“This is not a movie that is likely to draw many people who don’t agree with its premise,” writes Time‘s Karen Tumulty in her piece that pays a certain attention to Al Gore‘s An Inconvenient Truth, but is more taken with the ex-Vice President’s newfound movie-celebrity aura that came from his promoting Truth at the Cannes Film Festival last week. The above quote essentially passes along the notion that the incontrovertible evidence that global warming has reached a very critical stage is (here we go again) a debatable premise. This is appalling irresponsible horseshit on Tumulty’s and Time‘s part, and a prime example of how mainstream corporate-owned media, in the name of being “fair” and “balanced” and airing both sides of an issue, spins the Big Lie. As long as equivocating fence-sitters keep saying that global warming is debatable and that there’s another way to look at it (i.e., the proverbial Bush-Cheney view that we don’t want to go off half-cocked, that we’ve got fat incomes to consider, that there’s time to sort things out without radically changing course, that things aren’t as bad as Gore and the greenheads say), the carbon alcoholics who are dug into their denial foxholes about their energy-consuming lifestyles will have a rationale to cling to. As Gore says in the film, scientific journals are unanimous about global warming, but when you read mainstream media the fudging kicks in. Nice work, guys. Keep it up.
It is particulaly bad since she ignores Time’s
own reporting.
This cover from April warned Be Worried, Be Very Worried
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1176980,00.html
The article is no longer free (if Time thinks it is so important, they should at least make that issue available), but his article discusses it and the broader issue of media coverage of global warming
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/04/09/in_the_balance/
And earlier online piece
http://www.time.com/time/2001/globalwarming/splash.html
And this is an online piece from last August:
Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html
I understand that Al Gore says that China is on the “cutting edge” of cleaning up the environment. That’s news to my wife, who visited China last year and was appalled by the smog in Beijing — they’ve got trucks running on coal, for God’s sakes. The photos she took could make you cough — the air is brown as shit and apparently smells worse. This is why many people, even those who buy the whole climate change thing, don’t believe Al Gore’s take on it.
My problem with “An Inconvenient Truth” is not the subject matter, but the storyteller. Al Gore is a politician, and is like 99.44% of politicians in that he’s loose with facts. Gore is the candidate that didn’t have a strong enough message in 2000, after eight successful Clinton years, to keep the Florida fiasco out of the election equation. He has ruined the Democratic party until 2008, and I’m supposed to buy that he’s the voice of truth on this science? No way, Jeff! This doc would be better received if it had been conceived and reported by renowned scientists, rather than Al Gore or any politician – Republican or Democrat.
Well, good scientists know that there isn’t really any such thing as incontravertible evidence. There’s evidence that supports a hypothesis, accumulate enough and you can start calling it a theory, and then see if any evidence arises to contradict the theory.
People who say there is no debate about global warming (that term itself could refer to either artificial or natural global warming) don’t understand much about science, nor do they want to.
Inconvenient Truth is going to provoke a lot of discussion about global warming, a lot of very public debate. When it’s over, there will me more doubters than before, because the simple fact is that there is still significant debate about this among meteorologists, climatologists and geophysicists. And those are the scientific disciplines that are qualified to make this call. Not film critics or failed politicians.
“Gore is the candidate that didn’t have a strong enough message in 2000,”
I’ll admit I voted for Nader, but anyone who votes for the son of the guy who screwed up our economy and gave money and weapons to Osama and Saddam when he was working with Reagan deserves what they get.
” to keep the Florida fiasco out of the election equation.”
It’s not his fault Dubya was selected, not elected.
“He has ruined the Democratic party until 2008,”
Actually, sell-outs like Lieberman and Hillary ruined the party.
“This doc would be better received if it had been conceived and reported by renowned scientists,”
Gore does talk to scientists. It’s just that Bush keeps taking away their funding. Even the Pentagon thinks global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism.
Chris: “People who say there is no debate about global warming (that term itself could refer to either artificial or natural global warming) don’t understand much about science, nor do they want to.”
Is that the same argument being used for Intelligent Design?
“When it’s over, there will me more doubters than before, because the simple fact is that there is still significant debate about this among meteorologists, climatologists and geophysicists.”
Note that people in those fields only analyze a sample of weather patterns, and don’t really look at the whole picture.
