Czech president: Gore is insane.

[DanS]

I'm sympathetic to the views of the Czech president. We'll have to see what his book actually says.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
You are siding with the evolution is just a "theory" crowd,

You're bringing up irrelevent points and I don't know why.

If almost all experts agree on a subject, it means something. Very rarely they are wrong.

Well answer the question asked in the post you quoted. Hell we can expand it to include the consensus against the work of Alfred Wegener if it makes you feel better. Personally I think the constant claims of consensus only serves to make a claim ring as unsound. How often do you hear someone harp about the consensus of scientists around the fact that E=mc2 and the like?

[RGBVideo]

Re: Czech president: Gore is insane.

Originally posted by Ned
And to think we almost elected Gore, the bible-school flunkout. Instead Gore will receive the Academy Award for best leftist documentary, in the legacy of Michael Moore. The loonier, the better for the coke-addled, pill-popping, bed-hopping Hollywood crowd.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Wow, another anti-Democrat character assassination thread based on nothing but endless ad hominems. Supported by an article from the Drudge Report, oh what a surprise! Hey, remember that Drudge report FLASH NEWS that revealed how Gore had blamed cigarette smoking for global warming in his UN speech, and then when curious minds turned to read the transcript of Gore's speech at UN, turned out he hadn't mentioned neither smoking or cigarettes at all?

Anyway, so the count for pointless smear-threads about Democrats is now... what, two for Gore, one for Hillary, three for Obama before the spring of 2007?

[MRT144]

Ned is Coulter

[Rufus T. Firefly]

What strikes me most about these nutjobs (I cheerfully include both Ned and Vaclav Klaus in that characterization) is the claim that there's been no debate. At this point, it's all debate; on one side are almost all scientists working in the field, and on the other are a few contrary scientists, a bunch of conservative politicians, and lots of corporations. They each get their opinions out there with great regularity. That's what debate is.

Ah, you say, but what about debate within the scientific community? News flash: it's been going on for decades, and its pretty much over. And that's the whole point of debate -- to move toward an answer to the question. But "debate," in the Nediverse version of it (shared by many conservatives, particularly creationists), seems to mean "open-ended discussion in which all opinions are treated as equally informed and relevent, forever." Ironically, this is exactly the kind of postmodern thinking that conservatives usually damn the Left for.

[MRT144]

"open-ended discussion in which all opinions are treated as equally informed and relevent, forever."

this actually only applies when the party knows they are wrong. its a stalling technique.

[Deity Dude]

Arrian:

My position is probably closest to yours. Basically I'm not an expert and dont claim to know the answer. What bothers me is that it sure seems like 1 side, those in favor of the man-made warming hypothesis, don't want ANYTHING to do with the other side. So I feel like I am being steamrolled.

Maybe my post would have better placed in a different thread because I in no way think the Czech president has the answer. I am sympathetic to his general point of view, even though some of the specifics seem a little over the top.

My point is, if this is so obvious that it is man-made why does it seem like that group never wants to debate the issue. They rely on the tactics of the false majority:

"I'm not gonna even take the time to honor such a discussion" "Every credible scientist agrees" "There is an absolute consensus"

- and when someone credible disagrees:

"They are a nobody" "I've never heard of them" "They are a whacko" "They are funded by Exxon"

If I was so confident about a supposedly "Factual" determination I would debate the issue non-stop in an attempt to persuade other people to my point of view as opposed to dismissing the other side, which only perpetuates the belief that they might be right.

For example, if there were some popular movement that the earth was the center of the universe I am sure plenty of people would be willing to debate the issue and point out the indisputable facts with the accompanying supporting evidence. That doesn't seem to be happening here.

[Lancer]

I think it's great that we're getting all that oil out of the earth where it might polute the ground water.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What strikes me most about these nutjobs (I cheerfully include both Ned and Vaclav Klaus in that characterization) is the claim that there's been no debate. At this point, it's all debate; on one side are almost all scientists working in the field, and on the other are a few contrary scientists, a bunch of conservative politicians, and lots of corporations. They each get their opinions out there with great regularity. That's what debate is.

