Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Global warming spurs fundamentalist fervor

December 26, 2007

Advertisement

You don't have to be religious to qualify as a fundamentalist. You can be Al Gore, the messiah figure for the global warming cult, whose followers truly believe their gospel of imminent extermination in a Noah-like flood, if we don't immediately change our carbon polluting ways.

One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith. And so it is doubtful the global warming cultists will be moved by 400 scientists, many of whom, according to the Washington Times, "are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis." In a report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, these scientists cast doubt on a "scientific consensus" that global warming caused by humans endangers the planet.

Like most cultists, the true believers struck back, not by debating science, but by charging that a small number of the scientists mentioned in the report have taken money from the petroleum industry. A spokeswoman for Al Gore said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp. Exxon Mobile spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying, "the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories."

The pro-global warming cultists enjoy a huge money advantage. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, noted in an EPW report how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion (U.S.) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," he wrote on June 18, 2007. The $19 million spent on research that debunks the global warming faith pales in comparison.

Also included in the Republican report are comments by Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes: "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number - entirely without merit. I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over." In fact, the debate hasn't even begun because the global warming cultists won't debate. Despite numerous challenges, Al Gore has refused to debate the issue with any credible scientist who is a skeptic.

Shouldn't the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize be willing to debate such an important issue? What does he have to fear? If his theory cannot stand up to scientific inquiry and skepticism, it needs to be exposed as a false religion and himself as a false prophet before he and his followers force us to change the way we live and alter the prosperous society that generations of Americans have built.

Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot's, while most of us will be forced to drive tiny automobiles and live in huts resembling the Third World. But hypocrisy is just one of many traits displayed by secular fundamentalists like Gore.

Before adopting any faith, the agendas of the people attempting to impose it, along with the beliefs held by them and their disciples, should be considered. Gore and company are big government liberals who think government is the answer to all of our problems, including problems they create. In fact, as Ronald Reagan often said, in too many cases government is the problem.

The secular fundamentalists who believe in Al Gore as a prophet and global warming as a religious doctrine are being challenged by scientists and others who disbelieve and who think we ought to be spending more time on developing new technology and energy sources for the future and not preaching gloom, doom and retreat. Let them debate the issue. If they won't, we can only conclude that all they are spewing is hot air.

- Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Comments

objectiveobserver 6 years, 3 months ago

Wow. This goofball perspective is so naive that it had to be intentionally debate-inciting. The whole article reeks of that old familiar fear-based stick -your- head in-the- sand and swing blindly with both arms right-wing conservative rhetoric. Who's calling who fundamentalist? Unfortunately, our daily complacency, fear and denial moves us ever closer to the point of no return. The inherent truth of science is that it always remains objective - and never self-serving. Hey Cal, do you recycle?

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 3 months ago

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says:

"At least we now know you have never published or conducted a study in an academic research lab."

Joining logicsound in the incredible naivite department. You really think government research is unaffected by politics? Really? You show an incredible faith in your government.

Let's see:

1) Scientific journals are peer reviewed.

2) These "peers" are part of the "consensus."

3) We're not talking about hard facts here, but interpretation of the available data.

4) If the "consensus" interpretation of the data held by the "peer" reviewers reaches a different conclusion than yours, you really think you're own interpretation is going to be published?

At least we know you have never tried to publish anything that went against the pop-science view. Get a grip.



logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You do understand how the scientific process works, correct?"

Yes, I do understand howq the scientific process works. Which part of "consensus" science are you having a hard time with? AGW has no basis in observation, objective measurement, or experimentation, it is based on interpretation which can be and has been disputed by equally reputable sources. And I don't watch Fox News, thank you. Who's been spoon-feeding you the pablum you keep regurgitating on AGW?

"If journals didn't publish studies based on their preconcieved notions of their voracity, then the entire scientific community would be pointless."

So your argument is that we should believe these scientists because they had their minds made up before their "research" started. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"If your research doesn't support the currently "popular" belief system, it doesn't get published, you lose your grant, and you don't have a job"


That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You do understand how the scientific process works, correct? How do you think a concensus comes about? Everyone simultaneously publishes a study with the same hypotheses and conclusions? Absurd. Concensus arises over time as more studies are published that point in one direction or another. If journals didn't publish studies based on their preconcieved notions of their voracity, then the entire scientific community would be pointless.

Don't believe everything you hear about Science (that evil force!) on Faux News.

=============================================

"Government scientists have more incentive to fudge numbers."


Government scientists? I'm not sure if you're calling them that because research grants are federal money or because you believe the government has it's own army of scientists that decree what is and isn't considered science.

Sure, private-funded researchers are in danger of losing their job if they falsify data, so I'm sure that never happens. The difference you can't seem to grasp is in the motivation. People in grant-based research do so because they want to discover new principles and theories--to better the science. If money was their primary concern, then they would be leaving for private-funded research.

You can't eliminate money from the equation, as research requires funding. If you're going to assume that the scientists and researchers who choose to work for much less pay are in it for nothing more than a paycheck, then I'm not sure how you can trust any research.

0

devobrun 6 years, 3 months ago

Actually, logicsound04, I should thank you for answering my questions. Your explanation was quite clear. I often make the mistake of looking at the world exclusively thru the eyes of a grownup, to the exclusion of the fairytale perspective. So now I know better what to expect from AGW defenders.

Thanks again.

0

devobrun 6 years, 3 months ago

logic says: "Because there is no financial incentive related to a particular outcome of the reseach in government grants.

In private industry, producing certain desired results are essential for turning the research into profit, and is therefore more susceptible to falsification.

In government-funded research, the grant is awarded for conducting the research. In other words, the financial incentive comes BEFORE the results, making it silly to imply that the results are falsified to capture more money."

