• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

NYT hit piece on Gore

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,423
Reaction score
619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
March 13, 2007
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”



Hmmmm all that consensusing going on out there.



"

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”"



Hmmmm where is all that consensusing going on out there?



"“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”"



No concensusing going on there either.



Hmmmmmmmm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
 
Last edited:
March 13, 2007
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”



Hmmmm all that consensusing going on out there.



"

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”"



Hmmmm where is all that consensusing going on out there?



"“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”"



No concensusing going on there either.



Hmmmmmmmm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


I'm sorry stinger, I'm having a little trouble with your source, but where is the disagreement about AGW in your source?
 
I'm sorry stinger, I'm having a little trouble with your source, but where is the disagreement about AGW in your source?

Having trouble with the NYT's?
 
Having trouble with the NYT's?
Let me make it as plain as linguistically possible, I'm having no difficulty accessing the article, I'm just having much much difficulty with trying to locate anywhere in the article you've provided that states any disagreement with AGW.

All I see are objections and criticisms to Gore, so what? Gore is not science - Gore is a politician that made a statement about the science.
Yet, not a single one of the critics within this article are refuting AGW. So unless that is what you are posting about, then this is nothing but a movie review.

So again, I'll ask you, as you continually bring up "hmmmm consensus" and the only relevant consensus is that of what scientists have of AGW, where's the science or criticism about AGW in your source that would somehow discredit the scientific consensus reached by every single major scientific organization and publications on the very topic? I guess you could say I'm asking, where is your anti-consensus?
Your argument, now back it up.
 
jfuh said:
Let me make it as plain as linguistically possible, I'm having no difficulty accessing the article, I'm just having much much difficulty with trying to locate anywhere in the article you've provided that states any disagreement with AGW.

I'll make it as plain as linguistically possible for you....

"“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”"

Let me know if you need any more help with reading comprehension.
 
Let me make it as plain as linguistically possible, I'm having no difficulty accessing the article, I'm just having much much difficulty with trying to locate anywhere in the article you've provided that states any disagreement with AGW.

They question his assertions and others throughout.
For instance

"“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. "

Read the article it stands on it's own.
 
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. "

It appears that in politics it is accepted that to make a point it is acceptable to ignore some points and exaggerate/exploit others regardless of the issue as long as the overall message is communicated.

Regards,

"C.J."
 
I'll make it as plain as linguistically possible for you....
Let me know if you need any more help with reading comprehension.

Yes, those are as I stated criticisms against the movie and Gore, where's the statement that there's no AGW? Where're the statements against the internationally accepted consensus that Stinger continually references to. Nothing within the source makes any such statement.
 
They question his assertions and others throughout.
For instance

"“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. "

Read the article it stands on it's own.
I read your article, and though yes, there are alternatives to human activity stands out, but it doesn't say that human involvement is not responsible.
That's the key phrase I'm looking for, or that human involvement is irrelevant. None of those criticisms challenge the consensus. You're trying to bring out something that isn't there at all.
Gore doesn't present the science scientifically - wow, no surprise there as he's not a scientist. But in the last phrase which is no surprise that you didn't include.
“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”
None of the critics argue against the big picture of AGW - which is the scientific consensus on the matter. Hence you've no argument here against the consensus (even though you bring it up several times in the OP) at all other than criticisms and mudslinging on Gore.
 
jfuh said:
I read your article, and though yes, there are alternatives to human activity stands out, but it doesn't say that human involvement is not responsible.
That's the key phrase I'm looking for, or that human involvement is irrelevant. None of those criticisms challenge the consensus. You're trying to bring out something that isn't there at all.

An absurd statement…. No, you won’t find a statement claiming no human involvement in warming, just as you won’t find a statement in any of your alarmists literature claiming 100% responsibility for human involvement.
 
I read your article, and though yes, there are alternatives to human activity stands out, but it doesn't say that human involvement is not responsible.
That's the key phrase I'm looking for, or that human involvement is irrelevant. None of those criticisms challenge the consensus.

Since there is no consensus.....................

Gore doesn't present the science scientifically -

He certainly pretends to so he can scare people.

Did you see Fox News this morning exposing how he is profiting off his scare tactics?
 
Did you see Fox News this morning exposing how he is profiting off his scare tactics?
Most people who seriously care about news don't watch Faux. If it's pretty biased commentary you're looking for, then sure.

Just FYI.
 
Most people who seriously care about news don't watch Faux.

Pure conjecture on your part and certainly dismissed by the ratings. Most people who want both sides in an objective manner watch Fox News. How telling how you believe calling them Faux makes your argument, that the best you can do?

If it's pretty biased commentary you're looking for, then sure.

A balance commentary, if you want bias'd then turn on CNN or MSNBC

Just FYI.

You mean FYMI.
 
Pure conjecture on your part and certainly dismissed by the ratings. Most people who want both sides in an objective manner watch Fox News. How telling how you believe calling them Faux makes your argument, that the best you can do?
What do ratings have to do with people who want to watch news rather than commentary? Despite the fact that Fox's ratings have been dwindling as they get more and more shameless about their slant, the fact that they have decent ratings only tells me the general population cares to be entertained rather than informed. I'm not going to get into this debate; watch what you please.
 
