Palin Is Starting To Get On My Nerves

[timwakefield 68]

I'm not implying, I'm saying: Al Gore knows shit about science and climate, but he knows how to promote himself by making Chicken Little claims. He doesn't give a damn about the truth or falsity of anything he says if it makes him a buck -- and his confession on ethanol proves that.

"Confession on ethanol?" Okay. But how is that gonna make him a buck? Can I assume since you haven't bothered to refute it that my suggestion that you never saw the film is correct?

[Balloon guy 158]

"Confession on ethanol?" Okay. But how is that gonna make him a buck?

Algore invested into all forms of 'alternative energy' then used his fear mongering speeches along with his connections in the government to make sure that huge subsidies for corn ethanol would profit him immensely. Then when the unintended consequences of people starving came up ( which incidentally happened just seconds after he sold his investments for immense profits ) he shorted the ethanol companies and made even more money on the ride down. Then Algore came forth and admitted that corn ethanol was not viable, would not make any difference, and was starving children.Then he divorced his wife before she told everyone that he in fact is impotent

[timwakefield 68]

We have been warming and cooling as a planet for the last 500,000 years according to the same scientist, and there were no SUVs to blame. Yet, now the sun is hotter because of my Navigator and love of electricity?

I can't tell if you're sarcastically calling Gore a scientist, or if you simply forgot to tell us which scientist you're talking about. Besides, the whole point of the global warming discussion is that the current warming trend is the first in Earth's history to be caused by people, and that it's occurring on a vastly sped-up timescale vs the natural cycles that the planet goes through.But furthermore, how can something have been happening 500,000 years ago if the earth is only 6,000 years old? Your irrational dismissal of basically all scientific understanding of the Earth (your YECness) makes it seem pretty unlikely that you have a strong grasp or willingness to understand other scientific findings or theories about the Earth. See: evolution, for further examples.

[hblask 1]

"Confession on ethanol?" Okay. But how is that gonna make him a buck?

The Ethanol lobby, for one. They paid him millions to promote that harmful policy.

Can I assume since you haven't bothered to refute it that my suggestion that you never saw the film is correct?

That's right, I never saw it, but the list of claims it makes is easily available on the internet, and they mostly fall into the outright lie or unfalsifiable claim category.See, I believe the earth has warmed over the last 100 years. I believe that some portion of that is due to human activity. I think more people would believe these to facts if the left would quit putting hucksters and charlatans like Gore as the spokesperson for it.

[timwakefield 68]

That's right, I never saw it, but the list of claims it makes is easily available on the internet, and they mostly fall into the outright lie or unfalsifiable claim category.

I'd be pretty careful to be sure the "list of claims" you're looking at is presented objectively. You could just take a couple hours to watch the movie, so that you could actually know what is and isn't said. I'm sure it's available online too.

See, I believe the earth has warmed over the last 100 years. I believe that some portion of that is due to human activity. I think more people would believe these to facts if the left would quit putting hucksters and charlatans like Gore as the spokesperson for it.

If the movie hadn't been narrated/created by an extremely famous person (or "charlatan," if you like) it's unlikely that many people would have seen it.

[Balloon guy 158]

I can't tell if you're sarcastically calling Gore a scientist, or if you simply forgot to tell us which scientist you're talking about.

You do know that 'most' of the world's 'scientist' 'agree' with 'you'?That's whom I was discussing.

Besides, the whole point of the global warming discussion is that the current warming trend is the first in Earth's history to be caused by people, and that it's occurring on a vastly sped-up timescale vs the natural cycles that the planet goes through.

Doesn't matter, since our 'understanding' of all the past cycles is almost nothing more than guesses

But furthermore, how can something have been happening 500,000 years ago if the earth is only 6,000 years old? Your irrational dismissal of basically all scientific understanding of the Earth (your YECness) makes it seem pretty unlikely that you have a strong grasp or willingness to understand other scientific findings or theories about the Earth. See: evolution, for further examples.

Well, I was willing to meet you on your terms ( silly belief that the earth evolved ) but if you want to meet on mine, then cool. ( Not 'cool' as in the future temperature of the earth after the next ice age, but 'cool' as in 'righteous', or hip ( or hep depending on your understanding of early 1970s slang ))The earth was made by God, He will not allow us to destroy it. Going this deep into the nit picking is usually the first sign that you are about to crack.