You have it quite backwards, logicsound04.
Government scientists have more incentive to fudge numbers. In private industry if a researcher fudges well log data or plastic production vs catalyst temperature he does so with his job on the line. When errors are found, he must explain. If he can't he's fired.
When a government scientist fudges numbers, there is no one there to care. No one has any $ at stake. The boss just sweeps it under the rug, 'cause he can't fire the bugger anyway. When data is fudged, it is done so to satisfy an expectation. If the results are properly produced, more experiments are in order based on the promising preliminary results. Funding is assured for next year. Nobody invests any $. Nobody loses any $. It is pure subterfuge and its unchecked. What a life! And now, with AGW, AlGore will cover your a$$ publicly. Ya can't lose!

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 3 months ago

DirtyLinen,

At least we now know you have never published or conducted a study in an academic research lab.

0

bondmen 6 years, 3 months ago

A must see for both lovers of science and worshippers of earth is the Great Global Warming Swindle, in DVD at http://store.demanddebate.com/index.html

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"Because there is no financial incentive related to a particular outcome of the reseach in government grants."

Unbelievably naive. This is exactly the opposite of the truth, which is another problem with "consensus" science. If your research doesn't support the currently "popular" belief system, it doesn't get published, you lose your grant, and you don't have a job (or any credibility in the scientific community, or any chance of publishing your book, or making public appearences...) Sounds like an incentive to me.

0

dichloromethane 6 years, 3 months ago

algore is an Idiot and a moron.

global warming is just another attempt by the leftists to control our Freedom.

if algore is so concerned about global warming, why does he fly around the world in his own private jet. Plus he owns 6 houses all across the country. What a Hypocrite!

Cal Thomas Rocks!

0

JSpizias 6 years, 3 months ago

PDecell,

I think Pielke Jr. is one of the best and most realistic and reasonable of the climatologists that I have read and his book is on my "must read" list. He is extremely prolific and I am very impressed with his work. HIs web site is here and most of his papers are available for downloading.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/search.html?searchString=&selectedMetadata%5B%5D=2432&action=Search&goInto=&toClose= I especially recommend his 2006 testimony before the Congress, his paper with Sarewitz, his paper on Future Economic Damage from Tropical Cyclones, and the paper by he and Hoppke on the Hohenkammer meeting dealing with the question of whether there have been more and/or more intense tropical cyclones. He argues, I believe rightly, that there has been an improper and unproductive focus on mitigation of climate changes rather than adaptation to deal with the effects of climate change. HIs father, Roger Pielke Sr. is also a distinguished climate scientist and very skeptical of a lot of the "global warming" predictions and conclusions regarding CO2 and greenhouse gases. His web sites are here: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"Being a general person (as opposed to a super special scientific person) I've always had a dictionary, just couldn't resist pushing some scientific buttons."


Not sure what each of those are, and as such, I don't know what the difference between the two might be.

==============================================

"You know that I was not advocating intelligent design in my reference to its proponents so I'm not sure why you went into your anti-id rampage."


I never said you were advocating ID. I used ID in my post, because it is one of the highest-profile examples of non-science attempting to masquerade as science.

If you'd have read closer, you also might have noticed that my comments were not an "anti-id rampage". I even pointed out that I wasn't debating whether ID was true or false, just that it wasn't science. The Bible might be wholly and completely true, but I wouldn't claim that it qualified as science.

============================================

"Part of the reason many people do not worship at your scientific shrine is found within your description of theory."


Again, not sure what "worshipping at the scientific shrine" means. Science is nothing more than a methodology for how to study and interpret the physical world in a defined and consistent way.

I am always amused by the people who make claims like this one, likening science to some sort of religion or faith. People may resent the secular/godless nature of science, but to imply that it requires belief and faith is ludicrious.

Do you use plastics? Well then you "believe" in science.

Do you use the internet? That's science too.

What about a car? Science again.

Hell, most of the modern food we eat, with all their preservatives and artificial flavors, is a product of science.

0

Ceallach 6 years, 3 months ago

Congrats, Ceallach, you found a dictionary. Unfortunately, "scientific theory" and the general term "theory" are not synonymous.


Being a general person (as opposed to a super special scientific person) I've always had a dictionary, just couldn't resist pushing some scientific buttons.

You know that I was not advocating intelligent design in my reference to its proponents so I'm not sure why you went into your anti-id rampage. Part of the reason many people do not worship at your scientific shrine is found within your description of theory.

Scientists set the rules, analyze the data, interpret their data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for their new hypothesis. Followed by publishing and retesting . . . ad nauseum.

1) Define the question 2) Gather information and resources (observe) 3) Form hypothesis 4) Perform experiment and collect data 5) Analyze data 6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7) Publish results 8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

I'm off to KC for a fun afternoon and evening . . . not scientific in anyway, just relaxing. Something you and several other posters might consider. While this has been quite humorous . . . oh, do scientists have a definition for humor . . . or do they even acknowledge that it exists? (Lighten up guy!)

Y'all have a terrifically scientific day!!

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

Congrats, Ceallach, you found a dictionary. Unfortunately, "scientific theory" and the general term "theory" are not synonymous.

Scientific theory is theory that is rooted in the scientific method:

1) Define the question 2) Gather information and resources (observe) 3) Form hypothesis 4) Perform experiment and collect data 5) Analyze data 6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7) Publish results 8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Saying nothing about the voracity of Intelligent Design, please explain how ID fits into the scientific model. Using the following as ID's hypothesis--

[Irreducibly complex systems of advanced functional complexity are the product of design.]

--I'm especially concerned with steps 4 and 5.