Since there is no consensus.
Yes there is a consensus and still you have not shown anywhere in your source that the consensus is invalidated.

Stinger said:
He certainly pretends to so he can scare people.

Did you see Fox News this morning exposing how he is profiting off his scare tactics?
What does Faux news have anything to do with the thread topic in point? NYT hit piece or scientific consensus.
Hence your criticisms are of Gore as I've been stating; still nothing that supports your statement that there is no scientific consensus on AGW.
 
What do ratings have to do with people who want to watch news rather than commentary?

Compared to other sources for such news and commentary.

Despite the fact that Fox's ratings have been dwindling as they get more and more shameless about their slant,

Facts not in evidence and they STILL trump all other news networks because they give a more balance view.

the fact that they have decent ratings

:rofl :spin:DECENT, they smoke everyone else.

only tells me the general population cares to be entertained rather than informed.

It tells you nothing of the sort, it clearly shows that the public wants to hear both sides and not the slanted views of the MSM and liberal outlets like CNN and MSNBC. People who have a high interest in news and politics and wish to get more than just the pablum on the network news shows turn to cable 24 hour news and the OVERWHELMING majority of people with such a high interest, showing a higher knowledge of such matters, choose FOX.

I'm not going to get into this debate; watch what you please.

:rofl :surrender
 
Yes there is a consensus and still you have not shown anywhere in your source that the consensus is invalidated.

I just got accused of flooding the section and being obsessed simply because I continue to start threads showing the disagreement within the scientific community. And there is LOTs. There is no consensus. Which is exactly what YOUR paper of record says in their piece on Gore, there is disagreement in the scientific community not consensus.
 
I just got accused of flooding the section and being obsessed simply because I continue to start threads showing the disagreement within the scientific community. And there is LOTs. There is no consensus. Which is exactly what YOUR paper of record says in their piece on Gore, there is disagreement in the scientific community not consensus.
Then why after 2 pages now have you been unable to show any line that states there is no AGW.
 
Compared to other sources for such news and commentary.

Facts not in evidence and they STILL trump all other news networks because they give a more balance view.

:rofl :spin:DECENT, they smoke everyone else.

It tells you nothing of the sort, it clearly shows that the public wants to hear both sides and not the slanted views of the MSM and liberal outlets like CNN and MSNBC. People who have a high interest in news and politics and wish to get more than just the pablum on the network news shows turn to cable 24 hour news and the OVERWHELMING majority of people with such a high interest, showing a higher knowledge of such matters, choose FOX.
:rofl :surrender
I can't tell if you're being overly sarcastic or are just downright confused. Either way, I appreciated the laugh.
 
Then why after 2 pages now have you been unable to show any line that states there is no AGW.

Of course that is proving a negative. The burden is on your side to prove it, you haven't. I gave you a whole article filled with scientist who agree there is no consensus that man made effects are causing climate changes out of the normal ranges. Climate changes we don't know the whys and wayfors.
 
Of course that is proving a negative. The burden is on your side to prove it, you haven't. I gave you a whole article filled with scientist who agree there is no consensus that man made effects are causing climate changes out of the normal ranges. Climate changes we don't know the whys and wayfors.
Not even close. The op statement you made as well as your continuous statements challenge the scientific consensus of AGW; based on what? Based on your assertion that it so says within the source which you cited.
Yet, I've asked for where in the source does it state there's no AGW, or whether it's criticizing the details within the movie Gore made. Which is why I stated formerly that this source does not question the greater picture of the science involved with global warming, but rather questions the accuracy of Gores presentations.
You've been asked to draw out support for your claims and you have thus been blatantly spinning around the subject. And now even spinning it as to how I am supposed to provide proof that you did not state that there is no AGW which the source is not trying to state.
Talk about negatives. Sorry stinger, the argument in this thread is over.
1. you made the unsubstantiated claim that your source discredits scientific consensus on AGW when there was none
2. you'd been asked for the last 2 pages to provide exact quotes stating that there is no AGW - failed.
3. now you're changing the topic because you can not provide any substance to back up your own assertion.
This thread is done.
 
Hmmmm all that consensusing going on out there.

Hmmmm where is all that consensusing going on out there?

No concensusing going on there either.

Hmmmmmmmm
Do you have any idea what scientific consensus actually is? You ignore a report from 2500 scientists from 113 countries stating that AGW is real and there is a 90% chance that the vast majority of it is caused by humans, and then take quotes from 3 people and say there's no consensus? While I agree that Gore is an alarmist and I personally am not sure so sure of my vision of the future to know what the exact consequences of AGW will be, arguing that there is no consensus regarding human-caused AGW simply shows your ignorance on what a scientific consensus is.
 
Not even close. The op statement you made as well as your continuous statements challenge the scientific consensus of AGW; based on what?

Based on all the past reports, scientist and other things that have been posted over and over and over. There is no consensus and even the NYT is showing that to be the case. Gore's movie is a bunch of overblown unsubstantiated claims.
 
Do you have any idea what scientific consensus actually is? You ignore a report from 2500 scientists from 113 countries stating .............

More so than you it appears. I can give you 1700 in a single letter along with those cited in the article.

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, that is a made up claim of the GW disciples and that becomes more and more apparent everyday.
 
Back
Top Bottom