Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Memphis Slim]

Why exactly will Al Gore NOT debate global warming? If he's so certain that the matter is settled, then he should be able to defeat any opposition they pair him up against. After all, he is Mr. Green*, right?


*Although, I think the green he cares about is "legal tender."

That's all I've been saying..........You want us to do what you say?? You me to make all of these changes that I deem unnecessary (beyond what I already do)???

Then you better be ready to debate this issue!!

Change my mind! Convince me. He just keeps running to the friendly networks and liberal talk shows.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ruuux4AuHfQ
I love D. Miller t:

 

[Memphis Slim]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LnfIfKdAqsU


http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZzmOW4UNmCk


t:t:

 

[Carcharodon]

I want to french-kiss Al Gore. :heart:

 

[Handsome Rob]

What's with you guys and your hard-ons for Al Gore? The dude isn't a scientist, and I wouldn't call him an expert. At all. His movie and lectures are compilations of data and information from other people. The thing is, he never pretends otherwise.

Seriously, it's disturbing how you guys obsess over him. You should both have a three-way with Gore and get it over with.

Hey, there's an idea to help cool down the world: Snowballing with Al Gore! Go for it. You know you want to.

Actually, it has more to do with a man who is the "anointed" head of the global warming environmental movement who makes proclamations like "the science is settled" while at the same time refusing to engage the opposition.

As I've said before, I'm a global warming skeptic, and that has nothing to do with Al Gore. What I would really like to see is a substantive debate from the best of both sides of the issue. But, it seems like one side doesn't want to do any debating. They just want to say that the matter is settled, and that's it.

It just seems a little--I don't know--cowardly?

Let's flip the coin. If Al Gore wanted to debate global warming with a prominent skeptic, and the skeptic refused, what would you think about him/her? Would you think the debate was refused because the skeptic was scared to lose? Be honest . . .

 

[Memphis Slim]

Yeah...pitiful when people don't have arguments and have resort to making false posts of their opponents.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Actually, it has more to do with a man who is the "anointed" head of the global warming environmental movement who makes proclamations like "the science is settled" while at the same time refusing to engage the opposition.

As I've said before, I'm a global warming skeptic, and that has nothing to do with Al Gore. What I would really like to see is a substantive debate from the best of both sides of the issue. But, it seems like one side doesn't want to do any debating. They just want to say that the matter is settled, and that's it.

It just seems a little--I don't know--cowardly?

Let's flip the coin. If Al Gore wanted to debate global warming with a prominent skeptic, and the skeptic refused, what would you think about him/her? Would you think the debate was refused because the skeptic was scared to lose? Be honest . . .

And that's not asking a lot.

My mind is open to be changed. But you gotta come correct. And if you keep running?? Well.......

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Why exactly will Al Gore NOT debate global warming? If he's so certain that the matter is settled, then he should be able to defeat any opposition they pair him up against. After all, he is Mr. Green*, right?


*Although, I think the green he cares about is "legal tender."

who would AL Gore debate?

 

[Carcharodon]

Yeah...pitiful when people don't have arguments and have resort to making false posts of their opponents.

That's almost as bad as focusing on...er, sorry, obsessing over some figure-head in order to avoid an argument that would involve actual scientific debate.

Oh, wait...


Oh, and opponent? Don't flatter yourself.

 

[Carcharodon]

Actually, it has more to do with a man who is the "anointed" head of the global warming environmental movement who makes proclamations like "the science is settled" while at the same time refusing to engage the opposition.

As I've said before, I'm a global warming skeptic, and that has nothing to do with Al Gore. What I would really like to see is a substantive debate from the best of both sides of the issue. But, it seems like one side doesn't want to do any debating. They just want to say that the matter is settled, and that's it.

It just seems a little--I don't know--cowardly?

Let's flip the coin. If Al Gore wanted to debate global warming with a prominent skeptic, and the skeptic refused, what would you think about him/her? Would you think the debate was refused because the skeptic was scared to lose? Be honest . . .

Is the skeptic involved in research? Your scenario is half-baked.

I wouldn't ask a non-scientist to debate. Period. That's what you're missing. Who cares if he's been, "anointed?" That doesn't mean anything. I certainly don't regard him as some sort of messiah, and I would take the opinion of an actual research scientist over his any day of the week.

His movie had inaccuracies, and I can accept that. This whole, "Let's *********e over Al Gore and attack him rather than the bajillion scientists that support the theory," seems nothing more than a petty diversion tactic.

 

[Carcharodon]

And that's not asking a lot.

My mind is open to be changed. But you gotta come correct. And if you keep running?? Well.......

...and only Al Gore can change it for you? Wow. Interesting.

