• 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!

Top Climate Skeptic Reverses Course, Now Urges Bold Action

I don't see what the fuss is about. I don't think he actually "reversed" course. I don't think what he proposes is "bold". I am a global warming skeptic but I still want to see us develop alternative energy sources. I think some of the langauge this article uses is exaggerated. Reading between the exaggerated rhetoric it appears he is just making some realistic suggestions.
 
Wait, really? I know, this may sound asinine, but, are you aware that you literally followed the Original Post's prediction of how the GW deniers will attempt to deny it.. To a tee? I mean, first, you claimed it was a hoax. Then, you claimed he got sucked in by the "Lord God Gore" -- and then, like a prophecy being fulfilled, you said he was corrupt, and he was probably paid off!

Are you serious?

Like it takes a genius to know how subjects devolve on the internet? That's like predicting the sun will rise and set tomorrow.
 
Wait, really? I know, this may sound asinine, but, are you aware that you literally followed the Original Post's prediction of how the GW deniers will attempt to deny it.. To a tee? I mean, first, you claimed it was a hoax. Then, you claimed he got sucked in by the "Lord God Gore" -- and then, like a prophecy being fulfilled, you said he was corrupt, and he was probably paid off!

Are you serious?

"I'm gonna start a thread where I call Glenn Beck a genius and a patriot. Then I bet a bunch of libbos are going to come in and say that I'm a sheep, that Glenn Beck is a liar, and that he's just doing it to make money. Because I'm predicting this, it means that their arguments are invalid!"
 
"I'm gonna start a thread where I call Glenn Beck a genius and a patriot. Then I bet a bunch of libbos are going to come in and say that I'm a sheep, that Glenn Beck is a liar, and that he's just doing it to make money. Because I'm predicting this, it means that their arguments are invalid!"

And I can guarantee that when the science for the denialists runs out (usually after the first post) we get a rapid devolution into ad hominems and name calling
 
And I can guarantee that when the science for the denialists runs out (usually after the first post) we get a rapid devolution into ad hominems and name calling

What does this have to do with my post?
 
I think you should read up a bit on the definition of ad hominem :D

I was thinking in terms of the "libbos" remark which to me IS an ad hominem and one I see far far far too often.
 
The other way around, really...

Deniers never have any real scientific evidence to back themselves up, so they focus on attacking actual scientific evidence with conspiracy theories and ad hominem.

I'm fighting the urge to laugh here... since, the proponents have been caught in MULTIPLE lies, distortions, omissions, manipulations, bad science, etc... and then go on to call anyone that disagrees with the claimed 'consensus' of analysts, writers and commentators 'conspiracy theorists' or in the same category as holocaust deniers.

How going green may make you mean | Environment | The Guardian
So, environmentalists have also been found to be LESS moral then non-environmentalists... the best part was that this studies original aim was to show the moral superiority as 'green' consumers... but that one backfired.

So, once again I'm back to the point that on EVERY point of the environmentalists claims; the "science" begins with cries of 'the end of the world' and then a few years later when the science is in... on EVERY POINT, the original claims are shown to be completely false or grossly exaggerated concerns.

Or better yet : The simplest debunk of CO2 as the engine of 'global warming'

"HOW MUCH CO2 would it require to keep the earth warm if the sun were to disappear tomorrow?"

That question ALWAYS gets dodged, but it points out the main fallacy of the global warming alarmists... they talk about CO2 like it's actually an ENGINE... but like with your car, the CO2 is the EXHAUST.
 
I'm fighting the urge to laugh here... since, the proponents have been caught in MULTIPLE lies, distortions, omissions, manipulations, bad science, etc... and then go on to call anyone that disagrees with the claimed 'consensus' of analysts, writers and commentators 'conspiracy theorists' or in the same category as holocaust deniers.

And the deniers have been SO honest and truthful! Why, they'd never falsify data or draw faulty conclusions. OH WAIT.
The "lies" and "distortions" have been fabricated by the denialist industry.

How going green may make you mean | Environment | The Guardian
So, environmentalists have also been found to be LESS moral then non-environmentalists... the best part was that this studies original aim was to show the moral superiority as 'green' consumers... but that one backfired.

I don't see how this is relevant. Environmentalists being jerks doesn't make them wrong.

So, once again I'm back to the point that on EVERY point of the environmentalists claims; the "science" begins with cries of 'the end of the world' and then a few years later when the science is in... on EVERY POINT, the original claims are shown to be completely false or grossly exaggerated concerns.

No. Newspapers and magazines cry "end of the world." Skeptics, however, can't seem to tell the difference between what scientists say and what journalists say.