Come on, people! Global warming is a reality (Al Gore says so) and the only way to stop it is if the United States would begin adopting a strict socialist construct. It’s not fair that the U.S. has more money than other countries! Until America has the guts to destroy its own economy for the benefit of smokestack-spewing third world countries, this global warming problem will not leave the pages of the New York Times.
“Come on, people! Global warming is a reality (Al Gore says so)”
And he still has more political and environmental experience than Shrub.
“and the only way to stop it is if the United States would begin adopting a strict socialist construct.”
By your logic, requiring workplaces like those mines be safe would be considered “socialist”.
“It’s not fair that the U.S. has more money than other countries!”
Actually, it used to have more money, but now it’s just borrowing it all from China.
“Until America has the guts to destroy its own economy for the benefit of smokestack-spewing third world countries,”
Progress is inevitable in business. Even if it’s not mandated that corporations follow the rules, it’s not in their interests to refuse to invest in better methods of production. Look at what happened to the Big Three autodealers when they chose to sell gas-guzzling trucks, rather than follow mileage requirements for cars.
“And he still has more political and enviromental experience than Shrub”
Says who?
“By your logic, requiring workplaces like those mines be safe would be considered “socialist”"
Uh, what-ever…
“Actually, it used to have more money, but now it’s just borrowing it all from China.”
Yeah, right… (I’m too sure)
“Progress is inevitable in business. Even if it’s not mandated that corporations follow the rules, it’s not in their interests to refuse to invest in better methods of production. Look at what happened to the Big Three autodealers when they chose to sell gas-guzzling trucks, rather than follow mileage requirements for cars.”
In your dreams, Enviro-boy.
Takes one to know one!
Appalling and irresponsible? Horseshit, too? Why, because they differ from your view? I guess tolerance and an open-mind need only apply when convenient.
Carbon alcoholics…like who? Al Gore? Do you know how much “carbon” this man and his entourage spew into the atmosphere?
I love the global warming debate, it turns the tables and puts those who are generally conservative on the side of reason and those who would generally be identified as liberal on the side of faith, because one can not say things like “incontrovertible evidence” without ignoring the slew of factors that oppose that incontrovertible evidence. When one clings to an ideal as truth despite insufficient evidence, words like faith and philosophy are more appropriate than truth and fact. And once Florida 2000 and ID get tossed into the argument, the jig is up. Just hand over your chips, please…
As has been said many, many times, no one denies the earth has warmed recently, but no one can definitively or even convincingly say we are the cause. Correlation does not equate to causation. Otherwise, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between the declining number of pirates and rising global temperatures. Look it up…it’s a “fact.”
The earth has undergone dramatic and drastic changes for billions and billions of years, who the fuck are we to say the planet is behaving abnormally based on a trivial 120 years of observation? On the cosmic time-scale 120 years is faster than the blink that was the acting career of future democratic savior Ben Affleck, so while we’re at it why not look at the last seven years, you know, when global warming started causing tsunamis and, imagine, gulf hurricanes? What have global temperatures done? They’re flatter than “Poseidon”s box-office…I’m sure Fox News or Evangelical Christians are behind this inconveniently incontrovertible little nugget.
>I love the global warming debate, it turns the >tables and puts those who are generally >conservative on the side of reason
I thought being conservative means being pro-environment. (You know, like Teddy Roosevelt?)
>Correlation does not equate to causation. >Otherwise, there is a statistically significant >inverse relationship between the declining number >of pirates and rising global temperatures. Look >it up…it’s a “fact.”
But obviously more than one correlation can lead to causation. So you could argue that our transition from wind-absorbing transportation found in pirate ships to carbon-emitting transportation found in automobiles is destructive to the environment.
>The earth has undergone dramatic and drastic >changes for billions and billions of years, who >the fuck are we to say the planet is behaving >abnormally based on a trivial 120 years of >observation?
Well 120 years ago, the ozone layer was still closed.
> so while we’re at it why not look at the last >seven years, you know, when global warming >started causing tsunamis and, imagine, gulf >hurricanes? What have global temperatures done? >They’re flatter than “Poseidon”s box-office…
They’re melting entire mountains and forcing polar
bears to swim just to find land. And we’ve had tsunamis and hurricanes, some as bad as the ones last year, but not together in one year.
look Daniel, I’m not saying there is not a compelling argument, but this has become the left’s religion, and as such it invokes and demands debate…which, to me, is ironic and amusing…
“this has become the left’s religion”
Only because of the confluence of the Right Wing’s voting base (social conservatives~in this instance, buggy-whip afficianados) & intellectual & financial base (free market capitalists~in this instance, preserve the status quo). A true conservative or entrepeneur would not close their ears to science as the Right has done; seeing instead the need to modify current practices to insure as much lifestyle continuity as possible as well as opportunity to build better solutions.
