Al Gore gives the game away

[Abdul Alhazred]

Al Gore[/i] (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/11/13/1131816810708.html?page=2)"] I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing.

Like terrorism, global warming is to be an all purpose pretext for pushing people around.

Only he's most serious about it.




Al Gore being hit in the testicles by a poltergeist :eek:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/Abdul-Alhazred/---%20NEW%20---/AlGore.jpg

[Lonewulf]

Well, that's about 30 seconds of my life I can't get back. Thank you oh so very much.

[shemp]

Go back to taking orb photos.

[a_unique_person]

Like terrorism, global warming is to be an all purpose pretext for pushing people around.

Only he's most serious about it.



Evidence? You tried to ridicule him yesterday, and came off second best.

[CFLarsen]

Like terrorism, global warming is to be an all purpose pretext for pushing people around.

How do you suggest we deal with terrorism and global warming, then?

[Abdul Alhazred]

How do you suggest we deal with terrorism and global warming, then?

Why do you care?

You have already made a moral commitment to your own extinction.

[CFLarsen]

Why do you care?

You have already made a moral commitment to your own extinction.

How do you suggest we deal with terrorism and global warming?

[Complexity]

I go away for five months, come back, and see that Larsen is still playing his version of Eliza.

Larsen, many people have stopped responding to your taunts because they simply do not like you, not because you have, in any sense, 'won'.

No one really expects you to change, of course, but hope springs eternal.

Keep to your bridge and leave the world for the rest of us.

[strathmeyer]

How do you suggest we deal with terrorism and global warming?

By finding out if they exists?

Or should we do something else, first?

[a_unique_person]

Why do you care?

You have already made a moral commitment to your own extinction.

How?

[Abdul Alhazred]

By finding out if they exists?

It's kind of like Pascal's wager.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Evidence? You tried to ridicule him yesterday, and came off second best.

It took me a while to figure out what you meant.

I wasn't ridiculing Al Gore.

I was ridiculing ... guess who?

[peptoabysmal]

How do you suggest we deal with terrorism and global warming?

Nuclear Winter should do the job. :D

[Dr Adequate]

By finding out if they exists? Sure, knock yourself out.

I think you'll find that terrorism and global warming do exist.

Your call.

I mean, what?

[skeptifem]

as long as we reduce emissions who cares if we get nuked? uh....

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you saying that Al Gore is wrong? Terrorists want to kill many people. Climate change could easily destroy civilization as we know it everywhere in the world. Smelly Jihadists don't even compare to that.

[Badger]

Are you saying that Al Gore is wrong? Terrorists want to kill many people. Climate change could easily destroy civilization as we know it everywhere in the world. Smelly Jihadists don't even compare to that.

This is an interesting paragraph. Would you care to expound on these statements, particularly the last 2 sentences?

[CFLarsen]

It's kind of like Pascal's wager.

Are you saying that terrorism and global warming don't exist?

[a_unique_person]

as long as we reduce emissions who cares if we get nuked? uh....

It's not reducing emissions that's the aim, it's avoiding a disaster due to enhanced global warming.

[strathmeyer]

Are you saying that terrorism and global warming don't exist?

Are you claiming they do without anything to back up your claims, thus your repeating yourself?

[CFLarsen]

Are you claiming they do without anything to back up your claims, thus your repeating yourself?

Of course terrorism and global warming exist. The question re. global warming is, is it due to humans? The evidence that it is, is mounting.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Clarification:

It is scientifically proven that there is global warming and that human activity has something to do with it.

It is not proven that "the planet has a fever" or that there is a danger comparable to terrorism.

Well if a demagogue told you your baby had a fever what would you do? Isn't it always about the children?

Pure Pascal's Wager stuff.


Any time a politician says "crisis" I know my freedom is in danger.

Get it now?

[CFLarsen]

Clarification:

It is scientifically proven that there is global warming and that human activity has something to do with it.

It is not proven that "the planet has a fever" or that there is a danger comparable to terrorism.

What do you think the consequences of global warming will be?

Well if a demagogue told you your baby had a fever what would you do? Isn't it always about the children?

Pure Pascal's Wager stuff.

Any time a politician says "crisis" I know my freedom is in danger.

Get it now?

That is positively paranoid. If you think politicians by default are untrustworthy, what do you suggest we put in their place?

What about terrorism? Does that exist?

[Darth Rotor]

If you think politicians by default are untrustworthy, what do you suggest we put in their place?
:goat 's

What about terrorism? Does that exist?
Last time I checked, yes. It's not scaring the goats yet. I worry that the yogurt will taste sour if it ever does.

DR

[CFLarsen]

:goat 's


Last time I checked, yes. It's not scaring the goats yet. I worry that the yogurt will taste sour if it ever does.

DR

I have absolutely no idea what that meant.

[Abdul Alhazred]

What do you think the consequences of global warming will be?

Nothing we can't adapt to. As your countrymen are already doing.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77816

An opportunity not a crisis.




That is positively paranoid. If you think politicians by default are untrustworthy, what do you suggest we put in their place?


The Mafia, maybe? :rolleyes:




What about terrorism? Does that exist?

