proposed "solutions" CO2 related? Smaller carbon-footpring and all that nonsense?
I feel I´ve done enough legwork to provide you with sources and links to debunk or challenge your theories... perhaps you could oblige me and the readers with the same in regards to the information you´re providing as evidence?
Really? I´ve got the New York Times. You have sources that are clearly biased, as anybody who cares to look can see for themselves. Here, I´ll make it even easier...
Your sources, and some other headlines I got from each of them:
http://canadafreepress.com/... -- "Soros Election Theft Project" ... "‘2012’ Continues Hollywood’s Relentless Attack on Christianity" ... "Singing Heil Obama in New Jersey" ... these are typical. Again, you knew this.
http://michellemalkin.com/... -- "Here comes a new Demcare Trojan Horse" ... "Genius Palin-basher thinks “Black Friday” is RAAAAACIST" ... "Who is subsidizing Obama’s illegal alien aunt (besides taxpayers, that is)?"
http://www.examiner.com/... -- this one´s a bit different in that it has contributors who basically blog on different topics and base them on news stories. Some lean right, others lean left. A right-leaner: "Left suddenly outraged by comparisons of President to Hitler" ... a left-leaner: "Reports have Sarah Palin leaving Hawaii in college because of being ´uncomfortable´ with Asians"
"No offense, but I don´t consider you to be the authority on what is or not a "news source"."
I have a college degree in journalism and have a five-year pin from one of the biggest and most prestigious newspaper chains in the nation (McClatchy Corporation). You speak from ignorance.
"Especially when the best explanation you have for such a rediculous argument is "they´re right-leaning"."
You wouldn´t accept an argument from me that I supported with quotes from DailyKos and HuffPo. This is the same thing. Again, you already knew this.
"Secondly, you can´t prove or show that they´re right leaning. You feel this way simply because they´re objectively reporting on the fraud of global warming."
I just showed several examples -- none about global warming -- that show their bias. You saw them when you went to their sites. I am very concerned about your professed commitment to honesty here, and quite surprised you´d make such claims when anybody can look at the sites you provided and see that they are clearly biased.
"Your silence to my repeated question speaks loudly enough."
What silence? I answered your question. Again, you already knew this. But here it is again, if you missed it the first time:
"I think Gore canceled for the reason stated in the objective news organization´s report that I cited:
"“He is giving a speech, at the Bella Center — the site of the summit — on Dec. 15,” [Gore´s spokeswoman] wrote in an e-mail message. “Unfortunately, because of all the breaking issues around the treaty talks, we did have to cancel an event the following day.” ... Dec. 16, the day of Mr. Gore’s canceled event, is the start of the ministerial segments of the conference.""
"You, too, believe that he cancelled because of the fraud and misconduct exposed in ClimateGate. You would just rather not admit to it."
No, I´ve now told you twice what I believe, Carnold. You recently told me you´re not trying to piss people off, but you seem to be doing just that in this thread, repeatedly.
"Thanks for the explanation, but I think you´re in over your head on this one.
You simplify the reason as "sun spots" and then tell me I need to verify your argument myself."
i did the research myself... why can´t you? and no i gave a much better explaination than "sunspots": "we are experience a solar minimum; meaning we have less sunspots.
less sunspots, means more cosmic rays get through to earth atmosphere.
more cosmic rays hitting earth´s atmosphere cause high altitude clouds to start forming.
clouds, esspecially high altitude clouds block sunlight.
the extra amount of blocked sunlight means less energy hitting earth" (copy and pasted from earlier)
"And when I show you where pro-climate-change scientists directly related to IPCC were stumped as to why there has been no change in rise in temperature (but a decline), you speak of them as if they´re mere ameratures and not up to "your level" of understanding of Global Warming."
no i said they probably put too much emphansis on CO2 and missed nuances like sunspots, which have a side effect of blocking comic rays.
"Combined, these comments don´t inspire confidence or credibility to the explanations offered in your posts."
only because you´re too lazy too do the research yourself even after being spoonfed the a few key words and an overview of one of them in particular.
"If anything, your explanation raises more questions, like why such a deviation in practice for explaining the drop in temperatures"
as i said before some scientists are saying this... but they rarely ever get the attention mainstream pro-global warming scientists, nor then denialists.
"After all, you claim the reason to be solar... and then assume that the scientists are stumped because of their focus on CO2."
indeed.. some do indeed have an agenda to explicity tie (remove) CO2 as the biggest caise of global warming, and hence they have too much focus on a certian aspect as a not see the greater picture, as an accurate model would need.