The Science is clear on the larger issues:
http://dieoff.org/page123.htm
(produce a similar letter with opposite conclusions signed by say 10% of the number of distinguished scientists that signed this and I will concede there is a debate – otherwise you’re being played)
Richard Nixon, for one, would never have taken the current administration’s position (look up Nixon’s Environmental record sometime)…it is the Right who have developed a faith-based approach to this issue.
Pax Wotascum
10%?? I can do a lot better than that…By your rationale, there is just as much ‘talent’ arguing against the thesis of anthropegenic warming as suporting it. How any critically thinking person, right or left, can just choose to ignore this entire community is dumfounding, and leaves only the word “faith” to describe this irrational devotion to an unfounded position.
Let’s go to the video tape…
http://www.sepp.org/heidelberg_appeal.html
Signed by over 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, have signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which warns against “the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.” They further warn “the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm
They are joined by 660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and other environmental scientists (so far) who have signed the Oregon Appeal saying that global warming hysteria is pseudoscientific baloney. Add to them an additional 5,017 chemists, biochemists, biologists, and other life scientists, and over 10,000 other scientists, attached to major universities and research organizations around the world.
http://www.sepp.org/LDsigs.html
Then there are the signers of the Leipzig Declaration which says “…based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference — lacking credible support from the underlying science — to be ill-advised and premature.”
Convinced? I can at least acknowledge it’s a POSSIBILITY we are the cause…what confounds me are the legions of people wooed by a ‘documaentary’ with good production values who refuse to be just as open-minded and are incapable of acknowledging the possibility that we’re NOT. CLEARLY, the scientific community supports both arguments, which brings us back to the original discussion around the ABSURDITY of Gore’s spoon-fed babble.
Wow, really should have proof-read…oh well, the content is there…
Dear D-Bomb:
Thanks for all them numbers and the crock full of “content”.
It might interest you to know that the Science & Environmental Policy Project, where you got 2 of your links has received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO, not to mention the Moonies. I know it is probably latent Marxism, but I smell a rat.
Here’s a chronology of the “Heidelberg Appeal”
1992 — “Warning to Humanity” petition circulates, signed by 1,700 working CREDIBLE scientists.
1992 — Oil, Coal, pollution-industries counter-attack at Rio conference, fake Heidelberg Appeal circulates with their funding, using their paid-science-traitors, like the documented corrupt Fred Singer, documented corrupt Fred Seitz, documented corrupt Bruce N. Ames.
The real Heidelberg Appeal does not mention “irrational ideology” or any of the other “content” you provided (which if one reflects on it, does not appear to be high probability language in a scientific document). It can be viewed here:
http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/warning.html
It sez (in part):
Warning
We the undersigned, senior members of the world’s scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.
What we must do
Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:
1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth’s systems we depend on.
We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needs small scale and relatively easy to implement.
We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.
2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively.
We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.
3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.
4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.
5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.
The Oregon Petition (Science & Environmental Policy Project affiliated) & the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change are both debunked here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change
None of this “content” makes it into peer-reviewed journals, it’s all cloud-cuckooland fantasy content for those who don’t mind getting played.
I haven’t seen Gore’s flick (I’ve never really cared for the guy…tho this is relative; compared to the other major party leadership, he’s a prince of a fellow), just don’t care for getting floozled & bamboozled. Wise up bro.
“I can at least acknowledge it’s a POSSIBILITY we are the cause…”
bravo, d-bomb, bravo. Hopefully, you’ll also manage to realize that if you are right, that human’s don’t cause global warming, we can can go right back to pollutin’ & consumin’ like there’s no tomorrow (what a phrase!), but if you’re wrong…well, let’s jes say the options aren’t real appealing.
So instead of typing up any ole shit (which you’ve already done, thankee kindly), why don’t you act like a real conservative and hedge your bet while you still might be able to execute a bluff.
Rabbit…you need to get your facts straight…you are confusing the Heidelberg Appeal with the “‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity’”…they are two DIFFERENT documents. The Heidelberg Appeal is real and supported by 72 Nobel Prize winners….time to eat crow, broseph. Read on….