It was Al Gore who made that absurd comparison. Did you read what I wrote?

[CFLarsen]

Nothing we can't adapt to. As your countrymen are already doing.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77816

An opportunity not a crisis.

I didn't ask if you thought we couldn't adapt to it. I asked you what you thought the consequences would be.

The Mafia, maybe? :rolleyes:

If you are going to treat your own posts like a joke, why should we take you seriously?

What should we put in the place of politicians?

It was Al Gore who made that absurd comparison. Did you read what I wrote?

Does terrorism exist?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Your simple faith in politicians is touching.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yes terrorism exists and is a real problem. In fact a war. To be prosecuted as such in my opinion.

Global warming is not, regardless of what is said by hysteria-mongering rich SOB politicians who want more power than their money can buy.

Adapt as the need arises, preferably in a profitable way after the manner of your countrymen.

OK? Are you being deliberately dense?

[skeptifem]

It's not reducing emissions that's the aim, it's avoiding a disaster due to enhanced global warming.



but who cares if we get nuked or a horrible bio terrorism disease infects everyone??? I dont see why its unimportant to try and keep people safe from terrorism. Its just a stupid comment on his part.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes terrorism exists and is a real problem. In fact a war. To be prosecuted as such in my opinion.

Global warming is not, regardless of what is said by hysteria-mongering rich SOB politicians who want more power than their money can buy.

Adapt as the need arises, preferably in a profitable way after the manner of your countrymen.

OK? Are you being deliberately dense?

Wow, it seems as though some one has forgotten that for decades the people who have been seriously examining the global warming issue are scientists, not politicians, and that the debate about whether global warming is happening is over.

[RandFan]

Wow, it seems as though some one has forgotten that for decades the people who have been seriously examining the global warming issue are scientists, not politicians, and that the debate about whether global warming is happening is over.I don't mean to speak for Abdul but he has made his meaning clear on more than one occassion. He isn't saying that global warming isn't happening. He is saying that it isn't a crisis.

[CFLarsen]

Yes terrorism exists and is a real problem. In fact a war. To be prosecuted as such in my opinion.

Global warming is not, regardless of what is said by hysteria-mongering rich SOB politicians who want more power than their money can buy.

What about the scientists?

Adapt as the need arises, preferably in a profitable way after the manner of your countrymen.

What do you think the consequences are of global warming? How do we adapt? Is it not possible to predict what will happen, instead of waiting until it has happened?

What should we put in the place of politicians?

[Kerberos]

Yes terrorism exists and is a real problem. In fact a war. To be prosecuted as such in my opinion.

Global warming is not, regardless of what is said by hysteria-mongering rich SOB politicians who want more power than their money can buy.

Adapt as the need arises, preferably in a profitable way after the manner of your countrymen.

OK? Are you being deliberately dense?
So people in Africa who might face starvation because of clima change should start bickering with Canada over pieces of rock in the Arctics? Could you explain how that would help?

[Darth Rotor]

So people in Africa who might face starvation because of clima change should start bickering with Canada over pieces of rock in the Arctics? Could you explain how that would help?
According to the Atlantic Monthly's current article, the Darfur scrap of the moment is driven by two factors: population increase coupled with a climate change that makes the area less fertile/productive than it was a generation ago. The Africans don't have the transport necessary to get to the Arctic for a scrap with he Canadians . . . yet.

DR

[Abdul Alhazred]

What about the scientists?

How many times do I have to explain it?

You are deliberately pretending to be stupid.

[Abdul Alhazred]

So people in Africa who might face starvation because of clima change should start bickering with Canada over pieces of rock in the Arctics? Could you explain how that would help?

They are starving now because their dictators have decided that they should starve.

What are you going to do about that?

Persecute farmers for their tractor emissions?

[CFLarsen]

How many times do I have to explain it?

You are deliberately pretending to be stupid.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said.

If you want to dismiss what politicians say about global warming, what about what the scientists say? Not that there is global warming, but what causes it?

What do you think the consequences are of global warming?

How do we adapt?

Is it not possible to predict what will happen, instead of waiting until it has happened?

What should we put in the place of politicians?

[Abdul Alhazred]

I don't mean to speak for Abdul but he has made his meaning clear on more than one occassion. He isn't saying that global warming isn't happening. He is saying that it isn't a crisis.

It's like arguing with a creationist who says "If Man is from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

[Abdul Alhazred]

How much power do you want politicians to have?

[Mycroft]

What do you think the consequences are of global warming?

What do you think the consequences are?

[a_unique_person]

but who cares if we get nuked or a horrible bio terrorism disease infects everyone??? I dont see why its unimportant to try and keep people safe from terrorism. Its just a stupid comment on his part.

I don't think Al Gore ever said terrorism wasn't important. I certainly think it is. His opinion is that global warming is a greater problem. Since there is no way to predict exactly what will be worse in the future, that's all it comes down to. I agree with Gore on this point, terrorism will be over in 10 or 20 years time, global warming will be around for hundreds of years.

[a_unique_person]

I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing.



From the OP. How do you judge what is the most serious threat? Gore is going on 'long term'.

[Abdul Alhazred]

From the OP. How do you judge what is the most serious threat? Gore is going on 'long term'.