" Isn´t the whole global warming debate and the proposed "solutions" CO2 related? Smaller carbon-footpring and all that nonsense?"
because thats the biggest factor WE have control over.... we can´t control things like sunspots... at least not that i´m aware of.
"I feel I´ve done enough legwork to provide you with sources and links to debunk or challenge your theories..."
YOU need to do research, not rely on my research, surely you´d cross reference anything i sourced anyways, or at least i should hope so. so why can´t you do the research yourself after being told how it works, just to cross refrence it that way.
and what have you debunked?, i must´ve missed it.
"perhaps you could oblige me and the readers with the same in regards to the information you´re providing as evidence?"
or perhaps they can do what i did an look it up themselves, rather than being too lazy to inform themselves, yet too critical of things they don´t understand to not talk about such things.
the bottom line is it doesn´t matter if i have a source or not (i could post several posts of nothing but links), but at the end of the day, THEY still have to look it up themselves, so why not just verify or falsify what i´m saying rather than the links i´d have to scour the internet for (i don´t bookmark everything as some people seem to) dozens of sources for the little aspects that cause/influence global warming and its effects, as well as climate in general.
If it allows us to move forward with this discussion, let’s assume that these news sources all hate Obama, Pelosi, and encourage the beheadings of penguins and polar-bears to spite Liberals. All those news sources are evil poo-poo heads and want to make everybody Bible-thumping evangelists. What now? You and I have smeared and defiled the names and reputations of the sources… and guess what? The facts in their stories are still facts and they go unchallenged, even by you. So, why all the dramatics?
Ben, the sources of these stories isn’t what’s in question. You’re going on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on about the sources, but you haven’t made *one single* argument to point out where *any* of their stories are factually incorrect. If you could point to where the stories were incorrect, you could have a plausible argument for all your belly-aching about the sources… but you haven’t shown any sort of inaccuracies. You’re simply trying to deflect attention from the main topic.
“I have a college degree in journalism and have a five-year pin from…” Great. Then I shouldn’t have to explain to you the difference between a fact and an opinion. Your incessant attacks on the sources and calling them “not real news sources” are opinions. If you had any evidence or proof to transform your opinions into facts, I’m sure you would have presented them by now. You’re entitled to your opinions, but you’re not entitled to force them onto others just because you have a degree.
“You wouldn´t accept an argument from me that I supported with quotes from DailyKos and HuffPo.” That’s because both of those sites are commentary and editorial pieces.
“I am very concerned about your professed commitment to honesty here, and quite surprised you´d make such claims when anybody can look at the sites you provided and see that they are clearly biased.” You call it “biased”. I consider it calling a spade a spade. NY Times is very liberally-biased, yet I don’t hear you diminishing their credibility as a news organization. Clearly, your persecutions are selectively pointed towards organizations that don’t conform to your way of thinking.
“You recently told me you´re not trying to piss people off, but you seem to be doing just that in this thread, repeatedly.” If voicing my points of views and backing them up with credible sources pisses you off… then I don’t know what to say or do about it. I don’t intend to walk on egg-shells or silence my personal opinions because you find them “biased” or offensive.
"...of greater importance is the fact that the researchers found the warmest year on record to be 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades on record. This represents very bad news for climate change alarmists, since the warmest period was NOT the last quarter of the 20th century. In fact, the last two decades of the 20th century (1981-1990 and 1991-2000) were colder across the study area than any of the previous six decades, dating back to the 1900s and 1910s (Table 1). When examining the instrumental records of the stations it is apparent that no net warming has occurred since the warm period of the 1930s and 1940s..." http://www.worldclimatereport.com/...
you source also doesn´t address the peroid of 1998-2007, which is the hottest 10 year peroid on record.
and yes the 30´s (the 40´s were about normal; alittle above normal at the start of the decade, and alittle below normal at the end) were also a hot decade, but not compared to the last few decades as a whole, and no, not the hottest on record. though your source omits everything after 1999/2000, thus its not even including the hottest decade on record.
Carnold, I don´t agree with you that Global Warming is fake. I think that years of global industrialization have finally taken a toll on our dear planet.
I´m reminded of the last atmospheric crisis we faced. It was the depletion of our ozone and it was caused by Chloro Flora Carbon (CFCs). By acting swiftly, we were able to save our ozone.