In order to conduct an experiment, we must first define "irreducibly complex", so that we know what to test. Does that mean atoms, or subatomic particles like electrons and neutrons, or even smaller, like quarks? Additionally, what constitutes "advanced functional complexity"? Again, we must define this in order to know what types of examples to test.

Assuming we can define those things, the next problem is what type of data to collect and how to analyze it. Is there any measurable data that we can use to draw a line separating 'irreducibly complex' from 'simply complex' or 'simple'?

Finally--and perhaps the most fundamental problem with ID--how can it be DISproved? Science is nothing more than continual testing and re-hypothesizing until a theory is debunked. In fact, perhaps you've heard the saying that you can never absolutely PROVE a scientific theory to be true. You can only show that it hasn't been disproven thus far.

In fact, this goes back to the whole testing component--if something can't be disproven, it can't be tested. One can test gravity by dropping an object. One can test evolution by observing changes in microorganisms over time. How does one test Intelligent Design--in other words, if one wanted to try and disprove ID, what approach should they take?

ID isn't science (again, I'm not debating whether or not it is true) because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 3 months ago

Gosh, there sure are a lot of fervent comments...

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

"Why are people so ready to believe complex, government funded research from thousands of people who must publish or perish? Why aren't people just as skeptical of government sponsored research as they are of that from private industry?"


Because there is no financial incentive related to a particular outcome of the reseach in government grants.

In private industry, producing certain desired results are essential for turning the research into profit, and is therefore more susceptible to falsification.

In government-funded research, the grant is awarded for CONDUCTING the research. In other words, the financial incentive comes BEFORE the results, making it silly to imply that the results are falsified to capture more money.

0

Paul Decelles 6 years, 3 months ago

JSPizias,

Funny, the Lysenko situation is exactly what happens when science becomes politicized. As for eugenics, that is sort of stuff when people including some scientists make wrong inferences about proper social policy from limited data. Unfortunately people still do this today don't they? Think about books like the Bell curve that make wrong policy inferences about education based on a misunderstanding of genetics.

You will notice that Lysenko's ideas ultimately failed because they did not work empirically.

Scientists are human and of course scientists can't be expected to stay out of politics. For instance I am an environmentalist but that is driven by what the science is telling me we are doing to our planet.

But ultimately scientists need to be advocates for the scientific approach to understanding the world/universe, even if conclusions about the way things work don't match their philosophical biases. The more that scientists do this the closer to the honest broker ideal science as a whole will become.

Ideally this is, if I am understanding what you said, the honest broker option. Pielke's book sounds interesting by the way.

Policy makers and citizens have an obligation to at least try to understand what the scientists are saying and develop some sort of scientific literacy and world view that matches reality. That's why when I evaluate presidential candidates I would like to know what the candidates understand about science and their attitudes toward science.

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

It has always been a toss up between who I dislike more; The Regan bread big dollar Jesus parasites that have taken over the republican party or post modern hippies( you know wheat bread look with a wonder bread mind). I got say after some of the reading here I am leaning towards the Neo-Pawns.

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

And I still think gay people are the biggest threat to this country. Well just because those in power mix agenda with truth than everyone else must be doing it too, right? I am sure that if the evil AliGore had his way and we curbed the combustion more American Iraq people would die as well. Who cares if it is natural or it is us, we need to adjust our use of resources you can not dispute that. If you voted for Bush in 04, or you vote against curbed emissions. You vote against your Children's economic future.

0

JSpizias 6 years, 3 months ago

Pielke suggests a 4th option for scientists.

The Honest Broker of Policy Options-seeks to expand, or at least clarify the scope of choices available to policy makers.

While this would appear to be the ideal, one must wonder how often it is seen regarding hot button political issues involving science.

0

gr 6 years, 3 months ago

"Is it AGW or climate change? "

Notice it started with global warming. Then the believers thought better of it and changed to climate "change". For they were promoting that we need to change to prevent "warming". In effect, they were saying if it was not for warming, then there would be no problem with building coal plants, driving huge vehicles, etc. They fear when more scientists get paid to find global cooling than for finding global warming, they would have lost control. So, to hedge their bets, they changed it to "climate change" - 'We're the cause of it (whatever "it" may be) whether warming or cooling.' Even if it switches back and forth depending upon who is the sore loser in the last election.

"What is global temperature?" Why it's what you measure to give force to what you want to force people to do! Actually, they won't discuss what to measure as "it's not up for debate". 400 scientists are rejected because they don't say what they want to hear. Same as they were accusing others of beforehand.

They also ignore tropical fossils found at the poles. A few say the plates have moved to result in those. If so, why isn't there a gradient of climate change in the fossil record? Why is there evidence of glaciers south of Lawrence? Was Lawrence at the poles earlier? Why the other fossils found here? Why in the early 1800s was there a cold summer which they don't take into consideration that one natural event can completely and overwhelmingly overrule pathetic human attempts to control a very small fraction of a natural and good global gas?

0

JSpizias 6 years, 3 months ago

pdecell says:

"Consensus" in science typically doesn't develop as a sort of group think or by political committee, but rather as certain interpretations are revised in the light of new and independent empirical tests...."

Unfortunately, this view is contradicted by the evidence. Two examples of such "group think" in science are the eugenics movement in the US that was supported by many leading scientists in the US and elsewhere in the early 1900's and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. The history of the eugenics movement is documented at: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/ and the ideas from this movement likely contributed to Hitler's attempt to "purify" the Aryian race in Germany. In the US, laws were passed to select the most fit and prohibit the "unfit" from reproducing. In the period from 1907-1935, over 21,000 were forcefully sterilized. The US Supreme Court upheld the laws of eugenical sterilization in a case from Virginia. In an 8 to 1 decision Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr wrote the following: "The judgement finds that Carrie Buck "is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring:.that she may be sexually sterilized: and that society will be promoted by her sterilization:.It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring:.society can prevent those who manifestly unfit from continuing their kind:Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This movement arose from reformist zeal to purify and improve the genetic makeup of the US and was supported by many leading biologists.

