AlBore's Inconvenient Lies
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
I'm not discrediting the selection of the Professor in question. It seems obvious to include an expert on insects in the Health Chapter as they are a common route of disease transmission. I'm only saying that the article is misleading. What subject matter have they(the un-named) published no papers on, the mosquitoes, or other human health considerations. Seems to me they probably would have expertise in some area. Even the detractors they invite to participate are experts in their prospective fields.
The way I see it is, "just" because Gore isn't the political party of "some", they will criticize him, and
ignore the message.
"Why can't we forget the messenger", and" Heed the message", is good advice.
And, I still would want to hear Gore's actual reply to the "statement" above, not, just that he
said no, just to make him sound like a hypocrite.
ignore the message.
"Why can't we forget the messenger", and" Heed the message", is good advice.
And, I still would want to hear Gore's actual reply to the "statement" above, not, just that he
said no, just to make him sound like a hypocrite.
I was starting to think my post was invisible. thanks for noticing it. I'm glad someone agrees
Wholeheartedly, I love reading "common sense" and statements that would "help" all of us, and not
"just", political criticism.
I agree.
And even though Newt Gingrich was banging his EA and served his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery, we should still listen in rapt attention when he talks about how important family values are.
You go Newt!
So if Newt says family values are important and he has screwed his up then everyone should screw them up because Newt is a hypocrite?
Climate change isn't about Al Gore. Family values aren't about Newt.
If someone isn't 'qualified' to make a statement it doesn't automatically make their statement false. If a message is correct it doesn't matter who the messenger is.
If all fish live in the sea and all mackerel are fish, it will not rain on tuesday, and you don't love me any more
I'm not discreditting the "scientists" that got the posts either, I'll let their credentials do that for them.
talloola, herm...
It's not all about Gore, true I want answers, seeing as juan loves the movie, supports it science and methodology, I have asked him several times why Gore had to lie, and not recieved an answer. Just more hype about it being given the thumbs up by MIT.
If you will note, Ton and I are discussing the merits of the IPCC and I must point out at one time, Ton and I did have a consensus.
I don't care about Gore, I want to hear from his supporters on the missinformation in his movie and why that hasn't got them asking questions, why the seemingly odd choice of personel, by the IPCC hasn't got some people asking questions.
That's what I want, I want answers. Answers to questions like, if there are far more accute toxins about and pollution is a dissastorous threat in so many regions, why is only one aspect of pollution being addressed so feverishly?
Oh, I don't necessarily disagree.
But if global warming is a serious problem now that requires us to change our behavior, if the messenger doesn't change his behavior, why should I?
Toro
I know few are going to get this question for you...
I wonder how many people here even comprehend the tax implications of Gore's little plan for the implementation of his wet dream?
It is never about the 'cause for the good of humanity' it is always about the money to be raised.
I know few are going to get this question for you...
I wonder how many people here even comprehend the tax implications of Gore's little plan for the implementation of his wet dream?
It is never about the 'cause for the good of humanity' it is always about the money to be raised.
No they don't WC, but that won't stop them from stating "the cost is worth it", "you're fearmonguering", "you don'y know that", "typical neo con big oil spin", "if we don't our kids will pay with their lives", "this only shows how ignorant you are" and so on.
I have asked many questions WC, the answers never come and when they think they're answering the question, they don't really, they just do the political spin deflect thing.
All I want is answers, why can't anyone answer the questions STRAIGHT out? (another question, I won't hold my breath while waiting for an answer from the pro AGW crowd)
That is exactly what I am also waiting for, an answer to all the questions instead of useless labeling.
Off-Topic Example: remember several years ago they said people with cholesterol should not eat more than one egg a week and that included to one you used to cook? People almost stopped eating eggs because they were afraid of high cholesterol. Today you can eat as many as you want, no more danger.
The days of believing blindly are over, we must question or we are ....................
I'm assuming Al Gore has a bigger and more complex residential situation than the average household. Did he say he wasn't going to change his behavior? How is it reasonable to expect he reduce his consumption to that of a townhouse or he's not considered to have changed his behavior? No one but him has been asked to sign a committment to reduce energy use 20-fold in one year.
I would have to admit yapping at the mans heels is a bit much, but the man lives extranagently. He can afford to give up some of his creature comforts.
The masses of middle class folk that he preaches to, or the ones directly effected by up and coming GW legislation, don't have that large a margine of flexiblity.