Or better yet : The simplest debunk of CO2 as the engine of 'global warming'

"HOW MUCH CO2 would it require to keep the earth warm if the sun were to disappear tomorrow?"

That question ALWAYS gets dodged, but it points out the main fallacy of the global warming alarmists... they talk about CO2 like it's actually an ENGINE... but like with your car, the CO2 is the EXHAUST.

Dodged? I've never heard this question asked. You know why?

It's ****ing retarded. There isn't any amount of CO2 that would keep the world warm without the sun, because heat does not ****ing work that way. Congratulations on asking what may very well be the dumbest question in history. Nobody talks about CO2 like it's actually an engine. That's idiotic. Show me one instance where anyone, other than yourself, was dumb enough to ask this question?
 
Further note, on the environmentalist = jerk "study."

Correlation =/= causation. Maybe its not being an environmentalist that causes this behavior, maybe it's a result of, say, people who "buy green" having more money and richer people are more likely to be jerks or something. You get the idea.
 
And the deniers have been SO honest and truthful! Why, they'd never falsify data or draw faulty conclusions. OH WAIT.
The "lies" and "distortions" have been fabricated by the denialist industry.

Then tell me, why does Al Gore live in a mansion on the coast?

I don't see how this is relevant. Environmentalists being jerks doesn't make them wrong.

Not just jerks, more likely to steal, etc... the 'being good/ green' means they are allowed to be 'bad elsewhere' to offset... like they plan on carbon offsets and whatever other nonsense.

No. Newspapers and magazines cry "end of the world." Skeptics, however, can't seem to tell the difference between what scientists say and what journalists say.

Ya, they just make it so that any opposing viewpoint cant be published in certain magazines because of the viewpoint and then say 'see nobody disagrees'...

Dodged? I've never heard this question asked. You know why?

It's ****ing retarded. There isn't any amount of CO2 that would keep the world warm without the sun, because heat does not ****ing work that way. Congratulations on asking what may very well be the dumbest question in history. Nobody talks about CO2 like it's actually an engine. That's idiotic. Show me one instance where anyone, other than yourself, was dumb enough to ask this question?

haha... Al Gore does.

Listen, I know it's retarded... retarded like being told how a life giving gas that's naturally produced when you exhale is actually a deadly neurotoxin level pollutant that needs to be eliminated...

Or you get Bill Gates specialty : climate = PEOPLE * activities/person * co2 per activity... and then goes on to declares "One of these numbers must go down to near zero if we're going to save the earth" . Then there's the malthusian environmentalist whackjob who went and got himself killed for Al Gore's movie and because people are just too stupid to catch on...

They'll say things like 'the sun doesn't matter for global warming' so the suns output isn't even considered in any of the computer models at the IPCC... god I know you're gonna ask for the source... whatever... doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure it was the likes of Al Gore...

I know you're going to say "but those guys aren't the scientists"... it doesn't matter, these are the guys giving them grants and the money to fund the studies, so they'll get the study asked in such a way that guarantees they'll get the result they want.

And if facts damn you then fudge the numbers, right?

It's a noble evil since it's for the earth, right?
 
AGW is a post-Religion Religious Movement to make people spiritually bereft find meaning in their lives. They find meaning by recycling, even when confronted with the fact that much of the recycling is worthless. They buy ****ty little cars because it makes them feel like they have done good for Mother Earth. Doesn't matter that their new little POS Car is more DANGEROUS to be in, they are saving the earth. They turn their AC up, and their heaters down. Never bothering to question why the likes of algore run their AC's down and Heaters up.

AGW on a science level is the gift that keeps on giving. Present a problem that will "Impact all of Man" sometime 20 years from now UNLESS WE ACT! You get Politicians jumping on it for political gain, and you the scientist get lots of money to both study the problem, find political solutions oh and... every now and then proclaim disaster looms 20 years from now. Been saying this **** since the late 80's.
 
Global_Warming_Is_A_Religion.gif


Global-warming-whose-to-blame.gif


global-warming-religion.0.0.0x0.520x388.jpeg


ca0305bd.jpg


12122009.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ahh yes. No real evidence to produce, let's use political cartoons!
 
Ahh yes. No real evidence to produce,

Just like the man made global warming fairy tale believers.

let's use political cartoons!

Lets look at the houses of some of the religious preachers in this country. All are examples of hypocrisy.

Al Gores house in Nashville.(a religious leader in the man made global warming fairy tale)
al-gores-home-in-nashville-2.jpg


Paul and Jan Crouch's mansion (co-founder of TBN)
paul-crouch-mansion.jpg


Kenneth Copeland's house( televangilist)
copeland5.jpg


A Bishop in Chicago's mansion.
MansionChicagoNV.jpg



Sure Al Gore's mansion pales in comparison. I guess he just got into the wrong religion.
 
Last edited:
Just like the man made global warming fairy tale believers.



Lets look at the houses of some of the religious preachers in this country. All are examples of hypocrisy.

Al Gores house in Nashville.(a religious leader in the man made global warming fairy tale)
al-gores-home-in-nashville-2.jpg


Paul and Jan Crouch's mansion (co-founder of TBN)
paul-crouch-mansion.jpg


Kenneth Copeland's house( televangilist)
copeland5.jpg


A Bishop in Chicago's mansion.
MansionChicagoNV.jpg



Sure Al Gore's mansion pales in comparison. I guess he just got into the wrong religion.

Ah! The dirty bedroom defence.

"But Muuuuum Billy doesn't have to clean HIS bedroom up so why should I?"
 
The personal lifestyle habits of non-scientists is extremely relevant to peer-reviewed science and the realities of physics!
 
Ah! The dirty bedroom defence.

"But Muuuuum Billy doesn't have to clean HIS bedroom up so why should I?"

Actually its more of the "they do not believe a word of what they preach" defense.
 
Last edited:
Actually its more of the "they do not believe a word of what they preach" defense.

This has been used before against Gore, but what's left out of that discussion is that they also pay additional premium for "green energy".

snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use

And the fact that his and his (now ex-)wife's offices and assistant's offices are located in the house. So, in reality, that home is a home + 2 places of business and they pay a green energy offset in the electric bill.

I'll give you some room to point the finger of hypocrisy, but that finger shouldn't be as large as those pointed to ministers who should be preaching Christ's message of caring for the poor while walling themselves up in compounds.

Oh, and the Bishop's house - if it's Catholic or Episcopal is actually owned by the Church as opposed to the individual, so that's also a little different.
 
This has been used before against Gore, but what's left out of that discussion is that they also pay additional premium for "green energy".

snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use

And the fact that his and his (now ex-)wife's offices and assistant's offices are located in the house. So, in reality, that home is a home + 2 places of business and they pay a green energy offset in the electric bill..

A carbon offset/green energy offset is a load of crap. Its does not make you more environmentally conscience, it just makes you a hypocrite. Because if they actually bought into the man made global warming fairy tale nonsense they would not live in a mansion, they would not use the I bought offsets to continue to use way more energy than the average American and they most certainly would be trying to lead by example.


Oh, and the Bishop's house - if it's Catholic or Episcopal is actually owned by the Church as opposed to the individual, so that's also a little different

Why does a bishop need to live in a mansion.Jesus didn't live in a mansion.
 
Last edited:
A carbon offset/green energy offset is a load of crap. Its does not make you more environmentally conscience, it just makes you a hypocrite. Because if they actually bought into the man made global warming fairy tale nonsense they would not live in a mansion, they would not use the I bought offsets to continue to use way more energy than the average American and they most certainly would be trying to lead by example.




Why does a bishop need to live in a mansion.Jesus didn't live in a mansion.

I agree, buying offsets isn't as good as building a green home. But it's better than doing nothing. The "offsets" are actually paid to NES (who provides my electric service, btw) for their cost of supporting wind and solar energy farms. Imperfect, but better than driving a hummer and flipping everyone else the bird (but I'll agree, only by a margin).

With regards to the bishop's mansion, you'll have to ask the diocese. But most diocese provide housing for the priest and bishop because pay is generally rather low compared to other professions. It's ostentatious, sure, but it's not the bishop's house. It's the diocese's house. Why does the Pope have his own nation, for that matter?
 
AGW is a post-Religion Religious Movement to make people spiritually bereft find meaning in their lives. They find meaning by recycling, even when confronted with the fact that much of the recycling is worthless. They buy ****ty little cars because it makes them feel like they have done good for Mother Earth. Doesn't matter that their new little POS Car is more DANGEROUS to be in, they are saving the earth. They turn their AC up, and their heaters down. Never bothering to question why the likes of algore run their AC's down and Heaters up.

AGW on a science level is the gift that keeps on giving. Present a problem that will "Impact all of Man" sometime 20 years from now UNLESS WE ACT! You get Politicians jumping on it for political gain, and you the scientist get lots of money to both study the problem, find political solutions oh and... every now and then proclaim disaster looms 20 years from now. Been saying this **** since the late 80's.

In the book, written by the global think tank Club of Rome, called 'the first global revolution', the overall thesis is how : “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

First I would note Al Gores membership in the club of rome (from around the time the kyoto accord was being discussed).

