And here we go again from Thomas Lindaman!
It's amazing to what lengths the people who carried the water for Al Gore for almost 20 years will go to avoid admitting that they were either dupes or liars.
Why would someone admit someone is a dupe or a liar, if they AREN'T a dupe or a liar?
A Leftist blogger (who mocks me at every turn while linking back to almost everything I've ever written)
Yes, I provide links. Unlike yourself. But I can see why you wouldn't. Because when other people provide links, with full context, you blow off the source without stating why. You won't provide links because you don't want the same thing to happen to you. Considering all you do is repeat soundbites from FreeRepublic, WSJ, Drudge Report, Fox News, and Glenn Beck ("statists!"), that's no surprise. By the way, you'd save a lot of time by instead of repeatedly typing "The Leftist Blogger that hates me but copies me" you simply referred to me as "My Blog's Only Reader."
claims there was never a debate over global warming.
It's not a debatable issue any more than evolution is a debatable issue. Debates are not how science works.
If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over. --- Al Gore Gee. Gore says there was a debate. He's repeated it on several occasions.
So? Debate isn't how science works. You can stand at a lectern and shout that there's a conspiracy among scientists, but that's not going to change the science.
Of course, he's also claimed in "An Inconvenient Truth" that global warming was going to cause the following:
Oh boy! He's going to use the pamphlet! Here we go!
- melting ice sheets (debunked by actual measurements of the level of ice)
The IPCC report DOES say that the ice sheets will melt if warming is sustained over millennia, and it could happen sooner than that: "Recent satellite and in situ observations of ice streams behind disintegrating ice shelves highlight some rapid reactions of ice sheet systems. This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another five to six metres of sea level rise. While these streams appear buttressed by the shelves in front of them, it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing of relatively limited areas of the ice sheet could actually trigger a widespread discharge of many ice streams and hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Ice sheet models are only beginning to capture such small-scale dynamical processes that involve complicated interactions with the glacier bed and the ocean at the perimeter of the ice sheet. Therefore, no quantitative information is available from the current generation of ice sheet models as to the likelihood or timing of such an event."
But they're just part of the conspiracy, of course. Right?
- huge increases in ocean levels (debunked by people who understand the concept of displacement of liquid)
Rush Limbaugh loves this soundbite. The old "If you have a glass of water with ice cubes in it, as the ice melts, it simply turns into liquid, and the water level in the glass remains the same." technique. The problem is that the ice in Greenland, Antarctica, Asia, and Canada is on land. If that ice melts, it slides into the ocean, just like pouring water into a glass of water that already is filled to the top. The sea levels around the world would rise 200 feet.
But that stuff is being said by those stupid scientists. What do they know? They're part of the conspiracy.
- more frequent, stronger hurricanes (debunked by the past couple of years of fewer and weaker hurricanes)
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes But that doesn't matter. They must be in on the conspiracy.
Ouch, man. Just ouch.
Ouch indeed. "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
The blogger also claims an article on Wired.com debunks the emails, claiming that they were taken out of context. Tiny problem: the people "debunking" the emails are some of the same ones who have been accused of ginning up their results.
There are OTHER LINKS in that article (that you didn't link to). Fine, here's more: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html
Or are they in on the conspiracy, too?
That's like referring to Media Matters (a partisan website supported by George Soros and founded by admitted and proven liar David Brock) to refute something a conservative said. Now, who would be so silly as to refer back to Media Matters on a matter like this? Oh yeah, the Leftist blogger who claimed Wired "debunked" the hacked emails.
Yes, David Brock admitted he was a liar... when he was a Conservative. He was a newt, but he got better.
The reason Media Matters pisses you and other Republicans off, is because they provide the complete text, complete context, and complete video and audio if it's available. Guess that old saying "Reality has a liberal bias" is true. Funny, whenever I DO use Media Matters articles as a link, you don't dispute anything that's actually said in the article.
By the way, Mr. Leftist who hates me and can't stop copying me, there actually has been a conspiracy within the scientific community to blackball any scientists who didn't go along with the global warming lie, as has been exposed by the scientists who have been blackballed. A simple Google search pulls up plenty of examples,
Ah, yes. The old "X is true, but I don't have to prove it. Look it up yourself." GOP technique. Do you even know what peer review is? This is why Creationists are idiots, too. They want to be taken just as seriously as evolutionary scientists. But they don't want to be held to the same standards.
but why let the truth stand in the way of a good lie when you have the scientific geniuses of Media Matters?
Right, because providing full context is the same as being a scientist.
Oh, and Mr. Leftist, that was sarcasm, in case you were thinking of pulling a statement out of context like Media Matters has been known to do.
Considering the entire subject here is the importance of context regarding the Global Warming scientist emails, that's very amusing.
And as far as sarcasm: Again, Right-Wingers are as funny as a stomach pump.
The Leftist blogger in question also seems to miss the point I raised in my previous blog post where I explained global warming cultists set up a false premise in an attempt to get people to stay quiet about their skepticism about global warming being manmade. The fact is that the global warming cult has never wanted a serious debate on the subject because their facts (such as they are) tend to be more alarmist than academic. If you can find a copy floating around at a used book store, pick up a copy of Gore's Earth in the Balance. Throughout the book, Gore makes emotional statements and glosses over the actual science involved, something he's also done in "An Inconvenient Truth." When you resort to emotion rather than reason to back up a weak scientific argument, you've done a grave disservice to the discussion.