But also "The planet has a fever".

In other words trying to have it both ways.



What Orwell called "catastrophic gradualism". Only the pretext has changed.

[a_unique_person]

But also "The planet has a fever".

In other words trying to have it both ways.



What Orwell called "catastrophic gradualism". Only the pretext has changed.


I don't get you. The planet has a fever is a fair analogy. It is a highly complex eco-system, and even the slight warming so far is causing visible changes that have not run their course yet. (Look at what happens when you warm up the human body 1C.) It is also a long term, pretty well permanent, change.

Once again with the commie conspiracy theories. Only I can't call them that, because you run away.

[a_unique_person]

Although you may have been referring to Dubya's methods in the WOT.

[CFLarsen]

But also "The planet has a fever".

In other words trying to have it both ways.



What Orwell called "catastrophic gradualism". Only the pretext has changed.

If you want to dismiss what politicians say about global warming, what about what the scientists say? Not that there is global warming, but what causes it?

What do you think the consequences are of global warming?

How do we adapt?

Is it not possible to predict what will happen, instead of waiting until it has happened?

What should we put in the place of politicians?

[CFLarsen]

What do you think the consequences are?

As always, I go with the scientific evidence.

We know that the temperature is rising, at an alarming speed. We know that the greenhouse effect is real. We know that we pour CO2 into the atmosphere, worsening the situation.

It's a huge planet alright, but it is also a planet with a very small window of temperatures where life can exist. If the temperature rises, then we will see major changes in the environment. Of course we will - why would the weather remain constant, if the temperature changes?

We are already seeing the consequences: A rise in violent weather, with severe flooding. Species are migrating or becoming extinct, due to the warmer weather. The oceans become more acidic, due to more CO2 being dissolved. Glaciers are disappearing at a frightening speed. Mountains are losing their snow and ice. Huge inland lakes are disappearing rapidly. It goes on and on and on.

One of the strongest examples of how fragile the ecosystem is is ozone depletion. It doesn't look as if ozone depletion is due to global warming, but it is due to human intervention. With the ban on CFC gases, we have already seen a lesser hole over the Antarctica. So, what humans do certainly has an effect on the environment.

What do you think the consequences are?

[gtc]

I agree with Gore on this point, terrorism will be over in 10 or 20 years time, global warming will be around for hundreds of years.

I was going to make a flippant comment about Larsen, but I am more interested to find out why you think that terrorism will be over in 10 or 20 years?

[Kerberos]

They are starving now because their dictators have decided that they should starve.
Thank you for that insightfull analysis of starvation if the third world.

What are you going to do about that?

Persecute farmers for their tractor emissions?
It's not my impression that tractor emmissions is the pimary cause of global warming, but it sure makes for an impresive straw man

[a_unique_person]

I was going to make a flippant comment about Larsen, but I am more interested to find out why you think that terrorism will be over in 10 or 20 years?

Terrorism itself will probably never go completely, (it's a staple of human history) but the current "WOT" phase should be over in something like that timeframe, IMHO. Global warming, in contrast, is something that is projected to keep on causing disruption to civilisation and the eco-system for centuries to come.

[Abdul Alhazred]

So?

It is scientifically proven that the solution to the "crisis" of global warming just happens to be to give more power to the same guys who used to manufacture other "crises" for the same purpose?

[Kerberos]

So?

It is scientifically proven that the solution to the "crisis" of global warming just happens to be to give more power to the same guys who used to manufacture other "crises" for the same purpose?
You wouldn't happen to be able to name one or two of the solutions to global warming that involves giving more power to politicians, as opposed to simply using the policy instruments that has been available to them for decades if not centuries, would you? Because if you're arguing that any solution to any problem that involves either taxing something, funding something, or passing any kind of legislation is somehow illegitimate, a reasonable person might conclude that you are, in fact, full of ****.

[CFLarsen]

So?

It is scientifically proven that the solution to the "crisis" of global warming just happens to be to give more power to the same guys who used to manufacture other "crises" for the same purpose?

If you want to dismiss what politicians say about global warming, what about what the scientists say? Not that there is global warming, but what causes it?

What do you think the consequences are of global warming?

How do we adapt?

Is it not possible to predict what will happen, instead of waiting until it has happened?

What should we put in the place of politicians?

[Mycroft]

As always, I go with the scientific evidence.

Okay...

We know...

Do we? Can you present the evidence?


What do you think the consequences are?

If you think it's the evidence that's important, why are you asking for my opinion?

[CFLarsen]

If you think it's the evidence that's important, why are you asking for my opinion?

Huh? What kind of inane nonsense is that? If you can ask me what I think the consequences are, I can ask you the same.

Answer the question: What do you think the consequences are?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Thank you for that insightfull analysis of starvation if the third world.

Starvation in Africa is caused by a deliberate policy of starvation.

And you deny it?

You set up the idea to blame it on global warming. Or something.


You guys really have it in for the human race.

[CFLarsen]

Starvation in Africa is caused by a deliberate policy of starvation.

And you deny it?

You set up the idea to blame it on global warming. Or something.


You guys really have it in for the human race.