The REAL real Heidelberg Appeal is signed by 72 Nobel Prize Winners and over 4000 other scientists who subscribe to a “quiet call for reason and a
recognition of scientific progress as the solution to, not the cause of, the health and environmental problems that we face.” Like it or not, it DOES oppose “an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development,” and goes on to say they “share the objectives of the ‘Earth Summit’” but advise “the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data. … The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry.”
In summary, the Appeal was for an anthropocentric assessment of the world’s resources and a utilitarian as opposed to abolitionist approach to hazardous substances used or created by technology. It targeted as irrational, by implication, if not explicitly, both a vision of a “Natural State” with intrinsic rights to impede the activities of man, and hysterical fears of environmental poisons, disproportionate to the threat and dismissive of their associated benefits.
This should be enough for you–if you are rational–to follow through with your statement of capitulating that there is a debate. If not, well thanks for the engagement, but I choose not to waste my time further with someone incapable of reason and objectivity.
That’s it, man, that’s my whole point: We need to keep a level head and maintain “truth” instead of blurring the line even further between fact and fiction. The same level of hysteria surrounding environmental concerns is starting to sound a whole lot like that surrounding Iraq in 2002…for someone like me, who doesn’t consider this a partisan issue and who votes both Republican and Democrat based on qualifications of the individual, it’s not hard to see or hear this.
Again, for the umpteenth time, are we the cause? Perhaps. Should we take action? Yes. Radical action that will castrate the American economy 20 years from now? No, at least not until there is a CONSENSUS and not just a THEORY. Those who wish to preserve our way of life at all cost–ignoring the possibility of natural planetary evolution–are just as dangerous and selfish as those who say we should do nothing.
D-bomb:
You misunderstand; I was confused however, and therefore owe you an explanation. My confusion was due to the fact that I said that if you could ?produce a similar letter with opposite conclusions signed by say 10% of the number of distinguished scientists that signed this and I will concede there is a debate?.
You answered by posting a link to a letter signed by a bunch of scientists, I was a little frustrated by the fact that it was not contemporaneous with or published subsequent to that which I cited. Not incontrovertible evidence of a bogus claim, but rather weak. But what really got me was there was no resemblance to the letter I cited, let alone opposite conclusions? even in passing.
There was, in fact, no mention of global warming at all. No mention of ?climate change?. No mention of ?ozone?. No mention of ?cfcs?. Zero, Zip, Nada, Nothing. So I sez to myself, what if the scientists had a choice between a document that explicitly claimed global warming was real, caused by humans, etc. and the ?Heidelberg Appeal?, one could then argue that this was an implicit denial of the concept of global warming…which, of course, does not meet the standard I asked you to meet to concede the existence of a debate, but was fairly close (there were actually scientists who signed both documents!). So in investigating the ?Heidelberg Appeal?, I found that it was a canard foisted upon the unsuspecting scientists by tobacco & asbestos interests and that there was a 1992 letter explicitly dealing with global warming which you, apparently, ignored that contained no posturing about ?irrational ideologies?, etc., just support for the concept of global warming. So, and this shouldn?t be real difficult if there truly is debate, produce a similar letter to the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity or the Kyoto Call To Action, which comes to the opposite conclusions, signed by 10% of the number signing the aforementioned (not some innocuous document signed by the appropriate number of laureates, not some explicit document signed by tv weathermen put out by an Astroturf organization of frauds like Fred Singer?s SEPP, Stephen Milloy, or other corporate buttboys of your choice, but real Nobel laureates saying they don?t believe global warming is real) and I will concede there is a debate.
Here?s a tip, don?t waste your time cos there isn?t any debate among scientists?http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
?Should we take action? Yes. Radical action that will castrate the American economy 20 years from now? No?
But thus far the wingnuts can?t even improve CAFÉ stds ? that ain?t radical. The longer we whine about non-existant ?debates? and put off things like CAFÉ stds, the more radical the solutions are gonna get.
I’ll eat one spoonful of crow for every three you consume.
Over&Out
It’s like I’m talking to an Alzheimer’s patient…I’m having one conversation and you’re having another…
Despite the fact that I have personally read articles from reputable sources (http://www.livescience.com) seriously doubting warming, that’s not what I’m putting forth…why would I search for or provide a letter refuting global warming when I am only trying to keep the subject honest, which is to say that the greenhouse effect is still just a theory. Scientists use words like ‘theory’ and ‘law’ to describe different things. Theory does not equal truth, no matter how hard layman Gore wants to believe so. To make the jump from theory to fact, one is taking a leap of faith — NO WAY AROUND IT.