I don´t agree with your opinions but I do respect them and I have to admit that your arguments have given me much to think about. I also have to admit that you are one of the best debaters that Ive seen in a while. With that in mind, I think it would be good to advise you to not pay any attention or respond to hecklers or trolls. MomentOfClarity and Ec5618 are great examples of people to ignore. I´ve greatly enjoyed the (mostly) good-spirited debate on this subject, but people like them don´t positively contribute. They only destroy good debate with their posts of childishness and hate. They also give supporters of climate reform a bad name because they make us look like hateful and disrespectful people when in reality we are loving, compassionate, and care very deeply for our planet and its inhabitants. Then again I´m just a nooby on this site so what do I know.
Enough from me. Good thread and good points. Global warming is real and we all should do our part to save our planet.
If not, please disregard the mistaken identity. You just "sound" like someone that used to frequent this site...
"Carnold, I don´t agree with you that Global Warming is fake." Well, you´re not alone. Thanks for respectfully disagreeing, though. As I mentioned in a previous post, my intention isn´t to convert believers into non-believers. I think that if I present enough information for readers to consume, they will be better informed to create their own opinion.
"I´m reminded of the last atmospheric crisis we faced." Yes. I remember that. I also remember we were told that the Ozone would never be repaired in time and we were all doomed. Secondly, I don´t think that issue is comparable to global warming. Primarily because there *was* conclusive evidence as to what was eating up our ozone... and there is no conclusive evidence that climate change is caused by man.
"I don´t agree with your opinions but I do respect them..." Thank you. Likewise.
"...I think it would be good to advise you to not pay any attention or respond to hecklers or trolls." Lol. Great advice. I usually adhere to that advice, but there have been occasions where I´ve pushed aside my better judgement for the sole purpose of letting the trolls have it. Nonetheless, you´re correct: they only deter from the topic and bring a good thread down.
"They also give supporters of climate reform a bad name because they make us look like hateful and disrespectful people..." For what its worth, I´ve dealt with those two before and I don´t put them into the "We Care For The Climate" bucket, so no worries there. I don´t think either have a care on this topic one way or another --- they´re just anti-Carnold.
"...we are loving, compassionate, and care very deeply for our planet and its inhabitants." Errr... I wouldn´t so broadly generalize the supporters that way. Yes, some are as you described but there are plenty others out there that are politically, ideologically, and financially motivated in their "support".
Since the 70s, global warming was always an issue. No one gave a damn, because it was always the realm of ´leather elbow patches´.
Now everyone´s spitting nail from their respective camps.
* The eco-camp because it´s their media platform has finally arrived. And we´ve waited .. oh so long. * The conservatives who are scared (rightly or wrongly) that it´s going to affect their pocket. "**ck everyone; Die slow muvver****, if you touch my money"-camp
There´s another camp some people won´t admit to, and others haven´t identified. Those who are going to make a profit out of their mother´s funeral if they have to. "Sell heart medication to their terminal mother"-camp.
It´s this last camp that the conservatives are after; the ambulance-chasers/lawyers/eco-business crowd.
Do you think the existance of cynical opportunists price-gouging in post-Katrina make the floods any less real?
There is clearly massive temperature fluctuations, as apparent by both sides of the argument, and despite what the left says ClimateGate cannot be ignored, nor can the raw data indicating climate change (whether its warming or cooling). However, I am fundamentally opposed to cap-and-trade, its a farce and a scam, positive enviromentalism hijacked by wealthy elites to make them more wealthy (even the oil companies are jumping on board). It´s a total joke that we have to deal with this garbage when we´ve had technology shelved for decades that would free all dependence from oil or centralized power stations. Oil companies have routinely bought up patents on revolutionary technology that would change this world dramatically for the better, so they can make massive profits for a while longer. If we did not depend on burning carbon for energy this would be a total non-issue...why I believe the oil companies are jumping on board now.
On a side note, I must admit, it´s good to see CArnold and Ben go at it again. The Yin and Yang of politics.
Thank you for your comments. With regards to our past ozone crisis, I don´t recall the prediction of impending doom as you remember it. I recall a hot warning from environmentalists claiming we would suffer severe consequences if we did nothing to fix the problem. I only bring up the ozone and CFCs because it presents another example of how man is destroying his planet. This instance is a fine example to those that deny man has a hand in directly altering the natural balance of this planet. Changing our ways to preserve the ozone was not such a large feat when compared to what we must to do prevent global warming. To save the ozone all we had to sacrifice was aerosols and freon. Both checmicals were rapidly substituted with alternative chemicals that achieved the same purpose. The sacrifice was small. Global warming commands sacrifices on a larger scale. I don´t think companies, governments, or individuals want to make the necessary sacrifices to save our planet. I believe that it is this reluctance to change the way we live that has caused this push-back to conservationism. I know that I will not change your mind about the seriousness of Global Warming but I too want to present information that would be useful to others.