So...you repeatedly blast him, yet he's the only guy you will listen to. Well, I guess you never were known on these boards for your skills in logic.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Actually, it has more to do with a man who is the "anointed" head of the global warming environmental movement who makes proclamations like "the science is settled" while at the same time refusing to engage the opposition.

As I've said before, I'm a global warming skeptic, and that has nothing to do with Al Gore. What I would really like to see is a substantive debate from the best of both sides of the issue. But, it seems like one side doesn't want to do any debating. They just want to say that the matter is settled, and that's it.

It just seems a little--I don't know--cowardly?

Let's flip the coin. If Al Gore wanted to debate global warming with a prominent skeptic, and the skeptic refused, what would you think about him/her? Would you think the debate was refused because the skeptic was scared to lose? Be honest . . .

wow, under your logic the " anointed leader of the free world " would have to be engaged in battle like the kings of old.
you know, defending freedom and stuff.

now, I'll be honest, if Gore was to debate another non-scientist, cool, go ahead, but if you're going to have him debate a scientist, isn't the cowardly move on your side?
how about this, two scientists debating each other about climate change.
granted, there is not a lot to debate, since the debate has changed from " there is no climate change " to " ok, there is climate change but man has very little to do with it".

how about that? that seems fair to me, and we leave Gore out of it, since he is not responsible for the discovery nor the science.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Is the skeptic involved in research? Your scenario is half-baked.

I wouldn't ask a non-scientist to debate. Period. That's what you're missing. Who cares if he's been, "anointed?" That doesn't mean anything. I certainly don't regard him as some sort of messiah, and I would take the opinion of an actual research scientist over his any day of the week.

His movie had inaccuracies, and I can accept that. This whole, "Let's *********e over Al Gore and attack him rather than the bajillion scientists that support the theory," seems nothing more than a petty diversion tactic.

Actually, my debate would have the best on both sides . . . like I originally said. Read again the part in my post where I said my skepticism "has nothing to do with Al Gore" and "substantive debate from the best of both sides of the issue." If the global warming alarmists want to put up Gore, fine. If they want to put their best research scientist forward, fine. I just want the debate. That's all I'm asking for. I'm not a scientist, so I need to hear both sides of the issue, and a debate is the best way of getting that. I'm certainly not going to fall lockstep behind someone simply because he or she is on my side of the political aisle.

I don't like Al Gore because he's a flaming hypocrite on environmental matters: "do as I say, not as I do." He expects the common man to completely change his life for the environment, while Gore himself continues to consume massive amounts of energy--all the while claiming it's OK because he can buy "carbon offsets." But, I don't go around saying global warming is a fraud simply because criticizing Gore is as an easy out to actually having to debate the issue. I think you're making unfounded assumptions there, slick.

 

[Handsome Rob]

wow, under your logic the " anointed leader of the free world " would have to be engaged in battle like the kings of old.
you know, defending freedom and stuff.

now, I'll be honest, if Gore was to debate another non-scientist, cool, go ahead, but if you're going to have him debate a scientist, isn't the cowardly move on your side?
how about this, two scientists debating each other about climate change.
granted, there is not a lot to debate, since the debate has changed from " there is no climate change " to " ok, there is climate change but man has very little to do with it".

how about that? that seems fair to me, and we leave Gore out of it, since he is not responsible for the discovery nor the science.

Read my response to Shark Boy. Like I said, "the best of both sides," and I don't care who they put up. I just want the debate.

 

[Memphis Slim]

I'm sorry. I think the field general needs to belly up.

 

[Whirlysplat]

I hate English weather!!!!!!

 

[Captain_BluTac]

Are you kidding, it was awesome, waking up to heavy snow, however next time I think I will wear shoes.

 

[Whirlysplat]

Are you kidding, it was awesome, waking up to heavy snow, however next time I think I will wear shoes.

No, no it isn't....Not when we want summer warmth, long nights, sun on the shoulders. No, I hate unseasonal, stupid weather!

 

[Captain_BluTac]

your just a grumpy Susan.

 

[Whirlysplat]

your just a grumpy Susan.

I hate grey skies. I want the sun!

 

[Captain_BluTac]

I prefer grey autumn / winter skies and weather. its just more pleasant.

 

[Whirlysplat]

I prefer grey autumn / winter skies and weather. its just more pleasant.

Y-yes, most people go somewhere cold on holiday, because it's nicer.........

 

[Addendum]

I hate grey skies. I want the sun!

Then don't live in England t:

It's like someone living in the Sahara and complaining about the heat

 

[Captain_BluTac]

Y-yes, most people go somewhere cold on holiday, because it's nicer.........

I prefer Skiing to sunbathing and I would rather go to Alaska than Johannesburg.

 

[arachnid-guy]

It was AMAZE!

Til the sun came out...gr.

 

[Captain_BluTac]

It was AMAZE!

Til the sun came out...gr.

Let's block out the sun!