What’s Algore’s Hot Air Doing For Global Warming?

 Quotes from Algore's latest failure: An Inconvenient Truth

"Of the 10 hottest years ever measured…."

And how many years have we been recording weather compared to the millions of years that we haven't, Mr. Algore?

"Scientific consesus is that WE are causing global warming."

And how much money does it take to come to that consensus? Further, isn't this sorta like the scientific consensus that the Earth was flat or that blacks were a lower life form than whites? Shall I go on with more examples of "scientific consensus"?

"This is not a political issue…"

No, it's an issue of fear mongering while wracking up more cash.

"Temperature increases are taking place all over the world and that's causing stronger storms".

The director of the National Hurricane Center disagrees with you. Who are you going to believe? A has been who couldn't win an election without throwing out the military vote or the director of the NHC? Also, why is there a decline in Pacific storms?
My bigger concern is why he promissed us that he would revamp airport/airline security measures and then gave up as soon as the airline's lobbyists donated half a mil to the DNC? I have to believe that he would give up on the global warming campaign for $500,000 just like he gave up on the airport/airline security campaign.

Give it up. You're a liberal douchebag fart sniffer talking with your eyes closed and intelligent folks ain't buying it. We didn't buy it in the 2000 campaign and we ain't buying it now. You'll even snort bovine flatulence.

LOSER

Furthermore,

We keep getting promisses from the eco-nuts that the world as we know it will be gone in 5-10 years. For example, just over 10 years ago we were promissed that the Earth would be so hot that rivers and streams would be boiling in 10 years. It ain't happened, nor is it likely to happen anytime soon. I saw a dire warning on a website the other day that promissed that New York would be gone in 2015. Not only is that no sweat off my balls, but I'd be willing to bet that 9 years from now, New York will still be there and the fart sniffers will have moved on to some other dire warning to occur in 10 years.

Long story short, this is the new five year plan. The douchebag fart sniffers have, for years, issued dire warnings  of what will come to pass in the next 5-10 years and nothing ever comes true. Why, then, should they be taken more seriously than the Halle Boppe fanatics?

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Kooks, Liberals

6 Comments on “What’s Algore’s Hot Air Doing For Global Warming?”

  1. Olivia Says:

    Your responses to Gore’s book are not effective critiques of his arguments about global warming. It is simply not true, for example, that we only have climate data from the recent past. These data are not simply thermometer measures. On the contrary, there are a variety of techniques used to estimate past climate conditions (e.g., fossils of species that only survive in certain climate conditions, temperature- and moisture-sensitive mineral densities in underground rock layers, etc) going well back into pre-history. (This is how we know, for example, a great deal about the last Ice Age, which occurred before the invention of written language, much less thermometers.)

    Noting that a scientific consensus can be flawed as an ipso facto justification for dismissing the consensus on global warming is especially problematic. It would seem that this position logically constrains you to reject any scientific consensus. Perhaps you will only seek medical advice from faith healers now? I don’t think so, but it doesn’t sound like you have any particular a priori standard for when you will or will not trust a particular scientific consensus. Perhaps you will accept a scientific consensus unless it says something that runs against your pre-conceived worldview? In this respect your reference to the old belief that the world is flat is ironic: Scholars of the past held to that pre-conceived view in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because they did not want to have more fundamental beliefs about their scientific worldview challenged.

    There’s something important to notice about past eugenics claims: White scientists and the people funding their work all had strong egotistical and political incentives to find support for their pre-conceived belief in their own racial superiority. By stark contrast, no politician or scientist wants to believe global warming is as serious a problem as the evidence suggests. Absent some conspicuous ecological disaster that the public can’t ignore (e.g., the Cuyahoga River catching fire), there is little political advantage in telling voters that some abstract meteorological process is going to put their city underwater unless they radically change their lifestyles.

    And scientists, myself included, don’t want to radically alter their lifestyle any more than the rest of the public. We also have much better things to do than scare everyone just for the hell of it.
    The supposedly hysterical claims about global warming did not easily become the consensus of the scientific community — on the contrary, no one wanted to believe the problem could be so serious. But over time even leading researchers who were still skeptical of global warming 15 years ago conceded that the evidence human activity was responsible for the sudden spike in climate change had become overwhelming.

    So I’m afraid you’re mistaken to imply there is little true evidence of global warming. You needn’t take my word for it. Rather than picking up some book that you know will only give you evidence in support of your pre-conceived opinion, go to your nearest academic library. Do a search on global warming using a scientific database (e.g., BIO-SIS, etc) and *randomly* pick 50 articles or so. Then you can get a ratio of how many studies find support for global warming vs. how many support alternative hypotheses. You can even compare this ratio of work done in the last 5 years to the same ratio of work done 20 years ago, if you want to get a sense of just how much the consensus in favor of global warming has grown.

    In short, to deny that global warming is happening and that it is indeed a very serious threat, one would have to believe in a massive, international conspiracy to systematically forge data in hundreds peer-reviewed journals — all to create phony evidence as a basis for telling people the sort of unpleasant facts they are most resistant to hearing. The motivation for this elaborate conspiracy? Obviously it’s a political ploy — part of a mean-spirited effort to spoil everyone’s economic fun, of course.


  2. Ipso facto? Priori?

    Please give us a frickin' break. You only impress yourself.