In the Soviet Union, Trofim Lysenko, with his promotion of the Lamarckian idea that acquired characteristics of organisms could be transmitted to progeny set back Russian biology for many decades. This view succeeded because it was compatiblewith the communist view that man could be moulded by altering environment.

In a new book termed The Honest Broker, Roger Pielke Jr. argues that it is impossible to separate science from politics. He notes that scientists generally fall into one of three categories: 1. The pure scientist-seeks to focus on only scientific facts and does not interact with policy makers (government) 2. The Science Arbiter-answers questions posed by policy makers but is not an advocate for a particular policy. 3. The Issue Advocate-advocates a specific position to policy makers and seeks to reduce the choices available to them.

Unfortunately, all too many climate scientists would appear to fall into the third class.

0

devobrun 6 years, 3 months ago

Most of the posts here emphasize science as a gathering of evidence (observation and measurement) and a forming of a hypothesis. Experimentation is mentioned, but not emphasized. Traditional science prior to the late 20th century was more reticent to pronouncing truth on that which cannot be directly tested.

Today, people are quick to believe computer generated inferences. Models from the correlation of data and models of models of models of the data are possible. Contrary to popular opinion, these manipulations of measurements are not more believable than simple solutions. They are less so.The more sophisticated the modeling, the less trustworthy it is.

Why are people so ready to believe complex, government funded research from thousands of people who must publish or perish? Why aren't people just as skeptical of government sponsored research as they are of that from private industry? All researchers benefit from gazetting their computer-based predictions. Money comes in, careers are made.

Some folks here in this blog are so hateful of money and the people who have it, that anyone who questions authority (government and NGO's) is immediately labeled a protector of big oil. That we are apologists for big business.

Crappy science is crappy science. That's all. This whole AGW thing is sloppy and far from rigorous. Is it AGW or climate change? What is global temperature? This crap is nonrigorous at it's most fundamental levels. Irrespective of big oil. Without giving any alternative, I must say that political motivation is so strong that science as a discipline is turned into religion, just as Cal says.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/virtual-science-is-no-substitute-for-the-realthing/2007/12/21/1198175338154.html?page=fullpage

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

"Al Gore is conspiring to help the government rake in tons of profit? Is that really what you're going with?"

Something like that---but more Gore is going to get filthy rich whilst you and me go more broke as the years pass. The govt. is really sorta like his sugar daddy......he'll be sucking the gov't teat big time in other words.

0

Ceallach 6 years, 3 months ago

I really think you should stop using words that you do not understand. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory in the scientific sense.


You really need to get over your super special scientific self. You must be a riot at a party! That is if you get invited out.

Guess what . . you do not define reality for the rest of the world. Your reply just validates my earlier observation (oh no, I forgot to ask how you define observation!).

theory /&&char114&& Î,iÉri, &&char114&& Î,ÉÉri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

Everybody watch out for Al. He is definitely out to destroy the American dream. Al planned the whole 9/11 thing so he could push his Globalwarmist agenda and get wealthy off of high cost of everything. No really I could not make this $h!t up.

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

Y2K was not a scam. People came out of retirement to fix it in time. JCCC offered classes in old computer languages to get more people on it. Lots of people gained temporary employment to help fix it. I suppose the moon landing was a scam to. Who's the moonbatt here? White thinker do you have stock in Exxon or Haliburton? Do you stand to gain anything by continued uncontrolled burning of Dinosaurs? I ask again why do you carry the torch for billionaires against your own interests? If you like uncontrolled emissions so much go live in China maybe that would change your mind. You need a new vessel to project your anger on. I can make you a list of people who are directly responsible the a$$ Effing you are taking every day, if it helps. Al is no Billionaire, he is about as big of a villain as Martha Stewart. I know this pointless post as nothing ever changes a mind dominated by its Paleocortex, but you are a poor excuse for a conservative. You are as nutty as the liberal moonbatt conspiracy folk. I know some hippies that think the head republicans in power are actually reptilian aliens disguised as humans. You should get together. Mean while I will keep a lookout for huge scam that Al has in store for me.

0

Paul Decelles 6 years, 3 months ago

DirtyLinen,

Science is based on observation, measurement and experimentation. But scientists do not do those things in a vacuum ; conclusions don't magically fall from the sky but involve critical analysis and interpretation of the results.

You are absolutely right that politics ought to be left out of SCIENTIFIC discourse. The problem with the global warming issue is that people with different ideological perspectives pounce on results and interpretations that support their perspective.

Science though is really a very social activity and I don't think it is really so wrong to think of scientists as developing a sort of informal consensus on issues. "Consensus" in science typically doesn't develop as a sort of group think or by political committee, but rather as certain interpretations are revised in the light of new and independent empirical tests. And these issues are hashed out in the scientific literature not in ideological "think" tanks either on the left or the right.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

Thinking through a theory before posting is not R-t's strong point.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 3 months ago

RT,

Your conspiracy theory is a bit incomplete.

Al Gore is conspiring to help the government rake in tons of profit? Is that really what you're going with?

If so, a few questions:

-WHY does Al Gore want to help the government turn a profit?

-How did Mr. Gore get the scientists from the IPCC to go along with his "get-the-government-rich-quick" scheme? Is he paying them off?

-If government stands to "strike it big", then why are Republicans fighting it so hard? Wouldn't they stand to profit alongside "Al Gore and his ilk", as you put it?