[timwakefield 68]

Going this deep into the nit picking is usually the first sign that you are about to crack.

How is it nitpicking to point out that you disbelieve all modern scientific understanding of the creation of the Earth and its history, as well as the theory of evolution? I think it's extremely relevant to the issue of whether or not you're likely to believe other scientific findings.

You do know that 'most' of the world's 'scientist' 'agree' with 'you'?

Okay, it's just that (twice now) you've failed to pluralize "scientist(s)," a typo which caused your sentence to not make any sense.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'd be pretty careful to be sure the "list of claims" you're looking at is presented objectively. You could just take a couple hours to watch the movie, so that you could actually know what is and isn't said. I'm sure it's available online too.

]But not in England's public school without disclaimersThe Magistrate ordered that the film had too many factual errors to be shown in any English public schools without first warning the children that "this movie is full of crap but we think Algore had the election stolen so let's give him an Academy Awards for this drivel."

If the movie hadn't been narrated/created by an extremely famous person (or "charlatan," if you like) it's unlikely that many people would have seen it.

Ahhh....and why is that?Because it was so biased and unable to stand scientific scrutiny?

[timwakefield 68]

Because it was so biased and unable to stand scientific scrutiny?

You yourself just said that most scientist [sic] agree with me. So in what way is the theory unable to withstand scientific scrutiny?

[Balloon guy 158]

How is it nitpicking to point out that you disbelieve all modern scientific understanding of the creation of the Earth and its history, as well as the theory of evolution? I think it's extremely relevant to the issue of whether or not you're likely to believe other scientific findings.

Because it reeks of poisoning the argument.I can believe that the sun is a hydrogen fusion ball burning at 9,000 degrees without believing that it slowly came into being by random dust particles flown throughout space and attracted to each others' minute gravitational pull over gazillions of years before they spontaneously started a fusion generator that is more efficient than anything we humans can create with full intent and effort.But let's pretend that if a person believes that the earth is 6,000 years old that therefore he doesn't believe that gravity is related to the mass of an object.The funny thing is you are defending a junk science by stating that I believe in another 'junk science'So you can see how you just won the argument for my side?

[Balloon guy 158]

You yourself just said that most scientist [sic] agree with me. So in what way is the theory unable to withstand scientific scrutiny?

Science isn't scientist silly.If it was, then all those discoveries by Christians like gravity, the solar system, mathematics, polio vaccination, etc would never have become 'science'Science is the truth, irregardless of what the current en vogue group of scientist think it is.

[timwakefield 68]

But let's pretend that if a person believes that the earth is 6,000 years old that therefore he doesn't believe that gravity is related to the mass of an object.

It's not poisoning the argument. If you refuse to believe that 2+2=4, then you're probably not going to do very well or be particularly well-informed in a discussion about the sum of 3+3.YECness denies all of the same modern scientific methods used to study the history of the earth as are being used to study the current state and changes the earth is undergoing. It's not like we're talking about space travel or quantum physics. We're talking about the modern study of the natural world, which you don't believe in.

[Balloon guy 158]

It's not poisoning the argument. If you refuse to believe that 2+2=4, then you're probably not going to do very well or be particularly well-informed in a discussion about the sum of 3+3.YECness denies all of the same modern scientific methods used to study the history of the earth as are being used to study the current state and changes the earth is undergoing. It's not like we're talking about space travel or quantum physics. We're talking about the modern study of the natural world, which you don't believe in.

I don't believe that Jedediah laid down an accurate base line of the earth's magma core by sliding a candle wick down a gopher hole 100 years ago that we can trust to compare the current temperature readings we receive today. Copyright Dennis MillerSo if that means I don't believe that a spectrometer doesn't read the accurate current conditions of a light wave from Cygnus Six then so be it.I understand though. You are suddenly finding that you are losing ground, so in anger you lash out and try to destroy the character of the person you are arguing with.It is a normal liberal reaction to losing an argument, one that occurs every single time you try to argue the merits of your side.I'll wait while you declare victory and return to square one for the next time you have to defend your side's heroes.