If you want to dismiss what politicians say about global warming, what about what the scientists say? Not that there is global warming, but what causes it?

What do you think the consequences are of global warming?

How do we adapt?

Is it not possible to predict what will happen, instead of waiting until it has happened?

What should we put in the place of politicians?

[Kerberos]

Starvation in Africa is caused by a deliberate policy of starvation.

And you deny it?
All starvation in Africa is caused solely by a deliberate policy of Starvation? why yes that does in fact not strike me as very plausible. I don't suppose you could back up this "interesting" position?

You set up the idea to blame it on global warming. Or something.
Yes silly me suggesting that draught could possibly contribute to starvation


You guys really have it in for the human race.
I think I can smell something here, but I’m not sure if it comes from a bull or a troll.

[Abdul Alhazred]

What should we put in the place of politicians? That is a strawman.

How about just not increasing their power without limit whenever they say there is a "crisis"?

Before I speak of the consequences of global warming, please demonstrate that your "solution" has any effect on it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I think I can smell something here, but I’m not sure if it comes from a bull or a troll.

Dismissed.

[Kerberos]

Dismissed.

Perfectly unserstandable, if I'd been making as idiotic statements as you have I'd grap any chance I could to end the discussion as well. Doesn't say much for you intelectual honesty of cause, but it's not like this is a skeptics forum.

[CFLarsen]

What should we put in the place of politicians? That is a strawman.

Why is that a strawman? Since you are dismissing politicians who warn against global warming, it is fair and rational to ask what you will put in their place.

So:

If you want to dismiss what politicians say about global warming, what about what the scientists say? Not that there is global warming, but what causes it?

How about just not increasing their power without limit whenever they say there is a "crisis"?

That, on the other hand, is a strawman. Nobody has advocated this.

Before I speak of the consequences of global warming, please demonstrate that your "solution" has any effect on it.

No. I don't need to "demonstrate" anything. You are the one saying that global warming exists, but at the same time dismissing that there is a crisis, so you must explain what you think the consequences of global warming is.

So:

What do you think the consequences are of global warming?

How do we adapt?

Is it not possible to predict what will happen, instead of waiting until it has happened?

If you are interested in debate, you have to answer pertinent questions arising from your proclamations. Otherwise, you are here only to pontificate. Which, of course, is fine. Just don't give the impression that you are here for anything else than that.

[The Atheist]

I don't mean to speak for Abdul but he has made his meaning clear on more than one occassion. He isn't saying that global warming isn't happening. He is saying that it isn't a crisis.

Or, as I'd see it, he's not wrong and stupid, he's just stupid.

Must be something in the water in Chicago. Jocko's from Chicago as well.

"Hell, it's only a few billion underprivileged blacks are gonna die, who gives a ####"

Sounds good to me.

[The Atheist]

It's times like this which make me get down on my knees and thank Darwin that both Abdul and Unter only get one vote each.

[The Atheist]

Starvation in Africa is caused by a deliberate policy of starvation.

Mate, have you been spending too much time around Pillory?

You're making as much sense as a tranvstite plumber talking about erectile dysfunction at a hookers' convention.

I'm pretty cynical, but even I'm not that cynical.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Hey Atheist! Ever heard of Robert Mugabe?

[steverino]

Originally Posted by Al Gore

I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing.

I don't want to diminish the meaning of the above quote, but shouldn't it be, like, two or three sentences, it seems there are too many commas or something, I think there should be periods, what do you, think?

[The Atheist]

Hey Atheist! Ever heard of Robert Mugabe?

Sure, but I don't recall him ruling Africa. I also fail to see where one dictator being insane equates to a deliberate policy of starvation in Africa. I doubt whoever is the dictator in Zimbabwe has much effect on Chad or Nigeria.

[The Atheist]

I think there should be periods, what do you, think?

None of them missing, but the comma after "all" should be a semi-colon.

[steverino]

None of them missing, but the comma after "all" should be a semi-colon.

Oh. OK. Thanks.:)

Here's another one. If terrorism is less important than global warming, and militant Muslims succeed in taking over America after chaos due to suitcase nukes or bio-war, will THEIR leadership have the wherewithal to tackle this global warming problem?

[The Atheist]

Yeah, well that's a given.

All infidels must die, which will cut the population by about 80%.

Problem solved.

[steverino]

Yeah, well that's a given.

All infidels must die, which will cut the population by about 80%.

Problem solved.

OK. So now we have to weigh the deaths of 240 million Americans, (80%,) against the deaths caused by global warming. Hmmm.

If it is an either/or deal, I'd rather fight the terrorists.

[a_unique_person]

Oh. OK. Thanks.:)

Here's another one. If terrorism is less important than global warming, and militant Muslims succeed in taking over America after chaos due to suitcase nukes or bio-war, will THEIR leadership have the wherewithal to tackle this global warming problem?

Militant Islam is completely dysfunctional at the State level. I would seriously doubt any state modelled on the Taliban way of doing things could kill of the West. Afghanistan under the Taliban was rapidly turning into a state something like Zimbabwe. Unable to even feed it's own people.

[gtc]

Terrorism itself will probably never go completely, (it's a staple of human history) but the current "WOT" phase should be over in something like that timeframe, IMHO. Global warming, in contrast, is something that is projected to keep on causing disruption to civilisation and the eco-system for centuries to come.


OK, thanks. For what its worth, I think you may be right about the war on terrorism ending in that timeframe. However, I suspect militant Islam will also still exist.

You seem to know much more about GW than I do, so I defer to your analysis about its existence. I do question how effective or economically viable are the currently proposed solutions.

[skeptifem]

I don't think Al Gore ever said terrorism wasn't important. I certainly think it is. His opinion is that global warming is a greater problem. Since there is no way to predict exactly what will be worse in the future, that's all it comes down to. I agree with Gore on this point, terrorism will be over in 10 or 20 years time, global warming will be around for hundreds of years.


:boggled: evidence?

[a_unique_person]

It's an opinion, based on the fact that eventually all wars have ended. For global warming, we have evidence it will continue for centuries.

[skeptifem]

It's an opinion, based on the fact that eventually all wars have ended. For global warming, we have evidence it will continue for centuries.


'all wars have ended' doesnt mean that war never ends. and it pretty much doesnt. there has always been war/terrorism and probably always will be. I see no reason to think that periods of time without war means that there wont be more war or worse war.

[Abdul Alhazred]

African dictators, not just Mugabe (he's just a for instance), are following in the footsteps of Stalin in creating famines to consolidate control.

[Abdul Alhazred]

It works for them, and the UN helps them do it.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Global warming, in contrast, is something that is projected to keep on causing disruption to civilisation and the eco-system for centuries to come.

To be solved by centuries of central planning, is that it?

[a_unique_person]

To be solved by centuries of central planning, is that it?

Conspiracy theories, again?

Have you ever looked at the IPCC web site, and decided if they are correct or not? Having decided that, what do you think of their proposals for dealing with global warming?

[a_unique_person]

'all wars have ended' doesnt mean that war never ends. and it pretty much doesnt. there has always been war/terrorism and probably always will be. I see no reason to think that periods of time without war means that there wont be more war or worse war.

Each war ends, we are stupid enough to start new ones. They kill off millions sometimes. Global warming is a global threat, not just to us directly, but whole species as well. Every single person in every single country will be affected. Already climate change has been implicated as a factor in Darfur. What is protrayed in the media as part of the WOT, is just as much a result of climate change.


We can see this already in Africa. A major contributing factor to the conflict in Darfur has been a shift in rainfall that has put nomadic herders and settled pastoralists into conflict with each other.

....

Conflict always has multiple causes, but a changing climate amplifies all the other factors. Katrina and Darfur illustrate how an unstable climate will make it harder to deliver security unless we act more effectively now to neutralise the threat.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5323512.stm

Spain, Australia and China are experiencing unprecedented droughts, with the Sahara desert ready to jump the Mediterranean.



The Desert Watch project, led by the European Space Agency, reports that 300,000 square kilometers of Europe's Mediterranean coast—an area larger than Britain—with a population of 16.5 million, is threatened by "desertification." The Spanish minister of the Environment, Cristina Narbona, warned in June about a long-term decrease in rain and an increase in temperatures: "the beginning of a long cycle" of extreme drought. And while severe dry spells may be a normal component of —Europe's climate, says Jose Luis Rubio, the head of the University of Valencia's Desertification Investigation Center, a weakening of the soil's resistance to drought among other things, along with human factors, are enhancing the risks of desertification. "We have observed a growing fragility," says Rubio. In places like Valencia, "the water levels are dropping and the soil is weaker."



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8770524/site/newsweek/

The South East of Australia where I live will have increased bush fires till there is nothing left to burn, by the end of the century.

That will be the result of a complete change of climate. What was once a green, fertile corner of Australia, which is mostly desert, will also revert to desert.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/26/climate.change.ap/index.html

[The Atheist]

It works for them, and the UN helps them do it.

Mate, you'll be in the CT forums telling people there were no planes next!

You could argue that apathy and ignorance has created a situation where poverty is being allowed because it's not politically expedient to deal with it under urgency, but I think you're [wrongly] drawing a very long bow here.

Sure, it's easier to keep potential political foes under starvation conditions, but that isn't the truth in anywhere near all of Africa. (And I'm not even including South Africa)

[Mycroft]

Huh? What kind of inane nonsense is that? If you can ask me what I think the consequences are, I can ask you the same.

You may ask whatever you like. It's just that since you said you were concerned with the evidence I wonder why you should be curious about my opinion. I'm no expert, so why should my opinion matter?

So I ask again, why are you concerned with my opinion?


Answer the question: What do you think the consequences are?

I havn't formed an opinion on that topic.

You will remember I asked you for evidence, will you provide it?

[Mycroft]

Why is that a strawman? Since you are dismissing politicians who warn against global warming, it is fair and rational to ask what you will put in their place.

He seems to be saying that politicians don't necessarily need to be replaced, only that he is concerned with giving them too much power. That doesn't seen unreasonable to me.


If you want to dismiss what politicians say about global warming, what about what the scientists say? Not that there is global warming, but what causes it?

Isn't the real issue what to do about it?


No. I don't need to "demonstrate" anything. You are the one saying that global warming exists, but at the same time dismissing that there is a crisis, so you must explain what you think the consequences of global warming is.

I disagree. If anyone proposes changes in our behavior in response to global warming, it should be up to those to demonstrate the changes in behavior will have the desired effect.

Doesn't that sound reasonable?

Is it not possible to predict what will happen, instead of waiting until it has happened?

That is an important question.

How do you answer it?

If you are interested in debate, you have to answer pertinent questions arising from your proclamations. Otherwise, you are here only to pontificate. Which, of course, is fine. Just don't give the impression that you are here for anything else than that.

That doesn't seem like a fair statement. A person could well be interested in debate without being interested in answering your questions. Your assertion seems to assume that only you are qualified to judge how a debate should go. I disagree.

[Mycroft]

Already climate change has been implicated as a factor in Darfur. What is protrayed in the media as part of the WOT, is just as much a result of climate change.

Please provide evidence that the Janjaweed militia are motivated by global warming. :oldroll:

[Kerberos]

Mate, you'll be in the CT forums telling people there were no planes next!

You could argue that apathy and ignorance has created a situation where poverty is being allowed because it's not politically expedient to deal with it under urgency, but I think you're [wrongly] drawing a very long bow here.

Sure, it's easier to keep potential political foes under starvation conditions, but that isn't the truth in anywhere near all of Africa. (And I'm not even including South Africa)

Why do you hate humanity?

[The Atheist]

Why do you hate humanity?

I'm an atheist.

[a_unique_person]

Please provide evidence that the Janjaweed militia are motivated by global warming. :oldroll:

I'll leave it for you as an exercise to find out the logical fallacy you just made.

[CFLarsen]

You may ask whatever you like. It's just that since you said you were concerned with the evidence I wonder why you should be curious about my opinion. I'm no expert, so why should my opinion matter?

So I ask again, why are you concerned with my opinion?

You are quite right. So:

You will remember I asked you for evidence, will you provide it?

I haven't claimed to be an expert either. Why are you concerned with my opinion?

[Abdul Alhazred]

You could argue that apathy and ignorance has created a situation where poverty is being allowed ...


It's not a conspiracy because it's not secret.

They cause famine and then the UN props them up with aid.

OK so "the west" is apathetic about it and and chooses to be ignorant while subsidizing the process?

Is it a conspiracy theory to claim that dictators have deliberately caused famines in the past?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yeah I know the UN is a sacred institution of peace, blah blah blah ...

[a_unique_person]

Yeah I know the UN is a sacred institution of peace, blah blah blah ...

The UN is hardly a 'sacred' institution. What does that have to do with the price of fish?

[The Atheist]

Is it a conspiracy theory to claim that dictators have deliberately caused famines in the past?

Let's assume that's the case for a sec.

It's a very long way from:

Starvation in Africa is caused by a deliberate policy of starvation.

Which is it? Were you lying to start off, or just making silly generalisations?

[Dave1001]

Like terrorism, global warming is to be an all purpose pretext for pushing people around.

Only he's most serious about it.




Al Gore being hit in the testicles by a poltergeist :eek:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/Abdul-Alhazred/---%20NEW%20---/AlGore.jpg

You know, it could both be true that global warming is apparently a real phenomena to study and plan for, and that people (including Al Gore) are seizing upon it as a pretext for pushing people around. How does that factor into your thought process?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Which is it? Were you lying to start off, or just making silly generalisations?

It's the same thing Stalin did, only aided and abetted by "the international community".

And nothing to do with global warming, so spin off a new thread if you're really interested.

[firecoins]

Al Gore is a politican. He is leading the Global Warming movement. His acceptance speech at the Oscars stated the Global Warming was not a political or sientific issue but a moral one.

While I believe global warming exists and is to some extent humans fault, I fear Al Gore's "moral" movement on how to deal with Global Warming.

I am all for scientific ways of solving the problem. I don't think Gore is the person to do it.

[Kerberos]

It's the same thing Stalin did, only aided and abetted by "the international community".

And nothing to do with global warming, so spin off a new thread if you're really interested.
hmm.. notice the interesting progression in Abdul's argumentation:

Abdul: People should just adapt to global warming like Denmark has (because bickering with Canada counts as adopting right?).

Me: How does Bickering with Canada help people in Africa who could starve as a result?

Abdul: Starvation is caused by deliberate policy from the dictators. + assorted other nonsense

…

Abdul after having been pushed into a corner: Well whether dictators in African are the sole reason for starvation is totally besides the point anyways.

So why did you bring it up then?

[firecoins]

the reason for hunger in Africa is that people are not eating. If they ate, they would not be hungry.

Actually I agree that dictators, woo beliefs prevent people from getting the food and medicine they need. Its not simply global warming.

[Kerberos]

the reason for hunger in Africa is that people are not eating. If they ate, they would not be hungry.

Actually I agree that dictators, woo beliefs prevent people from getting the food and medicine they need. Its not simply global warming.

Of cause it's not simply global warming, I never said or implied that, but draught is one of several possible causes for starvation and global warming would unsuprisingly be likely to lead to more draughts. The only person who has linked all starvation to a single cause is Abdul and only implicitly. I supose the position is to idiotic to fully articulate.