0

JJE007 6 years, 3 months ago

"grandest rip-off schemes of all times" Wow. You can pretend to feel sorry for me all you want, RT. I will weep for you, too. OK? Tears of LAUGHter!~)

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 3 months ago

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says:

"Global warming is the consensus of the majority of scientists, not "science-as-cult". This is how science works and how evidence-based decision-making should happen."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really. Which "science" works that way, by consensus? Chemistry? Physics? Biology? Astronomy? "Science" is based on observation, measurement, and experimentation, not opinion, interpretation, and politics. The very word "science" is derived from the Latin word for "knowledge," not "opinion."

"Consensus," on the other hand, is a judgment arrived at by majority. It is not based on fact, but on interpretation of the available facts, and is subject to change. Like for instance the world is flat. Or you're supposed to brush your teeth up and down, not across. Or that man causes global temperature shifts that are about to bring about the planet's doom.

0

Paul R Getto 6 years, 3 months ago

The debate is fascinating enough without injecting religion. If we are contributing to climate change, we need to think about the implications and see how lifestyle changes can help, something most of us are reluctant to do. This debate us also a good example of how the 'religious' right has hijacked the political debate and distracted us from the real issues. Getting people to argue about zygotes and phony science is distracting.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

There is nothing today that rivals the over-the-top idealism that has propped up Gore's business venture.

Some people just can't fight those pesky inner demons, so they impose their misery on everyone around them.

Just wait. This makes the Y2K scam seem like an almost unintelligible blip on the radar. Al Gore will be a villian in about ten years---mark my words. Nothings gonna change up in that beautiful sky of ours, but down here on the ground, where normal folks minds are planted, will certainly see a change. Heat your house? Drive your car? Your food? Everything you do and touch? That's right----watch it double, maybe triple. That's only the beginning. Government will be raking in double and triple the cash. This is how it's going to work. This is where Gore and his ilk hit it big.

If anyone is dumb enough to not see this grandest rip-off scheme of all times, I feel sorry for you.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 3 months ago

You got a specific argument in there or just a whole bunch of people who think that Al Gore got it wrong? Last I checked, Al Gore was not a scientist.

0

boltzmann 6 years, 3 months ago

Ceallach says "I'm beginning to think Evolution and Intelligent Design proponents are waaaaay more alike than either side would care to imagine, since neither can tolerate someone doubting their theory."

I really think you should stop using words that you do not understand. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory in the scientific sense. It makes no predictions or testable hypotheses. It is as much a "theory" as someone saying that planes fly, not because of fluid dynamics, but because invisible angels hold up the wings.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 3 months ago

It never ceases to amaze me that people who claim that there is a 9-11 conspiracy in the face of overwhelming evidence are yahoos and deemed socially unacceptable, yet people who claim that there is a global warming or evolution conspiracy among scientists are able to avoid a social stigma.

It seems to me that as long as you antagonize scientists, you can make yourself look like an idiot on scientific matters all you want. No need to research the topic or examine the large amount of easily accessible information on the topic, just call scientists liars and imbeciles and you'll be fine. It seems that such is the state of our culture...

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 3 months ago

Logan5 "Dorothyhr,

The sky is not actually blue. It only appears that way because of the sun's rays defracting off of nitrogen molecules in the air that make it appear that way."

All color is differences in wavelengths, refraction, absorption, etc. of light; therefore the sky is blue, for similar reasons that my dress is blue.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

"Merry Christmas suckers. The weather is beautiful in California. The jet was magnificant. Tipper is coming later on and we are driving the Escalade to Palm Springs for some R&R. The boy has a first class ticket (spoiled little sh*t) and will be meeting up with us later. I guess the whole DUI/drug possession ordeal put a bad taste in his mouth for the Prius....only goes 100 mph anyway---so now he is renting a Corvette---kid is a riot!! Oh, by the way, check your propane tanks and gas tanks and enjoy....time is drawing to a close for your good time living....no card this year---sorry, maybe next year (hehe).....right now, busy with new green venture(s) and talking to folks in DC. Take care and don't worry about a thing. We're going to clean this old world of ours up---just 300 million of us Americans---all alone. I did this for you----for your descendants and their dreams."

Best Wishes in the New Year,

Albert Gore, Jr.

0

nugget 6 years, 3 months ago

Cal Thomas, the male Ann Coulter, only not as smart.

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

Jspizias:I still don't see anything wrong with getting off the Arab/Persian T!T. Even if global warming is this huge Political con, constructed to shift power. Does it seem smart to burn every last drop until we have no other choice? What will we do for plastics and every other thing we depend on oil for? Regardless of what articles you pull up, is the long term economic costs greater then belief in God has cost us?(more specifically Yahweh) What are the long term economic implications if global warming is true? What are the cost of securing a long term supply of dead Dinos? what is wrong with investing in energy that is less finite? Is there anything wrong with the occasional power shift? Regardless of weather you think Gore is a phony or not, I don't hear anyone saying that there is no eventual end to coal or oil. What happened to good old pragmatic Kansan thinking? Someone still answer me why you Globalwarmist Pee you off so much? I ask three questions I asked earlier on this post. Why do you carry the torch for the billionaires club? Do you really think you will be one some day? Why do you fight against your own long term interests?

0

Ceallach 6 years, 3 months ago

Ceallach,

Can you offer up a theory of your own that carries the same weight of empirical evidence that the theory of evolution does (without using the word "faith")?


Nope! But then again, I'm not the one acting as if everyone must agree with me to be right. I'm the one saying I have doubts about the theory.

I'm beginning to think Evolution and Intelligent Design proponents are waaaaay more alike than either side would care to imagine, since neither can tolerate someone doubting their theory.

0

staff04 6 years, 3 months ago

kozakid:

Since I'm the one using kid in my screenname--oh wait, that's right.