This whole discussion originated with my taking offense to Gore’s, and his cronies like Wells’, decision to force-feed their ideologies down my throat and that of the American public, all whilst they are jetting around the fucking globe, snapping pictures of frightened waitresses, spewing more fucking carbon than any environmentally-minded loudmouth should. What’s next…are they gonna get up on their ivory soapbox draped in mink fur with steak juice dripping from their chin condemning animal cruelty???? It’s laughable.
At this point our discussion has become a test of googling ability…if 72 nobel prize winners aren’t enough to convince you that we are not prepared to call this FACT and act as if it so, then I sure as shit won’t be able to.
Cheers.
“At this point our discussion has become a test of googling ability…if 72 nobel prize winners aren’t enough to convince you that we are not prepared to call this FACT and act as if it so, then I sure as shit won’t be able to.”
Here’s the point, 72 nobel prize winners signed some stupid letter that didn’t say shit about global warming, and yet you act as if they did. You might have a lot of good clean fun in that sandbox chitchatting with ‘reputable’ people, but what that has to do with consensus in the scientific community I do not know. There is NO DEBATE, none, N-O-N-E, in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nobel Laureates (among others) have gone on record saying that 1)That global warming is real, 2)That humans cause it & 3)We need to do something NOW. There is all kinds of debate on FOXnews and in the GOP and in the PR firms and wingnut thinktanks &, apparently, in the livescience.com bbs…but all that stuff ain’t a debate in the scientific community.
The whole conversation started because you made an inaccurate charge about Global Warming being a religious thing for the ‘left’, I merely pointed out that Global Warming isn’t left/right, extremists on the right have a religious aversion to anything environmentally responsible. You provided the irrelevant content. I prefer the company of Al Gore or Jeff Wells anyday to fools or fascists.
Here’s to KoolAid & Latte
The problem with this movie isn’t so much what it’s selling but who’s selling it: Al Gore is a JOKE, and the “left” needs to realize this and let it go.
He’s obviously an intelligent man, but he’s also got an obviously massive ego. He MUST be smart enough to realize that his presence in any arena is going to divide people and spin too easily into parody.
He wants to pour his money and expertise, such as it is, into this project, great… but if he REALLY wants to help he’ll get behind the curtain and let less automatically-hilarious people do the talking. But he won’t, and it’s obvious why: Gore doesn’t just want to save the world, he wants HIM to save the world. He wants to be the hero that warned us, the guy we all thank when it goes right or beg absolution from when it goes bad and he “told us so.” Like too many other political celebrities, it’s all about HIM in the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIPcqlMTQHs
And by the way, YES Bush is absolutely a JOKE as well, with one key difference: Both men are jokes, but Gore is both a joke and a man who LOST to a joke
Pity the poor, punctured ozone layer: It’s bleeding to death as we speak and those who would fix it have chosen as their figurehead a man who could not win a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION against a FORMER MALE CHEERLEADER.
Again, you argue for your cause and I am arguing for objectivity. This is an unreconcilable conversation.
Rabbit, something tells me you’re the type of guy who isn’t very good at playing the game ‘Taboo’ or ‘charades’…all over the f’ing document are references to man’s raping of the earth and a call for a cool and collected solution, warning against the very hysteria that is (predominantly) lefty-driven. Regardless….
I read a lot about this topic, and I come across articles with titles like “Scientists Clueless over Sun’s Effect on Earth”…you also learn while reading, not just googling, that the current method of tracking ocean temperatures has been in place for only 20 years…20. Are you so pompous and arrogant to think that as fallable as man is he can correctly extrapolate 20 lousy years of data to represent 4 billion?? In the 70s scientists warned the earth would begin to cool, and history has repeatedly taught us that the leading scientific consensus is often proven wrong.
You are right, no one is denying the planet is warming (or at least that it has warmed in the past 100 years by about 1 degree, as it hasn’t warmed at all in the past 7)…but as to the cause of that warming, you can find many studies supporting the minority perspective:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago … [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606
William M. Gray, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Get your head out of the sand. Wake up and smell what you’re shoveling…however you need it said to OPEN YOUR EYES and accept there is dissent within the respected scientific community.