[Balloon guy 158]

It's not poisoning the argument. If you refuse to believe that 2+2=4, then you're probably not going to do very well or be particularly well-informed in a discussion about the sum of 3+3.

And just so you all follow the implications of what Tim is saying:If you believe that global warming is accurate, you are using the same reasoning skills that evolutionist use to determine that the earth evolved over 4 billion years.

[timwakefield 68]

And just so you all follow the implications of what Tim is saying:If you believe that global warming is accurate, you are using the same reasoning skills that evolutionist use to determine that the earth evolved over 4 billion years.

And just so we can all follow what I actually said:If you disbelieve in the factual scientific analysis of the natural world as held by 99.99% of accredited scientists on the planet (the age and creation of the Earth, the natural processes of evolution), then you're probably an unreliable source for accurate scientific analysis of the global warming hypotheses.I get why you're refusing to pluralize "scientists" or "evolutionists," and it's cute, but it's entirely backwards. Scientists love nothing more than to argue and debate with each other and to undertake more and more and more experiments to try and be as accurate as they can about the universe. They're not like politicians who spout out whatever their party tells them to. It's closer to the opposite, so you can stop pretending that the thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists around the globe are all in league with each other for some unknown (and perhaps sinister?) reason.

[Balloon guy 158]

And just so we can all follow what I actually said:If you disbelieve in the factual scientific analysis of the natural world as held by 99.99% of accredited scientists on the planet (the age and creation of the Earth, the natural processes of evolution), then you're probably an unreliable source for accurate scientific analysis of the global warming hypotheses.

This would be another example of the stringent standards of the aforementioned scientist.

[timwakefield 68]

This would be another example of the stringent standards of the aforementioned scientist.

Oh, so more than .01% of respected scientists believe the Earth was created by God 6,000 years ago and that evolution is a myth? I thought I was being generous, since the real number is probably closer to actual zero.

[Balloon guy 158]

[timwakefield 68]

...says the guy who doesn't believe in science.

[hblask 1]

If the movie hadn't been narrated/created by an extremely famous person (or "charlatan," if you like) it's unlikely that many people would have seen it.

That would've been a Very Good Thing. Crap peddled to many people << crap peddled to hardly anyone

[timwakefield 68]

That would've been a Very Good Thing. Crap peddled to many people << crap peddled to hardly anyone

Wait, what? I said that in response to:

See, I believe the earth has warmed over the last 100 years. I believe that some portion of that is due to human activity. I think more people would believe these to facts if the left would quit putting hucksters and charlatans like Gore as the spokesperson for it.

So on the one hand you think global warming caused by humans is a reality and you think it would be good if more people learned about the truth of it. And on the other hand you think it's crap???It's also ridiculous for you to continue to criticize the content of a documentary that you haven't seen.

[vbnautilus 48]

Tim, you are way off on this one. Yes, all of the climate scientists who have seen the movie have verified that it is scientifically accurate, but when a guy who hasn't seen it and a religious nut both don't believe it you might as well forget it.

[hblask 1]

So on the one hand you think global warming caused by humans is a reality and you think it would be good if more people learned about the truth of it. And on the other hand you think it's crap???

Yes, I want people to learn the facts about global warming. That's why they shouldn't listen to lying, self-interested hucksters like Gore.

It's also ridiculous for you to continue to criticize the content of a documentary that you haven't seen.

When both critics and proponents of the movie agree on what claims are made, there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason to doubt them.

[brvheart 1,752]

Tim, you are way off on this one. Yes, all of the climate scientists who have seen the movie have verified that it is scientifically accurate, but when a guy who hasn't seen it and a religious nut both don't believe it you might as well forget it.

Not one or two... ALL.Were these the same people that were making up the climate data out of thin air and emailing each other asking how to best hide the data that didn't show warming? Or was that another group of climate "scientists".

[vbnautilus 48]

Not one or two... ALL.Were these the same people that were making up the climate data out of thin air and emailing each other asking how to best hide the data that didn't show warming? Or was that another group of climate "scientists".

No. But some of them may have been the same people who were sabotaged by hackers, and then convicted without trial by a torch-carrying mob of ideologues, but ultimately cleared by every single independent committee who investigated them.