I hope you don't teach your kids science so they can be there to support you in your old age with their minimum wage jobs--that is, of course, if you don't succeed in abolishing a minimum wage between now and then. Last I heard, dogma doesn't pay for the nursing home.

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

staff04:

I have yet to see any evidence that you have grown up.

0

staff04 6 years, 3 months ago

I'm sure glad I didn't grow up in many of your houses...I'd have never graduated high school, college, or anything else if I shared such ridiculous convictions.

0

kozakid 6 years, 3 months ago

Judging from the comments made here, Cal Thomas made the case offered in the headline.

0

JSpizias 6 years, 3 months ago

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says:

What does it hurt to believe in global warming?

Beliefs cost nothing-it is the actions that follow from such beliefs that have huge economic implications. Lieberman has acknowledged that his bill (Lieberman-Warner, "America's Climate Security Act of 2007"), if enacted, would cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. The Stern Review, on which many of the estimates of the costs of climate change and its mitigation are based, has been shown to be seriously flawed by Roger Pielke Jr. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/ and Yale economist, William Nordhaus. http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/ Pielke has also testified before the US Congress that any reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, even if successful, will have no effect for many decades. Other leading climate scientists, for example Prins and Rayner in an article in October 25 Nature, argue that the Kyoto approach is seriously flawed and a failure-that we need to rethink our whole approach to dealing with climate change (Time to Ditch Kyoto). A similar view is argued by Sarewitz and Pielke in a paper available on Pielke's web site (The Steps Not Yet Taken).

Even if one accepts that climate is warming, it remains far from clear that the increase in anthropogenic CO2 is driving the warming. Climate on earth is continually changing. Anthropogenic CO2 represents a small fraction of the total CO2 emitted on earth each year. Scientists explore past climate changes to try and understand what may happen in the future. A recent paper in the 25 December Nature (Sluijs et al) reports that during a very warm period at the Palaeocne/Eocene boundary, warming occurred several thousand years before injection of light carbon into the atmosphere. The authors suggest that the source of such carbon might be dissociation of submarine methane hydrates due to temperature changes(methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). A recent paper published in Science by Stott et al noted: "Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropicalsurface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming." Thus, increased atmospheric CO2 levels may be a consequence of , not the primary driver of warming.
There are serious questions about many aspects of climate change and the forces that drive it. These questions arise from peer reviewed studies in our best scientific journals. Honest climate scientists will acknowledge that there is much not known and that predictions of the earth's climate for a 100 years from now are questionable at best.

0

Logan5 6 years, 3 months ago

Ceallach,

Can you offer up a theory of your own that carries the same weight of empirical evidence that the theory of evolution does (without using the word "faith")?

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

"I can't believe there are people that don't see Gore, one of the biggest phony-balonys that has ever hit the Beltway, isn't staging himself for a mega-cash haul of a magnitude that we can not even fathom-at our expense"

This from someone who thinks George W. Bush is a doing a bang-up job.

0

Logan5 6 years, 3 months ago

Dorothyhr,

The sky is not actually blue. It only appears that way because of the sun's rays defracting off of nitrogen molecules in the air that make it appear that way.

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

Than you Newell. I couldn't remember for sure. Western civ was a long time ago.

0

Ceallach 6 years, 3 months ago

Perhaps one of our scientists could tell dorothyhr that the sky is not blue.

0

devobrun 6 years, 3 months ago

nightmare: "until you realize that in order to make evidence-based decisions". Same ole mistaken mixing of evidence and test.

How 'bout test-based science and decisions? Since science is based on the test not just the evidence, I would like some tests. Go to the GSM web sites and see that they refer to computer model runs as experiments.

Redefine science to match the limited ability to test. Can't test AGM? No problem, define a computer model as a test. Have problems with the test, like erroneous predictions of 10 km temperatures? Ignore them. When other scientists point out problems with the computer model, call them "deniers".

The danger to science is that the general population will come to believe that this new crap is science. It is politics. It is created reality. It is fuzzy logic. It is social engineering. It is redistribution of wealth. It is a new religion. It is data applied to an agenda. It ain't science.

0

Newell_Post 6 years, 3 months ago

overplayedhistory:

Are you referring to Pascal instead of Pythagoras? ("Pascal's wager")

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

Devobrun: Not exactly a home run answer. A few more questions there. The damage that is done is to science, Really, Thats weak. 400 is nothing but a small voice in the wind. Either the other 99% of scientists have been bought by the large amount of special interest money out there to make them sing global warming( yeah right). Or your the ones making ant hills into a huge mound of liberal conspiracy. Answer the question of why you fight for the billionaires club? Everything is already a political mess. The wealthy, I don't mean millionaires, billionaires use wedge issues to keep the poor and middle class from organizing against their interests. "Science as cult is a very real". Right and Galileo was a wacky cult leader that was totally wrong about the earth being in orbit around the sun. Personally, I don't care so much about the issue, other than I see it as a new opportunity to make money of of saps that actually think we are worth saving. I do however like the idea of not using anymore Arab or Persian oil. The real long term danger is our economy. There is no economic long term model that says we can keep burning dinosaurs. If nothing to the present has convinced you what will?

0

JJE007 6 years, 3 months ago

When faith is made criminal, only criminals will have faith!~)

Magpie points out Cal Thomas' demonstration of abject stupidity within his preachings of wretched duplicity.

$till, $ome here guzzle his $will and vomit it out like prayer$ to Exxon god$. Your money i$ where your mouth i$, RT, ...up Cal's A$$umption$! Keep $ucking! $omething good will trickle down $oon! Keep looking up!

