Author Topic: Response to Al "Chicken Little" Gore (Read 4061 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2006, 08:01:15 PM »

paid politicans humping trees is no way to insure the future of humanity.

Nash · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2006, 08:11:03 PM »

Of course there are gonna be guys that are sceptical of global warming who aren't getting a paycheck from Exxon.

Maybe you shoulda looked to these Canadian and Finnish scientists in the first place.

But then, at least to my knowledge, they didn't write '"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists,' attacking Gore's film... and... it woulda made your post a heck of a lot less interesting.... because there's already a massive thread here about global warming.

In otherwords (and it's okay, you can admit it), your thread was simply an attack on Gore irrespective of the actual science surounding his film, made obvious by the fact that you leapfrog off of an article attacking the film, whose author is a paid oil co. shill.

If you're interested in the science alone, why the new thread?

Hangtime · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2006, 08:21:09 PM »

I'm comfortable with just bashing Gore.

the whiney petulant potato.

Of course, he's a bit of a Bore...

but, since he's democrat;

and they can't figure this from that..

what they think ain't worth all that much, anymore.

Yeager · « **Reply #18 on:** June 14, 2006, 08:24:23 PM »

Al Gore is not believable to me, and a lot of other people see it the same as I do. He is simply too convenient in his own skin. No vulnerability. A wax figure if you will.....a top notch politician? yes. Not to be trusted any further than the reach of a full bladder? absolutely.

I watched him on Larry King the other night. The man is souless, heartless, clueless, as to what people in the real world do, think and believe in.

He is the last person on earth I would trust to provide scientific data on any critical matter.

Just my opinion....lots of people adore the guy.

Nash · « **Reply #19 on:** June 14, 2006, 08:38:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm comfortable with just bashing Gore.

As long as we know what this thread is about...

Recess ends in 15 minutes, and for heaven's sake Trevor, stop pulling Kate's hair!

In the meantime, have at it.

Mini D · « **Reply #20 on:** June 14, 2006, 09:20:28 PM »

The common misconception these days is that most scientists aren't politicians.

They are. They need money and they need a way to get it.

1) Create a crisis
2) Ask for funding to solve crisis problem

Some interesting statistics would be how much money, in the U.S., is being given in grant for research on global warming.

Motivation is a key to understanding pseudoscience.

Nash · « **Reply #21 on:** June 14, 2006, 09:54:27 PM »

I totally agree, Deja....

Although one could just as easily flip your example on its head:

1) Recognize crisis
2) Get funded for "debunking" crisis

Either way, your point is still valid.

I've personally never seen quite this level of the corporations' involvement in creating governmental policy, writing the government's position papers, the paid media advocating, or such direct involvement in editing the work product of the various agencies as what's going on now, but I can only remember 20 or so years back.

Yeah, motivation is indeed the key.

The thing is.... I don't get it. Why is the environment so divided right down the party line?

I'll make a (presumptuous) statement from the Democratic point of view, then pose a question to you/those on the other side of the divide.

Democrats are open to the possibility that mankind is indeed leaving a measurable and precarious footprint on this earth. They base that on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. On the other hand, Democrats don't want to see everyone revert to hunter/gatherers, living in huts, and propelling ourselves by foot or by horse.

What's the Republican's point of view?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #22 on:** June 14, 2006, 10:14:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm comfortable with just bashing Gore.
the whiney petulant potato.
Of course, he's a bit of a Bore...
but, since he's democrat;
and they can't figure this from that..
what they think ain't worth all that much, anymore.

You did not follow the rules for a limerick.

Its two - two - one, and you have a three - two - one thing going.

There was an old hermit named Dave
Who kept a dead potato in his cave

(see that's two)

Though she's covered with lice
She's still somewhat nice

(see, two again)

And think of the money he's saved

(The punchline is one)

see 2-2-1

DiabloTX · « **Reply #23 on:** June 14, 2006, 10:24:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
What's the Republican's point of view?

State of Fear by Michael Crichton pretty much sums it up.

Nash · « **Reply #24 on:** June 14, 2006, 10:25:53 PM »

Mmmm.... Hows about you sum up Crichton who sums up the Republican point of view?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #25 on:** June 14, 2006, 10:30:01 PM »

Crichton

Quote

But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

Mr Big · « **Reply #26 on:** June 14, 2006, 10:30:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I totally agree, Deja....

Although one could just as easily flip your example on its head:

1) Recognize crisis
2) Get funded for "debunking" crisis

Either way, your point is still valid.

I've personally never seen quite this level of the corporations' involvement in creating governmental policy, writing the government's position papers, the paid media advocating, or such direct involvement in editing the work product of the various agencies as what's going on now, but I can only remember 20 or so years back.

Yeah, motivation is indeed the key.

The thing is.... I don't get it. Why is the environment so divided right down the party line?

I'll make a (presumptuous) statement from the Democratic point of view, then pose a question to you/those on the other side of the divide.

Democrats are open to the possibility that mankind is indeed leaving a measurable and precarious footprint on this earth. They base that on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. On the other hand, Democrats don't want to see everyone revert to hunter/gatherers, living in huts, and propelling ourselves by foot or by horse.

What's the Republican's point of view?

The Dems like to portray Reps as "big oil, wealthy, ruthless, religeous fanatics....etc..."

They like to portray themselves as "for the people, trees, fargs, the little guy ......etc"

The only devide I see on the environment is the one the tree huggin liberal dimwits are trying to create. There is no issue.

Remember when Ronald Reagen let the forests burn? The libs went nutz. Turns out that mother nature really does know how to manage itself......she's done the job for all of time, afterall.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #27 on:** June 14, 2006, 10:31:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Mmmm.... Hows about you sum up Crichton who sums up the Republican point of view?

Everything that guy just said is bull****... Thank you.[/B]

That's it in a nutshell.

Why don't you just read the book?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #28 on:** June 14, 2006, 10:32:46 PM »

Is this thread going to be quotes of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini too?

DiabloTX · « **Reply #29 on:** June 14, 2006, 10:35:05 PM »

You got a problem widdat?