Carnold, do you not believe that man can alter his environment? I do not claim that man is purposely attempting to destroy his planet, but we must do what we can to mend our wrongs, however unintentional those wrongs may be, and turn this trend around.
It is a pleasure to converse with you. It is rare that I have an opportunity to civilly discuss these issues with someone of opposing ideals. It is rarer still that I have the opportunity to do it with such a skilled debater as yourself. I know that you will intelligently respond so I eagerly look forward to your rebuttal.
I´ve finally seen the light. I don´t know why it took me so long; I must just be stupid. Yep, that must be it.
It all fell into place when I started thinking about how governments could use global warming as a perfect excuse to tax people more.
Think about it -- you´re a pointy-headed government official who wants to raise taxes. But how? You can´t just *raise* taxes. Governments can´t just *vote* for tax hikes. As is obvious to any property owner, governments jump through dozens of hoops before raising your taxes. So what to do?
Well, you start calling scientists and pitching them on how many books they could sell if they fudged some research showing that the planet was warming at a dangerously rapid rate. You only have to find a few thousand of them from across the world, and get them to carry on with it for as little as 30 years.
Finally, Copenhagen is within your sites, and you get to reach up, grab that brass ring and *raise you some taxes already.* It´s been a long, hard slog, and maybe you had to watch others finish your work after you retired, but finally you got to raise you some taxes.
After all, this repeats a pattern we have seen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Governments simply *refuse* to raise taxes one single slim penny without first collaborating with hundreds of other nations and thousands of scientists on a decades-long secret hoax conspiracy.
“I recall a hot warning from environmentalists claiming we would suffer severe consequences if we did nothing to fix the problem.” The link between CFCs and the depletion of the ozone was discovered in 1973. The debates and prophesies of doom that ensued was before the wide adoption and use of the internet. Consequently, I cannot find links to reputable sources that document these soothsayers of doom. I’ve found plenty of blogs, but I’ll save everyone the trouble of crying “foul” at such sources and just omit them.
“This instance is a fine example to those that deny man has a hand in directly altering the natural balance of this planet.” Of course man is capable of altering the balance of the planet – I don’t deny that whatsoever. Erosion of topsoil due to construction or eradication of forestry have been shown to greatly alter the balance of a local ecosystem. And to answer your later question, yes I believe that man can and often does alter his environment. Pollution of rivers, streams, and soil are but a handful of examples. However, such examples cannot be used to support arguments of man-made global warming. And for the sake of keeping on topic, let’s stay focused on man-made global warming. From past experience, I can tell you that straying into tertiary topics as broad as “water pollution” or “erosion” will certainly cause this conversation to splinter into several sub-topics.
“Global warming commands sacrifices on a larger scale.” It certainly does. Just ask Obama, Pelosi, or any other left-leaning politician and they’ll outline your sacrifices in the form of regulation and legislation. Taxes, fewer “acceptable” energy sources, taxes, greater regulation of the free market, taxes, penalties for not buying/using what they deem “green”, taxes, regulation of your personal life, and did I already mention “taxes”? Obama has already proposed using “smart meters” to monitor our energy consumption. We will have to ration our energy use, and if we go over the “allowed amount”, we would be penalized. It seems that Obama and his cronies are endlessly trying to squeeze all the money he can from the US citizens so that he can pursue his failed agendas. http://osmoothie.com/...
If energy rationing is such a great idea, then why does Al Gore’s home consume *more* than 20-times what the average person’s home uses? http://www.examiner.com/...
If such steps are necessary to preserve our planet, I would expect the mouth-piece spearheading the charge to set the example to follow ---- not expose himself as a hypocrite of his own “teachings”. And no, he doesn’t pay more than “the average person” for his energy. How do I know this? Because he and I use the same providers. Al lives approximately 5 minutes from my house and we both use the same providers for gas, electricity, water, cable, phone, sewage, etc. My house is 3,700 sq ft. His home is 10,000 sq ft. While his house is nearly 3-times the size of mine, his monthly electricity bill was over 10-times that of my own. This is not the picture of someone practicing “conservationism”. This and the humongous carbon-footprint trail emitted by the private jet that this global-warming hysteria has helped him buy has made it seriously difficult for me and others to take this man and his “mission” seriously. If serious sacrifices are required by all, then why should he (of all people) be exempt?
While I believe that he does indeed want to spread his message of “global warming”, I also believe that he is financially motivated in his endeavors -- there is nothing altruistic about his intentions.