0

Ceallach 6 years, 3 months ago

Ceallach,

Maybe you should look up how the word "theory" and how it is used in scientific research. Gravity is a "theory",


Since I obviously question the theory of evolution, explain to my why I should accept evolutionists meaning of the word "theory." And yes, if the theory of gravity had as many gaping holes in it as the theory of evolution has then I would also doubt it. Evolutionists need to get over their "I'm so intellectually superior" selves. By admitting that there are too many unproven links in their chain to teach it as absolute fact, they might actually make some progress with the doubting cretins they are forced to co-habit with on this planet. But no, I say show me more proof, and your answer is that I should accept whatever the majority of the scientific community says (defines) as fact . . . and I do not. Last time I checked I still have a right to my opinion.

0

salad 6 years, 3 months ago

"If Gore was going around saying the sky was blue, Cal would find a way to dispute it."

Truth!

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 3 months ago

If Gore was going around saying the sky was blue, Cal would find a way to dispute it.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

RT why don't you see how you could possibly make some money going green in your work. Who knows maybe you'll become wealthier than ever. What is there to lose?

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

Salad makes a point relevant to Gore politics. Anyone can seem radical left when not in support of BUSHCO war/oil economics.

Gore is a moderate politician who has come around to some very smart realizations on energy. Moderate politicians in general have taken the lead on the environment for decades although never to my satisfaction. Too damn slow which I'm sure is/was due to special interest funding of campaigns.

The country needs to cut back substantially from fossil fuels as a primary source for all the reasons we all know about. Too bad it takes a crisis point to move it along.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

Fact.

R-T said:

"Basically, Gore is the all-time snake oil salesman and far-left idealism is his free-ride."

Nowhere in that post did I call Gore far-left....the far-left (and general panic stricken panickers) are enabling his endeavor to make an obscene fortune on 'green'......with gov. reg. as his very willing accomplice.

0

boltzmann 6 years, 3 months ago

Ceallach,

 Maybe you should look up how the word "theory" and how it is used in scientific research. Gravity is a "theory", but I would demean anyone as stupid who didn't believe it exists.

Why is that no matter how much we try to explain the scientific meaning of "theory" to people, someone still tries to pull the old "evolution is just a theory, so we don't have to accept it" lie. And at this point someone exposing this is either lying or ignorant.

0

Logan5 6 years, 3 months ago

Gravity is also a theory, as is nearly all science. Yet this does not cause me to worry about tethering myself to my desk.

0

Ceallach 6 years, 3 months ago

Logan5, you might remember that evolution is a theory, and as such should be questioned by all and researched by the scientific community until such a time that it is proven as fact. You should not attempt to demean those who may question it while it is still a theory.

0

salad 6 years, 3 months ago

Once again, R_T, Cal Thomas, and the neo-cons using nazi scare tactics for political advantage.

Fact: Gore has been pitching climate change since the 70's, you can look it up. Fact: Third world for you and me-giant super-sized carbon footprints for Gore.... is just neo-con bunker mentality BS. Fact: Gore is pretty centrist, not far left. You can look at his voting record if you want.

The only people bring the third world here are the bushies and their zeal to pee all over the rest of the world.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

"I can't believe there are still people out there that have not accepted global warming as fact...."

I can't believe there are people that don't see Gore, one of the biggest phony-balonys that has ever hit the Beltway, isn't staging himself for a mega-cash haul of a magnitude that we can not even fathom-------at our expense. Like Cal said, 'Third World' for you and me---giant super-size carbon footprints for Gore and his inner-circle of con artists. Basically, Gore is the all-time snake oil salesman and far-left idealism is his free-ride.

0

preebo 6 years, 3 months ago

Why don't they add the title of American Enterprise Institute spokesman to Cal's list of accomplishments?

If Cal supports your cause you should probably pack it up and move on. His inept grasp of scientific results is enough to disqualify him from discussion of such.

0

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 3 months ago

"Science-as-cult is a very real danger. Science-as-politics is sure to be a disaster. The 400 scientists who are protesting the UN BS do so mostly for the concentration of power that it represents."

This sounds good, until you realize that in order to make evidence-based decisions, politicians need to listen to scientists and vice versa.

Global warming is the consensus of the majority of scientists, not "science-as-cult". This is how science works and how evidence-based decision-making should happen.

The "400 scientists" have every right to criticize, but they should do so with evidence and experiment, not name-calling and accusations of "cult belief" and politics.

Devo, you are again close to dismissing science, the scientific process, and scientists as irrelevant (or at least irredeemably biased and political).

0

devobrun 6 years, 3 months ago

overplayed: "Why not treat global warming the way Pythagoras approached God? Why is it necessary to turn those who are passionately concerned about the environment into religious zealots? What does it hurt to believe in global warming?"

Because the real long-term damage is to science. The transfer of wealth from Exxon to the wind farmers is really not such a big thing. The deconstruction of that which constitutes science has the potential to render rationality into a touchy-feely political mess.

Science-as-cult is a very real danger. Science-as-politics is sure to be a disaster. The 400 scientists who are protesting the UN BS do so mostly for the concentration of power that it represents.

Peace prizes and statements about the science being "a done deal" are not appropriate in the scientific world. Arguments between Gore and Cal Thomas are not scientific. This whole AGW thing is a two-ring circus of politics and religion.

0

salad 6 years, 3 months ago

I don't doubt mankinds contribution to global warming or our abuse of the environment for a second. But I'm also pretty sick of all the moral superiority of the environmentalists. You won't get people on board by talking down at em, and nothing will happen until it hits americans in the pocket book. You want people to recycle? Make em pay for each pound of trash they throw away. You want people to conserve? Then make energy cost the same as it does in europe. Don't like chinese products? Insist that the government charge a tariff on all that imported crap. We make it better here anyway.

