Al Gore puts Global Warming in the same conversation...
Antonio Veranos
http://www.ology.com/politics/watch-al-gore-environmentalism-
vegetarianism-and-civil-rights
- or -
http://tinyurl.com/link-4-shitty-newsreaders-0828
Dear Al,
You're a snake oil salesman. You've always been such on this issue,
what with your "carbon offsets" and profiting off of others' fear.
History will remember you as an enormous villain if the inconvenient
truth of your skulduggery every comes to the full light of day.
Oh, and turn some lights out in that 10,000-sq-ft mansion, please.
--
Antonio Veranos
<insert witty comment here>
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Didn't Al Gore use to be somebody?
Mickey Langan
> On Aug 28, 1:49?pm, Antonio Veranos <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
>> ...with the civil rights movement?
>>
>> http://www.ology.com/politics/watch-al-gore-environmentalism-
>> vegetarianism-and-civil-rights
>>
>> - or -
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/link-4-shitty-newsreaders-0828
>>
>> Dear Al,
>>
>> what with your "carbon offsets" and profiting off of others' fear.
>>
>> History will remember you as an enormous villain if the inconvenient
>> truth of your skulduggery every comes to the full light of day.
>>
>> Oh, and turn some lights out in that 10,000-sq-ft mansion, please.
>
You got it. He is getting more and more desperate.
The CLOUD experiment, finally run at CERN after a decade of
suppression by the climate change powers that be (led by Hansen,
Trenberth, Santer, Jones, and Mann) throws things up for grabs in a
big way. There is a reason they tried to get that experiment turned
off, and the results that were obtained were exactly it. Of course
they got part of what they wanted -- they got their salaries paid for
the decade they attempted to suppress science, courtesy of the US and
European taxpayers and their hundreds of millions of dollars in tax
funding.
So now, he is transcending the whole "deniers" thing (as if you can
deny something that is basically 50-50) by suggesting that not only
are they denying, they are oppressing. Of course it is the big lie,
where the opressor and denier points the finger. Three are pointing
back at itself, and now it is even more obvious.
--
Mickey
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
Fried Green Tornadoes
0) Al Gore should never be mentioned as an authority in any serious
discussion of global warming.
1) The instant and intensely personal demonization of scientists working
in the field, specifically the accusation that their *results* are
tainted by financial motives, is a contemptible and gutless smear
tactic. It does seem to resonate among the more science-challenged GOP
candidates, and they are rapidly turning this smear into a poison meme
with their supporters. Most people already confuse science with TV
courtroom dramas.
This Rovial nonsense has a steep price. They are willing to throw the
reputation of *all* researchers, including those holding minority views
on global warming, under the bus to make a political point.
Yet recent history shows that cases of actual scientific corruption have
been the result of meddling by conservative interests, such as tobacco
companies and industrial polluters.
The CERN experiment is interesting, but it cannot BY ITSELF overthrow
established consensus. The experiment in question became controversial
in the denialist world when the director made a reasonable request:
"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to
interpret them."
Makes sense if one wants to avoid a frenzy of wild speculation and utter
wingnut blogger bullsh1t right out of the gate. Yet, there are papers
being published any way. One has recently appeared in Nature. How the
rsfck is that censorship? Doesn't matter, the FUD has been pushed out
there in the public. FUD is the wingnut's only friend in this debate.
Keep waiting for the Bag Man.
-cls
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Fried Green Tornadoes
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/blog
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Scientific data is routinely and repeatedly found to be fudged and
wrong. Almost always tending to make research hold together compared
to falling apart. Sometimes by simple wishful thinking, of course.
More commonly by subtle cherry picking which is "deniable".
> It does seem to resonate among the more science-challenged GOP
> candidates, and they are rapidly turning this smear into a poison meme
> with their supporters. Most people already confuse science with TV
> courtroom dramas.
Let's get some good baseless and gutless licks of your own
in there!
As far as giving science a bad name, you need look no farther
than Mr. Mann and company. Climategate outed them. And their
collusion to suppress the CLOUD experiment?
> This Rovial nonsense has a steep price. They are willing to throw the
> reputation of *all* researchers, including those holding minority views
> on global warming, under the bus to make a political point.
You talk as if this kind of stuff is new in history. Scientists have
constantly backed and filled and tried to save their research as it
went down the drain -- you re.
>
> Yet recent history shows that cases of actual scientific corruption have
> been the result of meddling by conservative interests, such as tobacco
> companies and industrial polluters.
>
> The CERN experiment is interesting, but it cannot BY ITSELF overthrow
> established consensus. The experiment in question became controversial
> in the denialist world when the director made a reasonable request:
"Denialist", what a word. Even the IPCC claims only 67% to 90%
likelihood that their conclusions are correct. So you, and these
supposed "scientists" you are defending, are claiming "denial" of a
percentage. So basically you are saying there's only a 70% chance that
Auschwitz existed -- if you are going to equate "holocaust denial" with
"3.5 degree C climate sensitivity denial".
I guess you would know about slimy tactics. It seems you wallow in them.
>
> "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to
> interpret them."
>
> Makes sense if one wants to avoid a frenzy of wild speculation and utter
> wingnut blogger bullsh1t right out of the gate. Yet, there are papers
> being published any way. One has recently appeared in Nature. How the
> rsfck is that censorship?
It wouldn't have been censorship if the paper came out in 2001, a year
after the experiment was originally scheduled.
> Doesn't matter, the FUD has been pushed out there in the public. FUD
> is the wingnut's only friend in this debate.
Except for tons of pretty good research that shows that climate
sensitivity is in the 1 degree C range instead of the 3.5 that
the IPCC wants it to be. If they proclaimed it likely to be only
1C, they'd need new jobs. And we can't have that, they might be
union men!
>
> More here:
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
Oh yes, the comment-scrubbing folks at RealClimate. They suppress
dissent there, too, as well as suppressing dissenting experiments.
>
> Keep waiting for the Bag Man.
Oh, I suppose that's your way of saying skeptics are on the take. Is
that it? Yes, I suppose I am on the take in a way -- I don't want my
pocket picked. I don't really want to spend trillions of dollars
tilting at windmills. Or putting up windmills. Or doing tons of other
things when there is a strong probability that they wouldn't do any
other good.
--
Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner
would not miss. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Fried Green Tornadoes
> I guess you would know about slimy tactics. It seems you wallow in them.
>
.sig