You want to talk about a CULT? Right-wingers believe Global Warming is part of a worldwide conspiracy to wreck America's economy. A subset of that group believes that the United States is under threat from foreign banking families (they never mention the ethnic commonality between those families as that might make their movement less appealing to some). A large subset of that group believes in a Communist "New World Order", usually said to be the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy as laid out in revelations. That's what's at the bottom of all this. That's what the people really pushing the idea that global warming is a hoax believe. And the fresh inductees who don't believe that haven't yet realized who they're in bed with. By the time they do, they'll have watched propaganda like 'The Obama Deception', 'Fall of the Republic' and 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. By the time they're that far in, they'll believe things they would have found absurd not too long ago.
Sort of like fresh Scientology recruits working their way up to the OT3 document. THAT is a cult. One that appeals very powerfully to poor, uneducated, lower class white Christians. It takes the blame for everything that went wrong with their life off of their shoulders and pins it on a shadowy, sinister organization that represents everything they were raised to hate and fear. It makes them feel smart for having seen through it all, so of course they'll never be convinced that they're wrong. To reverse themselves at this point would be to acknowledge that they had been tricked yet again, manipulated by the same crass tactics Conservatives have been using to gain the support of the working poor for centuries. The real kick in the balls is that the adjustments necessary for combating runaway warming would be fantastic for our economy. The mass construction of solar and wind farms, new generation nuclear plants and electric mass transit would mean a ton of new jobs, and we're talking an even mixture of skilled labor and white collar positions (construction workers to build the farms, engineers to design them) in addition the electrification of our nation's fleet of automobiles would decrease our economic reliance on foreign oil, making us less vulnerable to fluctuations in the supply, and to the geopolitical volatility that naturally results from being balls deep in Middle Eastern politics. The reason there's such intense opposition to such measures among Republicans is because they aren't actually concerned for the economy. That's the note they've been banging on because they know it resonates with their poor, working class supporters. No, the reason they're so dead set against these changes is because the Republican old guards' wealth is tied up in large companies. That's who AGW denialism is benefiting; large companies.
And the same dumb white christian rubes who voted for Bush twice and who would love to see a President Palin are being manipulated by Conservative mouthpieces. While all they're really doing is ensuring America's continued reliance on foreign oil. The SINGLE reason the right-wingers are discounting the consensus of 97% of the world's climatologists, is because they hate regulations that would force companies to not belch as much pollution into the atmosphere, because that COSTS MONEY.
That's why you Right-Wingers and fake Libertarians are so amusing to watch, because you scream "Statists!", while secretly hoping for a Corporatocracy. You don't care about the workers, you don't care about children (born or unborn), you don't care about small businesses, you don't care about the environment, you don't follow the teachings of your own goddamn messiah, you don't even care about big government as long as it doesn't interfere with big business. And you don't care about people that are outside yourselves. Your one and ONLY goal is corporate anarchy. Anything else is just lip service to your ignorant base. And you will say and do ANYTHING to keep them fooled.
Of course the Leftist blogger shows his penchant for strawman arguments by setting up an argument that faith in God means one cannot be scientifically-minded. Two words for you: Gregor Mendel. Mendel, an Augustinian priest, is considered to be the father of genetics for his work with pea plants and different traits they exhibited through the creation of hybrids. Let's see... the father of genetics...or some Leftist blogger with an axe to grind against Christians...who to believe? Oooooh, sor-ray, Mr. Leftist. Science wins over irrational hate.
Nice try, but Mendel wasn't a hypocrite. Mendel wouldn't do what YOU guys are doing. He would be right there with the 97% of the climatologists because he understood how science works. YOU guys, on the other hand... ignore evidence and hard data as a gigantic conspiracy among 97% of climatologists who have devoted their lives to this very subject. And at the same time, you guys invest your time and money and your very essence of being in something that has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Since you right-wingers love using the "cult" soundbite: Do you know what a religion is? It's a cult, with more real estate.
Al Gore has spent years telling us that people who showed skepticism at the reality of global warming were akin to Holocaust deniers. Well, now that Gore's entire premise has been turned on its ear, it's time that we turn the tables on him. Mr. Gore (and Mr. Leftist blogger who has been debunked by real science), you're nothing more than a...global warming denier denier.
Too bad you didn't actually use any real science to support anything you said.
The funniest part about you climate "skeptics" is that you're making a bunch of false accusations about a handful of scientists not engaging in good scientific practices, while you guys aren't engaging in any science yourselves-- you're just trying to play a game of "gotcha," and badly. You guys aren't true skeptics. A true skeptic can be convinced by evidence; the climate change "skeptics" are immune to it.
THAT is why you guys are called denialists, and not skeptics. And yes, you guys are no different from Creationists, Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, and Holocaust deniers. You guys are as idiotic as the jurors that found OJ Simpson not guilty. They had DNA, fibers, hair, blood... mountains and mountains of evidence... and EVERYTHING pointed directly to Simpson and nobody else as the killer. But the gloves didn't seem to fit and one of the cops lied about using a racial slur, so they threw every single bit of evidence out.
Scientific evidence won't change your minds. Because you had to assume the conclusion to begin with.