“It is a pleasure to converse with you.” Likewise. Ben is one of the few I can debate with in a civil manner, and even those debates sometimes get more heated than either of us intend. Welcome to ShortNews. I hope to have many more discussions with you.
“It is rarer still that I have the opportunity to do it with such a skilled debater as yourself.” Again, back at you. Ben is pretty good, too. Between the both of you, I should have my hands full.
“I know that you will intelligently respond so I eagerly look forward to your rebuttal.” You took the words right out of my mouth.
"Carnold wins" You surrender too easily. I don´t think there could possibly be a winner or loser in this discussion. All we can do is share information and come to our own personal conclusions from the info provided.
"I must just be stupid." Okay... now that there is a debate I could have won. But, since you openly admitted to it and surrendered that fact to me, you technically forfeited that "debate" to me. Either way, a win is a win. I´ll go ahead and put that notch in my belt, now.
“It all fell into place when I started thinking about how governments could use global warming as a perfect excuse to tax people more.” That’s using the ole’ noggin. You go out into left field after that, though.
Nobody is saying that the government had such foresight from decades ago. This isn’t a long-brewing conspiracy. The answer is much simpler than that: Obama and the lefties are opportunistic. They saw an opportunity to cash in on the global warming hysteria and they jumped on it. Simple as that.
"It all fell into place when I started thinking about how governments could use global warming as a perfect excuse to tax people more.
Think about it -- you´re a pointy-headed government official who wants to raise taxes. But how? You can´t just *raise* taxes. Governments can´t just *vote* for tax hikes. As is obvious to any property owner, governments jump through dozens of hoops before raising your taxes. So what to do?"
Its weird isn´t it? I wouldn´t go as to say the government jumps through lots of hoops, but there are lobbyists, & governmental officials change too. Its not the government, but another group behind the scenes (corporations & the such). Isn´t that obvious. Your sarcastic anecdote is correct accept you think that everyone believes its the government, & not the puppet masters.
"Because heads of industry routinely seek to have their taxes raised, right?"
Not necessarily *their* taxes raised. But if raising the taxes of ordinary citizens would put money into their pockets... then, why not raise a few taxes?
"...at the G20 countries agreed to phase out subsidies for oil and other carbon dioxide-spewing fossil fuels in the “medium term” as part of efforts to combat global warming. This article documents how some of the world’s richest corporations receive billions in taxpayer subsidies. ... In the past five years, 8 billion U.S. dollars of public money went to Europe’s fossil fuel companies mainly to the natural gas sector. And in May the European Parliament approved an additional 3.35 billion dollars in subsides as part of Europe’s 225 billion dollars economic recovery plan, according to a new research report by Friends of the Earth Europe." http://stephenleahy.net/...
Higher taxes is a very small price to pay (especially when you can have a full time staff of tax attorneys working under you to find tax loopholes, massive deductions and other write-offs) compared to what the agenda could pay out. Further power consolidation, the ability to drive out smaller competitors, along with driving manufacturing jobs overseas where labor is much cheaper (and would most likely NOT be under cap-and-trade, considering China and other nations stance on the it).
First of all, why would an industry that is going to benefit from the climate change bill do the sort of things described in the following article? http://www.nytimes.com/...
And second of all, to Carnold, I wish you´d stop acting as though it is only Democrats who want to push this through. The Republicans would have done the exact same thing; it was in their platform and was one of their campaign promises: http://www.politicususa.com/...
you know there is a lot of truth in global warming when the likes of Fox News et al start denying it .
I always felt it was being exaggerated but you´d have to be considerably dim to think that human activity wasn´t having some negative effects on the planet
A lot of people complain about fox and all those extremist dummed down right wing nut jobs that believe them but I think they´re good to have around .Just take what they say and believe the inverse you find you´re usually in the zone ... Iraq war, Afghanistan Obama not winning the election etc etc etc
There are plenty of individuals and less powerful interests that stand to lose big time on this, and yes some get caught trying to manipulate the system...Especially if it´s unfavorable to a massive agenda push. But you see divided interests in all companies. Goldman Sachs was Obama´s 2nd largest contributor, yet 25 percent of their total contributions went to McCain.
I knew it would be only a matter of time before the sites most notorious mud-slinger crashed the party uninvited to spew messages of hate that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
On a different note...
Venezuela´s mentally-handicapped dictator is never one to turn down an opportunity to grandstand, but in a surprising announcement he did just that.
"Dow Jones reports that Hugo Chavez may skip the global climate talks in Copenhagen because they might a waste of his time. A waste of his time, my time, everyone’s time. As Climategate starts to get some coverage in the mainstream press, it is possible that the entire global warming story is one of the biggest hoaxes and frauds ever perpetrated." http://www.insidefutures.com/...
Maybe Venezuela´s dictator has been brainwashed from watching Fox News. Or maybe he´s temporarily come to his senses. Regardless the reason, he should probably post these decisions on Twitter so that his minion can correctly spout his talking points and adjust their opinions to fall in line with his. Heh.
"Al Gore says the Climate-gate e-mails, which some say impugn global warming science, are silly and dated: "I haven´t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old." About the e-mails, Gore used the "10 years old" line three times in recent interviews.
Reports indicate the earliest e-mail in Climate-gate was sent March of 1996, but the most recent was less than one month old. E-mails discussing the "recent lack of warming" were sent in October of this year. And the note sent by climate research unit director Phil Jones asking colleagues to delete e-mails was sent in May of last year." http://www.foxnews.com/...
All the while, Al Gore is still out preaching for the reduction of carbon dioxide, which constitutes .5 percent of the total atmosphere, and is crucial for our survival.
The only thing I see wrong with the world is its backwards state. If you deny man-made global warming exists, the left accuse you of being pro-pollution and out-of-touch with reality. BUT they consider it within the realms of reality to dismiss or ignore the fact that scientists have been rigging data and numbers for who knows how long. For 10 years, as Gore insists? Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.
If Obama and all the pinko commie homos are just seizing on global warming here lately as a way to boost taxes, then what was the original reason that thousands of scientists from across the globe decided to carry on this hoax for over three decades?
"...what was the original reason that thousands of scientists from across the globe decided to carry on this hoax for over three decades?"
Excellent question! What we have here is a two-prong mystery. Once we solve why lead scientists in the ClimateGate scandal were deleting data/e-mails, "hiding the decline" in temperatures, manipulating tree-ring data inserted into computer models, and altering source-code for the computer models themselves, we will be much closer to the answer.
After all... the misconduct in ClimateGate wasn´t about "finding the truth". It was all about *hiding* the truth. Why would scientists do that?
Here´s an excellent video about ClimateGate and the why it´s such a huge scandal:
So let me make sure I understand -- you believe that thousands of scientists conspired to pull off a secret hoax on the rest of the world for over 30 years, and that their motivations remain unclear at this point?
"...you believe that thousands of scientists conspired to pull off a secret hoax on the rest of the world for over 30 years..."
No. I think scientist began believing in an unfounded hypothesis 30 years ago. As the years went on, this false belief was passed along via word of mouth to fellow and future scientists. Within the past decade or so, it became very financially lucrative and politically correct to believe in this nonsense. With all to gain and nothing to lose (except their credibility), many scientists fell in line.
Despite the sell-outs, there are tens-of-thousands of *American* scientists that refuse to be assimilated into Gore’s Borg. I emphasize *American* because this total number does not include the thousands of international scientists that also agree.
what´s the point of posting x number of scientists disagree with something when you know that Ben can just google an article saying the opposite ? Not so long ago there was a guy from Manchester (an economic expert according to himself) here who used to deny that there was an oncoming economic crisis in fact I remember you referring to those people as "doomsayers" (it was just their liberal agenda making them say those things caus Bush was in power ...right?) and you were encouraging him to move to the US where you couldn´t see any signs of economic downturn because your business was booming .(do you remember that ?)
Now all these scientists who support the idea of Global Warming have an agenda (and those denying it don´t of course I mean it would be unthinkable to believe that Big Oil had an interest in all this at the other end of the spectrum ) .
If you call having a memory that stretches back further than the last thing you heard from some right wing shock jockey as you drove to work in your gas guzzler mud slinging , fine ! I call it putting things in perspective.
"I think scientist began believing in an unfounded hypothesis 30 years ago. As the years went on, this false belief was passed along via word of mouth to fellow and future scientists. Within the past decade or so, it became very financially lucrative and politically correct to believe in this nonsense. With all to gain and nothing to lose (except their credibility), many scientists fell in line."
"All the while, Al Gore is still out preaching for the reduction of carbon dioxide, which constitutes .5 percent of the total atmosphere, and is crucial for our survival."
from natural sources yes... from industrial sources no... BIG difference... we are responsible for 1/3 of all atmospheric CO2 thats 33% ABOVE the natural level, and in the case of methane it much worse, up to about 66% is from us.
our CO2 ouput could completely dissappear and not a tree/plant on earth would notice the reduction in CO2; for one higher CO2 levels have a negative effect on nutricinal value (though scientist still were sure why as of the last article i read), and for two the pollution that accompanies that CO2 negatively effects the health of plants and can even kill them via effects like acid rain (caused by pollution).