    In short, to deny that global warming is happening and that it is indeed a very serious threat, one would have to believe in a massive, international conspiracy to systematically forge data in hundreds peer-reviewed journals — all to create phony evidence as a basis for telling people the sort of unpleasant facts they are most resistant to hearing. The motivation for this elaborate conspiracy? Obviously it’s a political ploy — part of a mean-spirited effort to spoil everyone’s economic fun, of course.

    The suggestion that man is purely at fault for global warming is a golden opportunity for "scientists" to get more money and for neo-socialists to shove their agenda on folks (eg. the massive failure of Kyoto).

    The bottom line is that nobody's buying the it's all your fault action line. When it turns out that it's nothing more than another example of social control by the neo-socialists and anyone who opposes the "scientists" are damned to hell, when we see punishment of the left's enemies such as "big business", "big oil", America, Wal-Mart etc. meanwhile those who are actually doing the most polluting get a complete pass, nobody's going to be impressed.

    Wanna talk about Nazi-esque? Just look at the liberal left and their willing bitches in "big science" biting the pillow for "consensus". Seig Heil, baby!  Consensus is nothing more than sacrificing what you know and believe in to fit in so an agenda can be pushed. You can use all the quotes and all the high falootin' words you want, but those of us who are smart enough to know how stuff works ain't gonna be swallowing the loads. You may control the mindless sheeple who gleefully suck on that tit, but you'll never control those of us who can think for ourselves and actually know what the hell is going on.

    Anybody who thinks otherwise can drop down, fifth ring and cook.


  3. In short, to deny that global warming is happening and that it is indeed a very serious threat, one would have to believe in a massive, international conspiracy to systematically forge data in hundreds peer-reviewed journals

    Olivia here obviously doesn’t read many peer-reviewed journals, and the utter crap they print these days, or is a newly minted PhD and wouldn’t know research if it slapped her in the face. All sorts of garbage is printed in peer-reviewed journals these days, particularly politically motivated “research” that cannot stand the test of actual review. Consider, for example, that the “hockey stick” simulation which supposedly “proves” human-induced global warming has been run by different scientists, and the “hockey stick” appears in the simulation results regardless of the input — in other words, the “hockey stick” that “proves” the theory is in fact an artifact of the simulation and has nothing to do with the data.

    Or more basic, consider that Olivia does not seem to understand that a theory that can predict all possible outcomes, as “global warming” does now that it has been renamed “climate change” for that very reason, is not a theory at all, and can never be.

    Or perhaps Olivia is a starry-eyed grad student, who hasn’t been around long enough to grow a healthy skepticism. That would explain a great deal.

  4. Olivia Says:

    fascinating… I assumed a “gay conservative” blog would be a forum of independent thinkers genuinely interested in debating ideas rather than getting into personal insult matches. It’s amazing how responses to my one post could have petty insults in every other line but no actual rebuttal argument. (That’s an “impressive”, intellectually snobby way of saying GayCon didn’t actually respond to any points — he sure felt confident he’d single-handedly crushed the whole global warming case, though.)

    Guess ya thought a silly little girl like me couldn’t take it, huh? Yeah, us chicks are pretty insecure about our ability to make well-reasoned arguments. That’s why we throw in lots of fancy-sounding words like “ipso facto” and “a prior” — we don’t use them because they’re, you know, basic logic concepts anyone who reads would understand. Nope, we just use ’em to impress the men folk.

    RightWing’s comments were more interesting… it would seem he believes if a process (like peer-review) is fallible, therefore nothing useful can come out of it. I don’t imagine that sort of black-and-white thinking really helps you much as a scholar, but let’s roll with it for a sec: If we can’t lend any credibility to any peer review process, what would be the alternative, infallible “actual review” process you speak of, the one from which an academic consensus might emerge that we can trust? Would this entail all submissions being reviewed by you, the supreme intellectual judge of which articles are crap and which have merit? Or are you one of those postmodernist homos who doesn’t actually believe any body of knowledge is more sound than another? Or maybe you DO trust science when it agrees with your political views, but it’s all crap if the evidence runs against your “Right Wing Prof” identity. That’s some model independent thinking you’ve got going on there.

    You must be a postmodernist, because you clearly don’t understand basic philosophy of science. Global warming (“climate change” is a political renaming) is hardly a theory that predicts all possible outcomes. (If it did, why would it have any policy implications whatsoever?) Global warming clearly doesn’t predict, for example, that the average temperature of the planet will gradually decline over the coming years. I would think that should be obvious any trained scientist, whether s/he actually agrees with the theory or not.

    well boys, it’s been fun. I’m off to find more interesting forums where peoples’ confidence doesn’t run quite so far ahead of their actual intelligence.


  5. well boys, it’s been fun. I’m off to find more interesting forums where peoples’ confidence doesn’t run quite so far ahead of their actual intelligence.

    You mean where other people have their lips firmly planted on Algore’s cunt.

    Ahh yes. Another worthless liberal douchebag with the unpopular position claiming superiority merely because nobody takes apart their steaming pile of BULLSHIT piece by piece.

    Here’s the deal sweetheart. It’s already been done. You have taken the unpopular doom & gloom position so it seemds to me that the burden of proof is on you. It figures that since we won’t swallow your bullshit unqestioningly, you’ll have to run off to find those Algore cunt lickers who will.

    Enjoy your carpet licking fest. You won’t find it here.


  6. RightWing’s comments were more interesting… it would seem he believes if a process (like peer-review) is fallible

    This, my dear grad student, is what is known as a straw man. Try doing this in one of your graduate seminars, and your instructor will slap you silly for it.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: