Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

F-D is to Al Gore and the Global Warming Debate what a hybrid of Dave Spadaro and Shoulder Pad Shawn (Seth's boy) would be to the Eagles organization.

How'd that happen? I don't give a fuck about Gore. You can't deny he'd been tremendously successful in his quest here, right?

By over-playing the hand, the advocates of man-made GW have done what social activists in the 80s did with AIDs. They tried to scare the population so badly that 1) they tuned out and 2) when the predictions came back the opposite, they lost credibility. They need to ratchet down the rhetoric, respect the opinions of those that find reason to be skeptical, and admit when parts of the theory prove wrong (i.e. "hockey stick").

Which parts of the theory are wrong?

The main theme (it's getting hotter and the ice caps are melting) has clearly been vindicated. The conclusions that you can draw from that (ocean levels are rising and the best climate band for growing food is starting to move north into the Canadian bedrock) are clearly bad for our species. I fail to see how it's not a credible threat that deserves to be taken seriously.

In all fairness FD, Gore won the Nobel Prize for peace, not science

No, I'm not calling him a scientist by any stretch and I know he won the prize for peace. all I said is if his job was to raise awareness/promote his cause, he's been wildly successful.

seriously though, saying that global warming needs a better spokesman than the guy who won a nobel piece prize, an oscar and basically put the issue front and center in this country is a little ridiculous.

And Jethro Tull won a Grammy as a heavy metal band. And they weren't even promoting that cause.

Whether his cause is right or wrong, he has been successful in promoting it. Hitler had a pretty successful run promoting his cause for awhile too. Still very dangerous.

Slap, I don't think we're making a case for or against global warming here. Just saying you cannot deny Gore's success in promoting awareness for his cause.

This is what I was responding to:

I think Global Warming needs a better spokesman that Gore. He's not a scientist and would get smoked in a sciency debate on the topic. The guy couldn't even beat W in a debate and that takes some talent.


I was basically saying "why would you fire the guy who spearheaded and was the face of one of the most successful awareness campaigns in human history".

fd, my previous post did acknowledge his success. I just did not agree with his stance.

My point, which I should have made clearer, is that for the substantive debate, Gore would not be the right choice. In that regard, GW needs a stronger rep or, as I said, Gore would get his clock cleaned if he debated the guy from Colorado State (don't remember his name).

The Nobel Peace Prize has, sadly, become a political gimmick. It used to mean great works. Now, it goes to just about anyone who fits a certain profile.

My point, which I should have made clearer, is that for the substantive debate, Gore would not be the right choice. In that regard, GW needs a stronger rep or, as I said, Gore would get his clock cleaned if he debated the guy from Colorado State (don't remember his name).

The Nobel Peace Prize has, sadly, become a political gimmick. It used to mean great works. Now, it goes to just about anyone who fits a certain profile.

My point, which I should have made clearer, is that for the substantive debate, Gore would not be the right choice. In that regard, GW needs a stronger rep or, as I said, Gore would get his clock cleaned if he debated the guy from Colorado State (don't remember his name).

The Nobel Peace Prize has, sadly, become a political gimmick. It used to mean great works. Now, it goes to just about anyone who fits a certain profile.

I don't think we're making a case for or against global warming here.

I'm FOR it. Hate snow.

In that regard, GW needs a stronger rep or, as I said, Gore would get his clock cleaned if he debated the guy from Colorado State (don't remember his name).

i'm curious as to why you would say that. gore is sort of well versed on the subject, and is very intelligent person in general. i really don't think anyone would "clean his clock" in a debate on the subject.

uber,

Which parts of the theory are wrong?

I believe NC was referring to the Mann Chart, which is commonly called the "Hockey Stick" theory. This theory is the basis of most man-made global warming activists.

If I am assuming incorrectly NC, please clarify.

50,000 physicists think global warming is a sham:
linc

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.

they all do, do they? how many is "many"?

BMA, why would you post a link that undermines the very point you are making?

BMA.


Early in JUNE, we had about 4 or 5 days straight of 100+ degree days.

JUNE, mind you, not August.

Not saying that means anything other than


You suck

Meanwhile in Australia, which I beleive is also part of the globe, we've had near-record low temperatures this week.

Like I said before Fred - tunnel vision
link

Meanwhile in Australia, which I beleive is also part of the globe, we've had near-record low temperatures this week.


um, it's called "climate change". you're trying to prove your point by posting a link about abnormal temperatures?

flesh, I take it all back-


You're smarter than I thought.


I would have said the same exact thing.

NCSF,

The guy couldn't even beat W in a debate and that takes some talent.

He didn't lose debates, people just voted party lines. GW sounded like an idiot way back then. I remember one question where he did his famous smirk and had the look that said, "nailed it"...but sounded like the Miss S. Carolina answering the question on why Americans can't find the USA on the map. Jizus Kriest. People voted who they wanted to have beer with in 2000.

Anyway, F4F did the honors by explaining the constant misnomer of regarding "global warming" and why its called "climate change". It isn't nor should it be perceived solely in the context of temparture in your local 'hood.

I'm surprised this is even up for debate anymore. The "ambiguity" is similar to that used by the tobacco industry about how smoking wasn't conclusively proven to cause cancer, just that there was an association with it. Um...yeah.

People voted who they wanted to have beer with in 2000.

i have never understood this "i'd like to have a beer with him" ascribed towards bush.

an unremarkable but affable president like gerald ford? sure. a hypocritical, smarmy, arrogant, blue blood, silver spoon tea-totaler? does not compute.

but former alcoholic and binge cocaine user...there fixed it for you.

I guess it comes down to most people not wanting to feel intimidated by someone smarter than them...perhaps?

but former alcoholic and binge cocaine user...there fixed it for you.

and it is with the "former" that the problem arises. i have no doubt that GW bush and myself could have had some good times before he found god and allowed his personal demons to run unfettered.

personal demon's HATE to be fettered.

I unfetter my demons from my pants onto suspecting women. Everyone's a winner. Me, the deomns and the lady.

1 2 3 4  5 6