"If you deny man-made global warming exists, the left accuse you of being pro-pollution and out-of-touch with reality. BUT they consider it within the realms of reality to dismiss or ignore the fact that scientists have been rigging data and numbers for who knows how long. For 10 years, as Gore insists?"
thats because in the long run it doesn´t matter... ANYONE can LOGICALLY prove global warming:
we emit greenhouse gases, we are responsible for 33% of CO2 therefor we ARE responsible for 33% of the warming that can be attributed to CO2.
we emit methane (namely via industrial farming) and are responsible for 60-65% of all the atmospheric methane, therefor we are responsible for 60-65% of the warming that can be attributed to methane.
we deforest swats of the earth that reduce the earth´s ability to handle the CO2 level, esspecially in the wake of having fewer trees than at virtually any point in human history (not so much a problem now as it used to be but still a problem).
an we also create copious amounts of heat (enough to change climate locally via the heat island effect) which then get trapped by the greenhouse effect.
i would love to see someone try to LOGICALLY disprove global warming, as far as i´m aware with the facts available, and an understanding of systems effecting climate that is thus far is impossible.
Alot of people have said Bush pushed the Iraqi war to expand his stock portfolios and to profit from it.
How much has Al Gore profited from this? Well, let me put it this way: "He is currently an author, businessperson, and American environmental activist" Businessman, not to be confused with "philantrhopist, Chairman of a Charity, or do gooder." Environmental acitivist, not to be confused with "scientist, meteoroligist, geologist, or ´has any clue what he is really talking about-igist." (for example, the center of the earth is "several MILLION degrees." yes he said that.)
He also used to be a politician, which already makes him quite dirty.
"The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years."
He calls for a cap and trade system, and then invests in it. Looks like a conflict of interest.
But no, Mr. Ben Reily, let´s talk about how Glenn Beck has a conflict of interest for plugging gold. The Nerve!
@Havoc You´re post looks questionable. With family, work, and other personal obligations, I don´t have the time to do the research and investigate everything you post. If you would post links to back up your posts (like me and many others do) it would be very helpful and earn you more credibility, too. As is, I don´t know if any of that is factual or just the rantings from someone that falsely believes he know what he´s talking about. Sources and links = good
@ichi Interesting article, but I think the hillarious pics in moxpearl´s last post reflect most Americans´ sentiments. Most Americans have come to distrust and dislike the MSM. That´s why Fox News has more viewers than all the MSM outlets *combined* (despite a recently-called boycott here on ShortNews...heh). And that´s why the Wall Street Journal has grown to become the most read and circulated newspaper in America.
@moxpearl Heh. Awesome post. I couldn´t have said it better.
"Last month the University of East Anglia´s (UEA) Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) was caught red-handed fabricating data on research of climate change. Phil Jones, the head of the CRU which consists of some of the preeminent climatologists in the world, has resigned in shame. Michael Mann, a Penn State climatologist who is also at the heart of this collusion is under investigation. This data is used by many all over the world to justify that man is causing global warming.
And now NASA is being sued for fabricating data on anthropogenic global warming after changing their opinion on 1934 being the hottest year on record to 1998 without providing any shred of evidence.
The effects of this travesty are reaching to all corners of the globe. India is refusing to go forward spending their time and treasure to combat this hoax. Australia has stood against the eco-radical agenda by shooting down a climate change bill similar to the cap-and-trade monstrosity currently being debated in Congress. Saudi Arabia has called for a formal investigation with the United Nations. The GOP here in the United States is also pushing for a formal inquiry.
There absolutely and unequivocally is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming exists and/or is caused fully, or in part, by humans. It is shocking that these discredited climatologists base their data on the temperatures from the last 100 years. The Earth is billions of years old and has witnessed many variations in temperature. Using the last 100 years to explain temperature changes for the history of the planet is utterly ridiculous. That is like saying that because it rained today that means it must have rained everyday this year.
Don’t take my word for it; take a gander at some of the peer-reviewed articles arguing that global warming is cyclical. Or perhaps read the book, "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 years," by Virginia´s own world renowned climate physicist S. Fred Singer.
Do eco-radicals come from such privileged lives that they really think there aren’t serious problems in the world like starvation, poverty, war and disease? How do they justify creating problems out of thin air? I guess if there is a profit to be made then that makes it right in their eyes. The scientists at the CRU were receiving millions in research grants. As long as there was proof of anthropogenic global warming then they would continue to receive funding.