Ah, you say, but what about debate within the scientific community? News flash: it's been going on for decades, and its pretty much over. And that's the whole point of debate -- to move toward an answer to the question. But "debate," in the Nediverse version of it (shared by many conservatives, particularly creationists), seems to mean "open-ended discussion in which all opinions are treated as equally informed and relevent, forever." Ironically, this is exactly the kind of postmodern thinking that conservatives usually damn the Left for.

Rufus, do you note any internal inconsistency with saying both that there is a healthy debate and that debate is pretty much over in the scientific community. The reason I post these threads is to show that there is a positive suppression of debate by the activists. They refuse to discuss the issue, claim there is a consensus of opinion and ridicule anyone who does not adopt these views as "nutjobs" or corporate whores.*

Rufus, are you an activist?

* "In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: 'Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . ' "

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/02/13/on_comparing_global_warming_denial_to_holocaust_denial

[Ned]

Re: Re: Czech president: Gore is insane.

Originally posted by VJ

Wow, another anti-Democrat character assassination thread based on nothing but endless ad hominems. Supported by an article from the Drudge Report, oh what a surprise! Hey, remember that Drudge report FLASH NEWS that revealed how Gore had blamed cigarette smoking for global warming in his UN speech, and then when curious minds turned to read the transcript of Gore's speech at UN, turned out he hadn't mentioned neither smoking or cigarettes at all?

Anyway, so the count for pointless smear-threads about Democrats is now... what, two for Gore, one for Hillary, three for Obama before the spring of 2007?

VJ, if we were to count Dem-bashing threads and Republican-bashing threads here, which count would be higher in your opinion?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Re: Re: Czech president: Gore is insane.

Originally posted by VJ

Wow, another anti-Democrat character assassination thread based on nothing but endless ad hominems. Supported by an article from the Drudge Report, oh what a surprise! Hey, remember that Drudge report FLASH NEWS that revealed how Gore had blamed cigarette smoking for global warming in his UN speech, and then when curious minds turned to read the transcript of Gore's speech at UN, turned out he hadn't mentioned neither smoking or cigarettes at all?

Anyway, so the count for pointless smear-threads about Democrats is now... what, two for Gore, one for Hillary, three for Obama before the spring of 2007?

I'll grant you Drudge slants hard against Demonrats. (Rightly so ) Realize however Drudge is however one of the foremost advocates of manmade global warming at least one would presume as evidenced by the plethora of articles he posts in favor thereof.

[Last Conformist]

If I wanted to learn about global warming, I could, I don't know, look at the IPCC report. Why should anyone give milli**** what Gore or Klaus says?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
If I was so confident about a supposedly "Factual" determination I would debate the issue non-stop in an attempt to persuade other people to my point of view as opposed to dismissing the other side, which only perpetuates the belief that they might be right.

Exactly. Shouting down the opposition and shutting down the debate never looks good to me.

In the recent thread about the proposed laws in Europe against genocide denial, most posters felt that making denial illegal made it look like there was something to hide. WRT climate change, there are important principles of scientific method at stake.

[Solly]

One thing I keep hearing is "THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING".

Erm, can someone describe to me this overwhelming evidence because I haven't seen it yet.

They almost sound like those dedicated bible-bashers when asked for their proof of God, "look around you, it's EVERYWHERE".

[Solly]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
If I wanted to learn about global warming, I could, I don't know, look at the IPCC report. Why should anyone give milli**** what Gore or Klaus says?

Why should anyone trust the IPCC? They've lied before (e.g. about the hockey stick) and not made apologies or admissions.

They change the start and end dates of assessment periods in order to get the "right result" for headlines.

They publish a summary before the actual body of the report, in order that their spurious claims can not be investigated before the media spin machine gets into action.