[The Atheist]

It's the same thing Stalin did, only aided and abetted by "the international community". Stalin and the international community have been helping write dribble about starvation in Africa?!?!? You've been talking to Sylvia, haven't you?

And nothing to do with global warming, so spin off a new thread if you're really interested.

As noted above, since you raised the subject, I'm not surprised you want rid of it, so I'll leave it there. I won't bother starting a thread about it because it's an SEP - nobody cares - and threads on the subject attract no replies and no readers.

[Mycroft]

I haven't claimed to be an expert either. Why are you concerned with my opinion?

I'm not asking for your opinions, I'm asking for evidence. You made many assertions in this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2460744#post2460744

and I would like to see the evidence you have to justify those assertions.

[Mycroft]

Please provide evidence that the Janjaweed militia are motivated by global warming. :oldroll:
I'll leave it for you as an exercise to find out the logical fallacy you just made.

If you disagree with the premise then explain. In what way does global warming influence the Janjaweed?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Famine "caused by" people not eating? No. That's the definition.

Stalin used famine as a weapon, as do the "legitimate" governments of various African countries.

And nothing to do with the all purpose pretext, global warming.

[Abdul Alhazred]

As noted above, since you raised the subject ...

Not exactly.

Somebody attributed "possible" famine in Africa to global warming.

[Kerberos]

Not exactly.

Somebody attributed "possible" famine in Africa to global warming.

So it is relevant then, please support you claim that all famine is caused by deliberate governement policy.

[CFLarsen]

I'm not asking for your opinions, I'm asking for evidence. You made many assertions in this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2460744#post2460744

and I would like to see the evidence you have to justify those assertions.

I don't claim to be an expert on global warming. I go with what the experts say.

I told once, and I've now told you twice. Is there something you still don't understand?

Or is it because you haven't even bothered to educate yourself the slightest on the subject?

[Almo]

But global warming IS more serious a threat than terrorism!!!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Between the "green revolution" and the leveling off of world population due to the spread of birth control ... well figure it out.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Wait. Maybe I spoke too soon.

Here's a country starving due to global warming.

http://au.biz.yahoo.com/070329/17/1636t.html

[a_unique_person]

Wait. Maybe I spoke too soon.

Here's a country starving due to global warming.

http://au.biz.yahoo.com/070329/17/1636t.html



North Korea, which entered the WMO in 1975, has suffered severe flooding and droughts since the mid-1990s.



That part is true, apparently. As well as being run by one of the most totalitarian regimes in the world, floods and droughts have apparently being severe, making things even worse. If it is due to global warming, the claim is that these have been getting worse since the 1990's.

[Mycroft]

I don't claim to be an expert on global warming. I go with what the experts say.

You said you go with the evidence, I would like to see that evidence.

If you are unable to show it, please just say so and stop this squirming.


I told once, and I've now told you twice. Is there something you still don't understand?

Evidence, please.


Or is it because you haven't even bothered to educate yourself the slightest on the subject?

Ooh, that's nice. Just imagine it being used on you whenever you ask someone for evidence to back up their claims.

[CFLarsen]

Ooh, that's nice. Just imagine it being used on you whenever you ask someone for evidence to back up their claims.

I'm trying to gauge your level here. Are you completely unaware of anything that is even remotely connected to global warming, do you have at least a working understanding of the issue, or do you consider yourself well informed?

No need to waste my time explaining what you already know.

[shuize]

I would also like to see more evidence of human responsibility for global warming to the degree claimed by environmentalists. I make no claims to being an expert, but following up on the recent documentary, I checked the U.S. EPA website. Although it suggests that human activity may have upset the natural balance of things, it also notes that man-made emissions are only responsible for a little under 4% of world-wide carbon emissions each year. If the EPA stats are correct, more than 96% of all carbon released into the atmosphere is a result of natural events:

http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/ccyle.html

[a_unique_person]

Shameless appeal to authority, and thanks to Glenn.



I'll conclude with a 3/20/07 letter to the NY Times from the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which was a response to the aforementioned misinformation found elsewhere in that article:

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorology Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements stating that climate change is: a) occurring, b) largely caused by humans and c) likely to continue with large negative consequences for natural and human socioeconomic systems unless we rapidly decarbonize our global energy systems.


People who have evidence that contradicts these statements can publish their findings in scientific journals, after which the public might expect to see this work discussed in Science Times. In the meantime, if you feel obligated to publish what are simply opinions, please use the opinion pages rather than the science section.


James J. McCarthy

Cambridge, Mass.

The writer is the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2475127&postcount=182

[CFLarsen]

I would also like to see more evidence of human responsibility for global warming to the degree claimed by environmentalists.[/url]

What is the degree?

Who are you talking about?

[Kerberos]

I would also like to see more evidence of human responsibility for global warming to the degree claimed by environmentalists. I make no claims to being an expert, but following up on the recent documentary, I checked the U.S. EPA website. Although it suggests that human activity may have upset the natural balance of things, it also notes that man-made emissions are only responsible for a little under 4% of world-wide carbon emissions each year. If the EPA stats are correct, more than 96% of all carbon released into the atmosphere is a result of natural events:

http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/ccyle.html
Doesn't really make a whiskers difference if we produce 4%, 80% or 0,000001%. natural emission is matched by natural absorption (says so in your souce), while the human made emissions are not matched by man made absorption. Since what matters in net emissions it doesn't really matter what percentage of total emissions we produce.

[a_unique_person]

I would also like to see more evidence of human responsibility for global warming to the degree claimed by environmentalists.

It's not what environmentalists claim, but the scientists, based on evidence obtained using the scientific process.

[Mycroft]

I'm trying to gauge your level here. Are you completely unaware of anything that is even remotely connected to global warming, do you have at least a working understanding of the issue, or do you consider yourself well informed?

No need to waste my time explaining what you already know.

If I "already knew" something I wouldn't ask for evidence of it.

Please stop wasting time and present the evidence for your assertions. Either that or just admit you can't.

[CFLarsen]

If I "already knew" something I wouldn't ask for evidence of it.

Please stop wasting time and present the evidence for your assertions. Either that or just admit you can't.

So, you are absolutely blank on the subject of global warming. You have never read anything about it, you have never heard about it from anyone in your circle of family and friends, or even from the media. Somehow, one of the most talked about issues in the modern world has escaped your attention entirely.

It is not common to meet someone like you, but can I suggest that you start educating yourself by taking classes? Would a high school diploma, so you know just a little about climatology, astronomy, physics, etc, be unreasonable?

[Mycroft]

So, you are absolutely blank on the subject of global warming. You have never read anything about it, you have never heard about it from anyone in your circle of family and friends, or even from the media. Somehow, one of the most talked about issues in the modern world has escaped your attention entirely.

No, that is not what I said.

It is not common to meet someone like you, but can I suggest that you start educating yourself by taking classes? Would a high school diploma, so you know just a little about climatology, astronomy, physics, etc, be unreasonable?

I think it would be reasonable for you to present your evidence. That you have not so far suggests that you can not.

[lenny]

I think it would be reasonable for you to present your evidence. That you have not so far suggests that you can not.
sorry to join in late, but what of the many claims on this thread are you requesting evidence for?
As always, I go with the scientific evidence.

We know that the temperature is rising, at an alarming speed. We know that the greenhouse effect is real. We know that we pour CO2 into the atmosphere, worsening the situation.

It's a huge planet alright, but it is also a planet with a very small window of temperatures where life can exist. If the temperature rises, then we will see major changes in the environment. Of course we will - why would the weather remain constant, if the temperature changes?

one of these 4 perhaps?

a) global mean temp is rising? or just the "at alarming speed"?
b) the greenhouse effect is real
c) humans add CO2 to above and beyond "natural" levels.
d) if global mean temperature changes, weather patterns will change.

or perhaps something completely different? your requests for evidence seem quite reasonable, i am just where your focus is.

thx

[Mycroft]

sorry to join in late, but what of the many claims on this thread are you requesting evidence for?


one of these 4 perhaps?

a) global mean temp is rising? or just the "at alarming speed"?
b) the greenhouse effect is real
c) humans add CO2 to above and beyond "natural" levels.
d) if global mean temperature changes, weather patterns will change.

or perhaps something completely different? your requests for evidence seem quite reasonable, i am just where your focus is.

thx


Certainly those and perhaps others as well.

a) How small is this "window" where life can exist, who is it that makes this claim and by what authority to they make it?

b) What major changes can we expect to see in the environment? What models are used to predict these changes and how do we know these models are accurate?

c) By what evidence to we attribute any one weather related event to global warming rather than just the normal cycle of weather events? Certainly glaciers are melting, etcetera, but how can it be said definitively that their melting is outside the realm of normal fluctuations of the planet?

[CFLarsen]

No, that is not what I said.

Well, pardon me then.

What, exactly, do you know about this issue?

[Mycroft]

Well, pardon me then.

What, exactly, do you know about this issue?

I know that either you have evidence or you do not. I suspect you do not because you continue to refuse to present it.

[CFLarsen]

I know that either you have evidence or you do not. I suspect you do not because you continue to refuse to present it.

You don't want to talk about global warming, then. You have some other agenda.

Oh, well.

[Mycroft]

You don't want to talk about global warming, then. You have some other agenda.

Oh, well.

I have not declined to talk about anything, I am waiting for you to provide the evidence asked for.

[lenny]

Certainly those and perhaps others as well.


OK. lets start with:

b) the greenhouse effect is real

pretty basic physics that some gases which are relatively transparent to visible radiation and have relatively high absorpsion in the infra-red. that will tend to warm the surface of a planet like the earth (relative that that of moon, which is at more or less the same distance from the sun and so gets a similar incoming energy density).

the energy of visible radiation that comes in and is absorbed at the surface is re-radiated at lower frequencies, gets absorbed on the way out and re-radiated warming the (surface of the) planet.

basic calculations of doubling CO2 (assuming no feedbacks, just greenhouse warming) go back over a century now and are pretty stable. references on request (but "evidence" for this one is pretty widespread).

so do we agree "the greenhouse effect is real"?