The fact is that eco-radicals amount to modern day alchemists who wasted their lives trying to turn lead into gold. In the end, no matter how much you want something impossible to be true it just doesn’t add up.
With this Climate-gate scandal, global warming is no longer a legitimate scientific fact, it’s a punch line. Additionally, the attacks that global warming alarmists level at detractors are shameful." http://www.examiner.com/...
"You´re post looks questionable. With family, work, and other personal obligations, I don´t have the time to do the research and investigate everything you post. If you would post links to back up your posts (like me and many others do) it would be very helpful and earn you more credibility, too. As is, I don´t know if any of that is factual or just the rantings from someone that falsely believes he know what he´s talking about. Sources and links = good"
WTF your too lazy you do research but not too lazy too post (and copy and paste) bullshit all day?, just admit it your head is too far up your ass to see the obvious and a a result you´ll believe anything that maintains your would view, in this case anything that prove global warming and esspecially caused by human, no matter how rediculas it might be.
do some research until you get your facts straight you might not mwant to ignorantly call my information questionable or lacking credibility when admittiedly you are to lazy to do any research yourself, and moreof almost every source youy post is actually contrary to reality in relation of global warming.
how do you even have the gull to interject yourself into a intellectual debate and yet refuse to be intellectual on any level... you can´t be bothered to varify nor properly refute anything, all you give a rats ass about is what the media and politicans that you already agree with says... you´re completely devoid of logic, hence one of the reasons you find what i say so questionable, when these are things most school children know from science class.
you might as well just say
"duh... whats a greenhouse effect" ...or "duh... global warming doesn´t exist, it´s cold here"
oh wait you´ve already used that last one.
these aren´t complicated things (and if they are well that says more abiout your intelligence than i ever could)... if you have enough time you find bullhit articles that deny reality, logic, and science and to watch fox news and listen to the like of limbaugh for more than half of your talking points, than you CLEARLY you have more than enough time to do a few minutes of research a day until you know enough have an informed opinion. the probalem isn´t that you don´t have the time, because clearly you do, the problem is you have no inclination to see yourself proven ignorant and possibly embarrassed by the amount of absolutely bullshit you´ve spewed denying global warming and thusly even basic logic concerning the environment; and sadly this is something that i´ll bet most kids on "are you smarter than a 5th grader?" know, this is something that most people learn about in middle school or high school
"Sources and links = good"
carnold = lazy
and btw i used to provide dozens of links and you and other global warming deniers disregaurd them just the same as you disregard the above logic (and probably without readiing them either), hence my previous observations that your lazy and just dont want to be proven wrong, hence your complete inability to do ANY research yourself that might invalidate your BELEIF that we have no effect on the earth´s climate, when even the most basic semblance of logic would say otherwise, as i´ve illustrated HUNDREDS of times on SN, almost to the point were i could copy and paste a previous reply of mine to answer almost every question or denial about global warming that comes up with any frequency.
"Oh, boy. The irony is so rich, it just might cure our deficit."
the only thing rich is the thickness of that skull of yours...
"I fact-check and provide sources to strengthen my arguments. Many others do the same."
i have to many times... as i said you didn´t care about those either.
"Do you not provide proof or credibility for your posts because you have none? Heh."
my credibility is in the facts... the fact that YOU are too lazy to reserach yourself, which you would HAVE TO DO ANYWAYS to refute or verify my claims. since YOU cannot be bothered to do either than YES, YOU are (by definition) lazy.
you could easily verify EVERYTHING i´ve said if you weren´t too lazy... or perhaps its just too complicated an issue for you, hence you would be denying it for the same reason some people still deny evolution; because they don´t understand it and/or it defeats their worldview (or in this case because it might mean an extra tax).
CArnold´s Examiner article concludes with the following: "With this Climate-gate scandal, global warming is no longer a legitimate scientific fact, it’s a punch line."
Anyone who´s followed the story knows that while the climategate emails raised some questions, and rightly sparked some investigations, it´s not debunked any climate change theories (much less reduces all to a "punch line."). This overexagerated conclusion, without any factual basis, certainly makes me wonder what about this article you thought "excellent," CArnold. Please explain how it advances the debate on an intellectual level at all.
I agree with CArnold that you need to provide sources, I am still developing my opinion on this matter so sources would be awesome. I understand that you do not provide them since it seems to be futile to do so but there are more people than CArnold that want to know where you get your information from. I am not saying to cite every word you say, but some things you say seem to be unlikely, not saying they are wrong but if you gave a source to back it up then you would hold more creditability. I am not trying to discred you in anyway.
You know who I am, I am the person who made you come up with your source list :)