Like all of Michael Moore’s films, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is going to be one big op-ed piece. That’s fine…Gore is entitled…but taking an absolute position on a subject that can not be agreed upon by the precepts of science is foolish and fallacious, and erodes the prospect of any sort of rational debate. It is not a truth, it is an inconvenient likelihood. Big difference, muchacho. Had that been the name, I would say more power to ya, Al. Now start practicing what you preach and turn in those 2,000,000,000 frequent flier miles you’ve racked up stroking that massive ego.
“Get your head out of the sand. Wake up and smell what you’re shoveling…however you need it said to OPEN YOUR EYES and accept there is dissent within the respected scientific community.”
Too bad none of these “respected” people publish anything in peer reviewed journals. Then we would have undisputable evidence of a “debate”.
Yes, the Heidelberg Appeal does contain many phrases open to interpretation; it was designed that way by the tobacco & asbestos scientists for hire so that they could get signatures. A reasonable conclusion would be that if the letter explicitly said “asbestos is safe”, “there is no harm in second hand tobacco smoke”, or “global warming is a myth” that there would be no signatures on the document.
Your reading of the document betrays your own wish fulfillment and your lack of objectivity, and, I might add, your dedication to “irrational ideology”.
Thanks for self IDing with the bitching about Michael Moore. No easier way to spot a certifiable wingnut than hysterical levels of sensitivity to “hypocracy”; this from people who are unable/unwilling to perceive blatant conflicts of interest in their so-called experts.
That’s my last word to you on the subject. Type up some more horseshit about how you’ve kept an open mind despite having incontrovertable evidence of bad scientific practices of the the ivory tower Poindexters, I really don’t care. Anyone reading this thread will know that your arguements don’t bear a scintilla of scrutiny.
You. Still. Don’t. Get. It. Without defining your one requirement for validity (define “peer reviewed”), you have done nothing but trash my approach, not my debate. Typical underhanded tactic.
Toughen up, man…I mentioned Moore because he is a good example of someone who makes 2-hour Op-Ed pieces and calls them “documentaries”. I lump him in the same category of talking-head extremists as Medved, Coulter, Sharpton, and Franken.
You want to talk about conflicts of interest? How has Gore been spreading his message all these years? By canoe and paddle??
Caio for now.
On second thought, let me take your approach. I have consistently agreed the planet has warmed, yet you respond as if I believe it a myth. I merely say we should act with prudence, yet you respond as if I say global warming is a myth…I provide a similar appeal from 72 nobel laureates and you discredit them out of hand by making radical assumptions…
…your inability to separate the cause from the effect belies any opportunity to resolve this debate.
So, ciao for good…
Great job guys… no clothes cute baby clothes tequila makes her clothes fall off dog clothes motorcycle clothes sexy clothes clothes clothes motorcycle clothes motorcycle clothes
i try to find something at google.com and take it on your site…thanks buy cialis is ultracet a narcotic buy soma online herbal viagra carisoprodol prescription diazepam soma carisoprodol buy xanax online xanax forum carisoprodol online
perfect site good information, very nice news and etc… tnx water garden fountains flower arrangements tequila makes her clothes fall off sexy clothes buy silk wedding flower arrangement pineapple wall fountain motorcycle clothes flower wedding flowers
Very Very nice information here… Thanks health solutions ultram tramadol prescription drug ultracet cheap tramadol buy ultracet buy tramadol online is ultracet a narcotic tadalafil soft tab tadalafil buy tramadol online buy online ultram drug ultracet cheap tadalafil purchase ultracet soft tab tadalafil tramadol cod cheap tramadol buying tadalafil online ultram online ultracet
beautiful online information center. greatest work… thanks cheap ultracet ambien pharmacy cheap ultracet generic ultram buy tadalafil diazepam online buy celexa carisoprodol buy cheap diazepam ativan use during pregnancy diazepam prescription aura soma fioricet buying buy alprazolam online drug valium celexa buy online cheap viagra tramadol cod ambien sleep medication buy levitra generic levitra buy alprazolam online ativan data atenolol buying order cialis ativan addiction generic adipex buy phentermine viagra alternative butalbital without prescription
Great job guys… Thank for you work…
i try to find something at google.com and take it on your site…thanks
Nice site. Thank to work…
Very Very nice information here… Thanks