0

overplayedhistory 6 years, 3 months ago

Didn't Pythagoras, for eternal insurance purposes, say he chose to believe in God? It didn't hurt him to do so just in case. Why not treat global warming the way Pythagoras approached God? Why is it necessary to turn those who are passionately concerned about the environment into religious zealots? What does it hurt to believe in global warming? Will anything bad become of reducing carbon emissions? What does it take for people to quit carrying the torch for billionaires against their own interests? Do you really think the American dream is going to allow you to become them someday? Why can't you see the bottom line? My 78 yr old republican father can. Why can't you talk Sh*t for your own team? If you are worth less than Billion dollars you are fighting for the wrong side.

0

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 3 months ago

"One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith."

For once Cal makes a correct statement, although inadvertently.

In his poking at scientists and reasoning people, he skewers faith.

Couldn't agree more, unless the word "cult" was replaced with "faith-based religious belief".

0

Logan5 6 years, 3 months ago

I can't believe there are still people out there that have not accepted global warming as fact though the intensity of the effect and measures to correct it are still up for debate. They tend to be the same people that still think Iraq played a role in 9/11 and doubt evolution.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

Sen Jim Inhofe is all about Tulsa oil money no question about it. There is documentation all about EXXON spending to send out misinformation.

The bottom line the USA needs to pull away from oil use and move forward with technology instead of sitting on it. GW's war for oil control is a bad business decision for which GW Bush is best known. Too bad taxpayers can't clear their eyes of bogus BUSHCO patriotism and realize the $2,000,000,000,000(trillion) could have been spent on matters that create new economic growth for the USA.

INSTEAD Bush is driving a serious USA recession at full speed ahead.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

Al Gore is not a scientist but a messenger who may be making lots of money of which some supporters of pollution are probably jealous. He is making money so I read on promotion of green investments which is where new money is thriving. Lawrence,Kansas should jump on the Green Collar Industry for more jobs...some of which are here.

Meanwhile let's work with scientists: What can we do to help with the situation? Solutions and frequently asked questions are offered at these websites: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-faq.html

0

Magpie 6 years, 3 months ago

"One of the traits of a cult is a refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith."

So faith in spite of evidence isn't a virtue? Cal Thomas imagines that he is making a clever jab at Al Gore by associating him with religious fundamentalism. In the process of committing a logical fallacy, he's also inadvertently criticizing people who follow religion based on faith. Mind your fanbase, Cal!

0

JSpizias 6 years, 3 months ago

Below are some comments from the "defenders of the holy faith of global warming". Looks like religious zeal to me-and I don't think it is healthy for our society.

Marlo

You are so full of cr*p.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on. Mike Michael T. Eckhart President American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

RFK Jr. Lashes out at skeptics of global warming: 'This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors' (July 8, 2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLy... Excerpt: "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F... NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS (October 11, 2006) Excerpt: Grist Magazine's staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the "bastards" who were members of what he termed the global warming "denial industry."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102473_2.html?sid=ST2007121102518 Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who came to the Bali talks for a day-and-a-half this week, said he believes that the administration wants "a document that keeps the process moving," but that delegates are looking for more concrete leadership from nations such as the United States and China.

"There's a question mark of how long is it going to take the bigfoots to step forward and do what they need to do, or will that happen in 2009 with the right leader?" Kerry said. "You need to believe in this issue. You can't just do it on the side because it's an obligation that somebody throws at you. This has to become a crusade, a passion, a monumental undertaking."

0

scenebooster 6 years, 3 months ago

So the majority of Cal's argument rests on the statements of Exxon and Sen. Inhofe?

"24 April, 2005 "I don't have to tell you about reading the Scriptures, but one of mine that I've always enjoyed is Romans 1, 22 and 23. You quit worshipping God and start worshipping the creation -- the creeping things, the four-legged beasts, the birds and all that. That's their (the environmentalists') god. That's what they worship. If you read Romans 1:25, it says, 'and they gave up their God and started worshipping the creation.' That's what we are looking at now, that's what's going on. And we can't let it happen." - Inhofe

0

Jackie Jackasserson 6 years, 3 months ago

so cal is saying that those who work for the intergovernmental panel on climate change, scientists from mobile exxon, and the senate environment and public works committee can't be swayed with money, jobs or otherwise and that all of the science they report is completely accurate and all other scientists are not accurate or at least subject to being inaccurate through persuasion of some type?

0

75x55 6 years, 3 months ago

What is the quote that keeps floating around Gore.... gotta love the irony.

'He played on our fears...'

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 3 months ago

"Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot's, while most of us will be forced to drive tiny automobiles and live in huts resembling the Third World."

I couldn't have said it better; or maybe I have.

The plain and simple fact is, Gore has positioned himself to rake in the cash now, with his new Silicon Valley partnership/venture. This venture will be bound tightly to the government, steering and tracking Government regulatory arms, and with each and every piece of legislation, Gore, the son of a bitch, and his buddies will be already poised to load up their bank accounts.

0

Logan5 6 years, 3 months ago

Once again Cal is trying to raise the ire of scientists and reasoning people (vs. those that trust in faith) by invoking all kinds of religious undertones as he refers to global warming science.

"Al Gore, the messiah figure for the global warming cult, whose followers truly believe their gospel of imminent extermination in a Noah-like flood, if we don't immediately change our carbon polluting ways."

Why should Al Gore, a non-scientist, debate global warming debunkers. Shouldn't the scientists debate this among themselves? Oh wait, they are--constantly. If a scientist has an important and scientifically valid argument, they should write a scientific paper on it and have it published in a scientific journal.

There is no doubt that Al tends to push the limits of certain predictions in his movie, but until now nearly all of scientist's predictions have turned out to be too optimistic.

Why don't we make it fair and have a Global Warming debate between Cal Thomas and Al Gore.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.