Second, if we do consider this 'environmentalist / green movement' as some 'neo religion', then it most certainly is not a religion based on morality, ethics, or any sort of love for the human race. Instead, this would be a religion of control freaks out to decide what is 'proper environmentalism' (whatever the term used is moot), if you drive a car that's not the ideal gas mileage of ANY car, you might as well be driving a tank.

It doesn't matter what 'reality' is, you try to bring up some REAL environmental disasters in the making, with hard documentation, and they don't wanna hear it, it's just human activity is bad, and you should be taxed for the privilege of your activities.

I'm going to continue this train of thought further down...

Ah! The dirty bedroom defence.

"But Muuuuum Billy doesn't have to clean HIS bedroom up so why should I?"

One word. Hypocrisy.

The crazed sex poodle (according to the rape allegations... which I would tend to believe since she had the dress with his ummm... DNA testable material) goes around telling the world how if we don't curb co2 usage drastically that the earth will heat up by 500 degrees a week untill the atmosphere burns away. The alternative is to sign on to a tax that will be used for his company on the promise that he'll 'offset'... in other words he's going to promise to plant a tree some day in some third world country.... with the BILLIONS Of dollars going through his companies.

This has been used before against Gore, but what's left out of that discussion is that they also pay additional premium for "green energy".

snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use

And the fact that his and his (now ex-)wife's offices and assistant's offices are located in the house. So, in reality, that home is a home + 2 places of business and they pay a green energy offset in the electric bill.

Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa - Real Estate Channel Global News Center

He bought a new home on the beach... you can tell he's REAL concerned about climate change and rising sea levels.

I'll give you some room to point the finger of hypocrisy, but that finger shouldn't be as large as those pointed to ministers who should be preaching Christ's message of caring for the poor while walling themselves up in compounds.

Ya, most preachers have sold out 5-10 years ago... it's called the "clergy response teams", Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared - KSLA News 12 Shreveport, Louisiana | . So, this doesn't shock me as much as it might others... there are some good preachers I'm sure that keep true to the faith, but it's a bit of a sad state.

Oh, and the Bishop's house - if it's Catholic or Episcopal is actually owned by the Church as opposed to the individual, so that's also a little different.

Understand though, he still flies around in private jets, limo service, and all the amenities... The simple fact that if he REALLY was going to put his money where his mouth is, he would be living simply in spite of his wealth... 'for the earth'... but no, he's got a multi-million dollar beach house... while preaching that sea levels are going to rise 500 ft world wide every year untill the water puts out the sun.

(BTW, the absurdity is to point out the absurdity... not because I actually am thinking like that)
 
I agree, buying offsets isn't as good as building a green home. But it's better than doing nothing. The "offsets" are actually paid to NES (who provides my electric service, btw) for their cost of supporting wind and solar energy farms. Imperfect, but better than driving a hummer and flipping everyone else the bird (but I'll agree, only by a margin).

5 Ways People Are Trying to Save the World (That Don't Work) | Cracked.com
#1.
Buying Carbon Offsets

Why People Do It:


Unless you think it would be awesome to have have Earth turn into freaking Tatooine, you're probably in favor of stopping global warming.

Carbon offsets are supposed to make you carbon neutral, by paying to have someone else reduce their carbon dioxide output in an amount equal to the amount you are putting into the air with your decadent, Hummer-driving lifestyle.

Why They Shouldn't:

At the end of the day, much like buying your girlfriend a bracelet after a night in the champagne room, it's debatable whether you are doing anything except paying to clear your own guilty conscience.

You're buying a promise from someone else that they are going to reduce their own carbon emissions by a certain amount. The trouble is that currently there is no standard or authority that monitors the offsets.

Investigations found that often, people buying offsets have bought worthless promises. Even when the company offering the offset follows through, there still might not be any additional benefit because the company who took your credits was already planning to reduce its emissions anyway.

Take, for example, the company that sold carbon offsets based on a plan to reduce methane gas at a landfill. It sounded great until investigations revealed that the methane reduction plan was in place long before the offsets were sold. That part of the plan is all well and good, but it completely destroys the whole concept of buying and selling carbon offsets. Nothing was being "offset."


Read more: 5 Ways People Are Trying to Save the World (That Don't Work) | Cracked.com
With regards to the bishop's mansion, you'll have to ask the diocese. But most diocese provide housing for the priest and bishop because pay is generally rather low compared to other professions. It's ostentatious, sure, but it's not the bishop's house. It's the diocese's house.

The catholic church was not providing a house for the priest or bishop to live in, they are providing him a mansion. Jesus did live a in a mansion, Jesus didn't turn water into wine for the hell of it.

Why does the Pope have his own nation, for that matter?

I have no idea why those pagans insist on him having his own nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom