When Al Gore lied three times...caught with his pants down.

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut

kokonut

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
16,006
Reaction score
2
Don't look but your global-warming-caused-by-man savior was caught in a holy lie....three times....about the claim he read carefully all the emails from Climategate in his interview with Slate saying that they were "more than 10 years old."

Al Gore talks about global warming, those e-mails, and his new book. - By John Dickerson - Slate Magazine

No. No. And no.
Anthony Watts documented the emails with the reminder that “there are dozens to hundreds more within the last month, the last year, and the last 10 years.”

Al Gore can’t tell time – thinks most recent Climategate email is more than 10 years old Watts Up With That?

What else will Al Gore lie about? Global warming?

Noooooo...! Heaven forbid! He can't lie! Why..why...he's the global-warming-caused-by-man savior to all of humanity's existence on this Earth.

Oh, btw, massive storm buries central midwest.
Massive storm buries central US in snow - Yahoo! News

And winter is only 12 days away.

Go figure.
 
I do think that the issue of global warming was made to be a way bigger issue that it actually is during his documentary. It's all for news.
 
Gore specifically lied...3 times...in the effort to downplay this Climategate scandal that continues to grow in size and breadth as more and more people find out how climate data were manipulated...among other things. All for news? No. He had in mind to try and downplay.

It backfired on him badly catching him in a lie...3 times.
 
what lie? you have NO proof that there's no global warming - you acknowledged it. How can it be a lie when there is 95% confidence among climate scientists that humans caused global warming?
 
there's absolutely NO point in debating in this kind of thread! :lol2: It's same old bullshit. Not even gonna bother say my piece in here.

go ahead kokonut. keep making threads! back to my NOTHING thread :cool2:
 
netrox said:
what lie? you have NO proof that there's no global warming - you acknowledged it. How can it be a lie when there is 95% confidence among climate scientists that humans caused global warming?
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read. I said he lied 3 times about this:

"What we're seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly."

No. There are tons of emails early as last month, this year, last year, going back to 10+ years. He purposely made as if all those emails are 10 years old that make up the Climategate and aren't worthy to discuss. Rather it's the more recent ones that are damaging. Tons of them.

Like I said, global warming and cooling happens ALL the time. It's a natural phenomenom. Medieval warm period showed that. Little ice age showed that. You might want to change that confidence to 1% since we're seeing how these "scientists" skewed climate data to benefit their own global warming agenda.

Nice to see you admit that you're a global warming screamer.
 
kokonut said:
Nice to see you admit that you're a global warming screamer.
Click to expand...

It's quite comical considering that you constantly SCREAM at us saying that we don't cause global warming!

Show me a post where I screamed, GLOBAL WARMING!

You on the other hand, I can list countless postings of you SCREAMING at us that we don't cause it. :)

On the other hand, when you tell us that we're really cooling in the past decade, the articles ay otherwise:

"The current decade likely ranks as the hottest since temperature records began in the 1850s, the U.N. World Meteorological Organization announced today."

"Researchers said the temperature analysis was based on three independent sets of data, one maintained by the United Kingdom's Hadley Climate Center and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, as well as two other sets maintained in the United States by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

Climate: 2009 Caps Hottest Decade on Record - ABC News

Of course, I'll expect more screams from you saying that all those independent data sources are fakes.
 
How convenient.

"2009 may rank as the fifth-warmest year on record, the WMO said, although the final rank won't be available until next year."

Man, you really ran with that one. Just like a typical global warming screamer.

Yet, people are still going through Climategate finding that data were conveniently played around with that came out of CRU (Univ of East Anglia). LOL

Glad to see you think that ocean level is gonna rise 20 ft and flood everybody out.

Oh, btw, the arctic ice cap isn't melting away to nothing anytime soon. Nor is the Antarctica (that's the South Pole for you folks) melting, either but gaining more ice.

Here are some graphs where the data came from a NOAA ice core study out of Greenland where it captured nearly 500,000 years of data and gives temp approximation based on geochemical and ice/snow accumulation analysis.

greenlandicecoredatatem.jpg

Picture of multiple graphs showing up and down temperature range over 500,000 years with the last 10,000 years as the warmest but present day temp are much cooler comparatively.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

Scale is everything. Compare where we are to the Medieval period, the Holocene period, the ice age age, and everything before that that show periods of glaciation and between glaciation periods when it was much, much warmer than we are now.
 
You are SCREAMING as usual. The charts are quite interesting but the way you argue truly puts me off.

First, I believe that humans do contribute to global warming but never have I said that it's entirely human - I always believed that climate go through cycles... but many scientists say this current warming is NOT part of the cycle hence the argument that this global warming is NOT "natural." I'd rather err on the side of scientists than on guts. I've said that many times. You're lying when you called me a global warming screamer. When major scientific organizations make statements, I'd rather listen to them than to an individual. Of course, they have been wrong a few times in the past but you have to understand that unlike religion, they self-correct based on new evidence/data while religion does not allow such a process. It's just black and white ideology to you.

Second, I never said anything about floods and cities going undersea. Not once. You are lying and losing your credibility. Show me a posting that I said such a thing. In fact, you'll NEVER find me saying, "oh my god, the world's gonna end!"

Third, I am a firm believer in natural selection and that is something MOST climatologists forget and of course, you're an creationist or an ID'ist, ACTIVELY deny that process - believing that some kind of intelligence is required. Scientists often make statements saying, "Look, this change will cause a cascading effect on the ecosystem" - and they're right but they forget about natural selection. At least ninety percent of species are already gone BUT we also created NEW species as a result. It's something we forget when we are faced with disturbing data that seem to indicate that we're going to have some changes. A lot of people tend to think "global" when in fact, it's just local. Even in the Bible, a lot thought of things "globally". It's human nature for us to think, "If I have this, the whole world has it too!"

Even during the ancient times, people complained about pollution and thought, "the whole world is polluted." Even as recent as a century ago, the air pollution in some places were actually WORSE than today's modern "smog." BUT the problem is that while we managed to keep local pollution down, the global pollution is evidently getting worse. It's like "Look, we can either put all the pollutants in one place which can be extremely toxic to local place or we can spread it around which makes it less toxic to this place yet at the same time, we just inclemently add more pollution to the rest of the world." If you produce pollution, you should be responsible for it. Of course, it's impossible to produce pollution-free service/products -it just doesn't work that way BUT with pollution you produce, YOU MUST pay for it as well. There is no such a thing as free lunch.

The dose maketh a poison is basically true BUT it's also how well we metabolize and eliminate the dose. We can safely consume toxins without ill effects but some toxins are NOT readily removed from our bodies but accumulate in our bodies and worsen over time.

So, skepticism is a good thing but unlike you, I do reconsider my positions IF there is data to prove that my positions are wrong. You just HAVE to be right and have this obsessive need to be vindicated somehow.

Well, even if the whole global warming is wrong and you're right, you aren't going to be "better" because of this - you're still the same 4$$?@7#.
 
i g n o r e
i t​
 
netrox said:
You are SCREAMING as usual. The charts are quite interesting but the way you argue truly puts me off.

First, I believe that humans do contribute to global warming but never have I said that it's entirely human - I always believed that climate go through cycles... but many scientists say this current warming is NOT part of the cycle hence the argument that this global warming is NOT "natural." I'd rather err on the side of scientists than on guts. I've said that many times. You're lying when you called me a global warming screamer. When major scientific organizations make statements, I'd rather listen to them than to an individual. Of course, they have been wrong a few times in the past but you have to understand that unlike religion, they self-correct based on new evidence/data while religion does not allow such a process. It's just black and white ideology to you.

Second, I never said anything about floods and cities going undersea. Not once. You are lying and losing your credibility. Show me a posting that I said such a thing. In fact, you'll NEVER find me saying, "oh my god, the world's gonna end!"

Third, I am a firm believer in natural selection and that is something MOST climatologists forget and of course, you're an creationist or an ID'ist, ACTIVELY deny that process - believing that some kind of intelligence is required. Scientists often make statements saying, "Look, this change will cause a cascading effect on the ecosystem" - and they're right but they forget about natural selection. At least ninety percent of species are already gone BUT we also created NEW species as a result. It's something we forget when we are faced with disturbing data that seem to indicate that we're going to have some changes. A lot of people tend to think "global" when in fact, it's just local. Even in the Bible, a lot thought of things "globally". It's human nature for us to think, "If I have this, the whole world has it too!"

Even during the ancient times, people complained about pollution and thought, "the whole world is polluted." Even as recent as a century ago, the air pollution in some places were actually WORSE than today's modern "smog." BUT the problem is that while we managed to keep local pollution down, the global pollution is evidently getting worse. It's like "Look, we can either put all the pollutants in one place which can be extremely toxic to local place or we can spread it around which makes it less toxic to this place yet at the same time, we just inclemently add more pollution to the rest of the world." If you produce pollution, you should be responsible for it. Of course, it's impossible to produce pollution-free service/products -it just doesn't work that way BUT with pollution you produce, YOU MUST pay for it as well. There is no such a thing as free lunch.

The dose maketh a poison is basically true BUT it's also how well we metabolize and eliminate the dose. We can safely consume toxins without ill effects but some toxins are NOT readily removed from our bodies but accumulate in our bodies and worsen over time.

So, skepticism is a good thing but unlike you, I do reconsider my positions IF there is data to prove that my positions are wrong. You just HAVE to be right and have this obsessive need to be vindicated somehow.

Well, even if the whole global warming is wrong and you're right, you aren't going to be "better" because of this - you're still the same 4$$?@7#.
Click to expand...

Creationist? ID'ist? A nice little but worthless red herring that has nothing to do with the actual science using stable isotope in this ice core study result. Hence, the graphs. So, stick with the science debate next time.

Believe me, pollution was a lot worse even before man was around.

Hmm....no sunspot today on the sun. Getting cold around here.
 
What I think of Kokonut: An argumentative Extremist who doesn't believe in what is known as "Trail and Error" and who loves to write a novel that whispers sweet nothingness.

Too much facts point to humanity of struggles.
 
LinuxGold said:
What I think of Kokonut: An argumentative Extremist who doesn't believe in what is known as "Trail and Error" and who loves to write a novel that whispers sweet nothingness.

Too much facts points to humanity of struggles.
Click to expand...

How about actually discuss a subject without making it personal? I know it's a challenge but give it a shot.

BTW, it's "trial."
 
You are attacking some people in here personally too. So I'm entitled wouldn't I?
 
LinuxGold said:
You are attacking some people in here personally too. So I'm entitled wouldn't I?
Click to expand...

You presume too much but ask the mods that question.

Did you noticed that in terms of warmth we're not even close to the Medieval period? Or even in the previous periods going back thousands of years? Interesting when you start to scale things accordingly that our 0.6 C degree upward change over a short amount of time (geologically speaking) is but barely, barely a blip. And we have people running around playing chicken little over that little blip.

Gotta chuckle over that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top