Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
Because they say there is no debate when there is one.

Well, unsurprisingly, you're exactly wrong.

Politicians debate it all the time -- hence reports like these.

The mainstream media, similarly, cooperates by constantly treating global warming as a "controversy" and dutifully reporting "both sides" of the issue.

It's certainly a pet netizen debate topic, and I imagine it's debated in barrooms and at socil gatherings across the land.

The only ones not debating it are scientists themselves -- because the scientific community is overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, on the same page on this one.

In short -- no one says there's no debate when there is none. If anything, "they" (politicos, pundits, media) say there is a debate when there is none, at least among people qualified to debate it.

Come to think of it, what this reminds me of almost exactly is America's sad, sorry relationship with evolution. Politicians turn it into a debate, the media turns it into a controversy, but scientists just shrug and move on, in spite of the few crackpots in their ranks who aren't on board.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by BlackCat

No offense, but global warming is a pretty well proved fact. If nothing else, then the speed of greenland glaciers is a very serious proof. The helheim glacier is a good proof of this - currently it's moving at a speed of one meter an hour wich is way more than some five ears ago.

Btw. helheim means something like realm of death.

Global Warming hypothesis is that we are the primary cause of global warming. A often held collorary is that if we don't do something about it, we are doomed.

The second point is garbage, I have seen nothing scientific to suggest this.

The first is the best current theory. Considering the complexity of the system, not at all proven I feel.

jM

[Solly]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Well, unsurprisingly, you're exactly wrong.

Politicians debate it all the time -- hence reports like these.

Not in the UK.

The mainstream media, similarly, cooperates by constantly treating global warming as a "controversy" and dutifully reporting "both sides" of the issue.

I have only ever seen one newspaper give a balanced viewpoint in the UK. Scare-story-realism doesn't sell.

It's certainly a pet netizen debate topic, and I imagine it's debated in barrooms and at socil gatherings across the land.

I've never heard anyone talk about climate change "in real life".

The only ones not debating it are scientists themselves -- because the scientific community is overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, on the same page on this one.

i) if that were true it would be disgraceful given the massive uncertainties surrounding the infant science and its purported social importance.

ii) fortunately, it isn't true

In short -- no one says there's no debate when there is none. If anything, "they" (politicos, pundits, media) say there is a debate when there is none, at least among people qualified to debate it.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Well, unsurprisingly, you're exactly wrong.

Politicians debate it all the time -- hence reports like these.

Yeah, and those politicians that do it is called "well known oil industry hack" etc.

The mainstream media, similarly, cooperates by constantly treating global warming as a "controversy" and dutifully reporting "both sides" of the issue.

PLEASE !! give links to those meadias. I would really like to read comments from unbiased medias on this subject.

The only ones not debating it are scientists themselves -- because the scientific community is overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, on the same page on this one.

In short -- no one says there's no debate when there is none. If anything, "they" (politicos, pundits, media) say there is a debate when there is none, at least among people qualified to debate it.

Come to think of it, what this reminds me of almost exactly is America's sad, sorry relationship with evolution. Politicians turn it into a debate, the media turns it into a controversy, but scientists just shrug and move on, in spite of the few crackpots in their ranks who aren't on board.

This is pure BS - there are lots of scientists that disagree. Come to think about it, the denial of discussing the facts reminds me of the ID'ers denial of accepting the scientific facts of evolution.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ramo
James Inhofe (the guy who wrote the report) is the epitomy of the politicization of science, and is quite possibly the dumbest Senator in the country. He's the guy who, during the gay marriage debate, put up a chart of his family, bragging about the lack of homosexuality within it.

Do you have a link? Irrelevant or not, that sounds pretty damned funny.

[Solly]

"This is pure BS - there are lots of scientists that disagree."

- you probably won't find them at the censored unreal climate though, the website of Michael Mann and the scientifically bankrupt hockey-stick.

[Drake Tungsten]

and I imagine it's debated in barrooms and at socil gatherings across the land.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Global Warming hypothesis is that we are the primary cause of global warming. A often held collorary is that if we don't do something about it, we are doomed.

The second point is garbage, I have seen nothing scientific to suggest this.

The first is the best current theory. Considering the complexity of the system, not at all proven I feel.

jM

No objections, it is still a valid theory that human actions are the cause, but it isn't proved and there are alternative theories.

I may have checked this current Argentinian red wine too deeply, but I can't really figure out what you mean with "The second point is garbage" ?

If it's about the helheim glacier, I might have been a bit premature since it was a comment from a danish publication about a reseach that just have fininshed but not yet published,.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"This is pure BS - there are lots of scientists that disagree."

- you probably won't find them at the censored unreal climate though, the website of Michael Mann and the scientifically bankrupt hockey-stick.

WHAT !!! Are you saying that scientists isn't unbiased ?????

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No objections, it is still a valid theory that human actions are the cause, but it isn't proved and there are alternative theories.

I may have checked this current Argentinian red wine too deeply, but I can't really figure out what you mean with "The second point is garbage" ?

If it's about the helheim glacier, I might have been a bit premature since it was a comment from a danish publication about a reseach that just have fininshed but not yet published,.

How in the world does a glacier melting mean that we are doomed, much less the planet?

JM

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


How in the world does a glacier melting mean that we are doomed, much less the planet?

JM

Ouch. I think that we have misunderstood each other somewhere in this thread.

The glacier mentioned is a pretty good measurement of the fact that climate IS changing.

There has been an upwards moving rise in melting of greenland ice.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Elok


Do you have a link? Irrelevant or not, that sounds pretty damned funny.

Homosexuality

On June 6, 2006, in a speech on the Senate floor about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, Inhofe said, pointing at a large photograph of his family:

... my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship."[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inhofefamily-noglbt.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

[Solly]

Originally posted by BlackCat




The glacier mentioned is a pretty good measurement of the fact that climate IS changing.

Does it mean the climate is changing at a rate that is not within natural variation?

[Elok]

Holy crap, what a goofball! Dominionist, too. Thanks, Rufus.

[Jon Miller]

Warming climate: very well understood, I think.
Man's involvement: much less understood, I think, still the best theory to date. (That we are primarily responsible)
That the climate is going to change to **** us all over: Pure speculation.

JM