Why cant Global Warming deniers debate the science instead of attacking Al Gore?

Question

All I see is rants about Gore, how its all about Money, and the new liberal religion. Haven't the cons got some facts to back up their scientific "proof" against it?

BTW - I have the science, the impact variables, the possible plans for mitigation, and the estimated economic impact under numerous scenarios here;

http://www.ipcc.ch/

One stop shopping for those who want the see current science and don't just bark at the moon with pseudo scientific denials.

Fascinating - even now they attack the messenger and not the science. If cons have these proofs it isn't true why not post them? Skeeered of looking like a moron when I shoot them down?

I give credit to sociald for trying - however the article list five scientists who are not disputing whether man causes GW - but some inaccuracies in the documentary.

Oops - my error I transposed neb s with sociald.

the above meant for neb s.

sociald - the cato institute isn't a science outfit. Please post science not opinion of an ultra conservative libertarian thinktank.

My thanks to the rest who posted videos (grin) and senate subcommittee reports. (double grin)
Here's a C for the effort.

To my favorite spinner Truthsayer - We have done our duty to the burden of proof - look at the link and stop quoting garbage science that's been repeatedly debunked.

Dear mymadsky - thanks for pointing that out - but if you looked for the science you would find it there in abundance instead of trying to find things that only support your preconceived view of it....

Here is a small sample;

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(E).pdf

Answer 1

why should they read when ad hominem fallacies are so much easier to digest?

Answer 2

First of all, I think there's a major difference between the Global Warming deniers, and those that see this whole charade taking us where we shouldn't go.

Second of all, what type of credentials do you have to claim what is fact and what is not. Sure, it's from a website, and yeah, it's got UN backing (we've seen the good that does world-wide), but who are you to say, "yup, this is accurate science". I'm not debating IT, I'm debating you and your inclination that this is FACT, and the end-all, be-all of the arguement, but I digress...

Now, for the meat and potatoes...

Carbon Credits...a joke. You want to know where the 'New Religion' terminology comes from? Indulgences. The Catholic Church essentially funded itself by selling penance, or forgiveness (indulgences), to it's followers. The new liberal-thought wave is seeking the same thing...forgiveness for your polluting ways via carbon credits and offsets...pay for your sins of driving an SUV, and thusly, fund our government.

So let's keep talking money here, shall we? At their core, what are these "credits"? A tax, and look at what a wonderful example the tax system of the United States is. Can you name for me the dollar amount of your taxes that went to Welfare? To a federally funded social program for children? Of course not. In fact, if it were even possible, I'd be willing to bet it'd take years before you could follow your own money trail via tax dollars through the government cauffers. So what makes you think this tax is going to be any different? The "good will" of the politicians? THEY'RE POLITICIANS!!! Sure, that money will make it's way to a global warming cause EVENTUALLY, but I'd be willing to bet that at least once, just once in our lifetime, money from a carbon credit will fill up the private jet of an oil lobbyist on his way home from Washington...it's the brutal irony that is our government and you know this is true.

This is not an arguement of science, but an arguement of the merits of global warming. Did this begin as a great tax scheme...not at all, but people around the world have begun to see one thing...$$$$....and when you're being called out as someone who doesn't care for your planet, enough people will open their wallets without question, just to be left alone.

An idea? Why not allow capitalism to run it's course. Last I checked, that's exactly what brought us the America we know today, not carbon credits, taxes and subsidies. The issue has been brought to the table...we need to protect the only home that the human race has known, PERIOD. That's a given. But allow this thought process to flow through the inventors who will bring us new and cleaner technologies, the men and women who will take a closer look at their living arrangements and recognize that they could use a smaller home, less water, and could probably ride their bike to work just as easily as they can start up their Explorer.

Taxes have never solved a problem, and in fact, it's tax cuts that spawn periods of economic growth...how will another one fix anything?

Hopefully, you understand that it's not an anti-global wamring stance, but that it's an anti-more government tax and regulation stance.

Answer 3

Because, global warming believers dismiss any sort of science that might even hint that global warming is caused by something else other than humans. This is a link to an article by National Geographic suggesting that it is possible, that since Mars is warming at the same time, and similar rate as the earth is may be a warming of the sun rather than human made.

You may or may not believe this, and that is fine. We don't know for sure what is causing global warming, and science is always learning new things. Things we never thought of before. Even as recent as 20 years ago, we had no proof of planets outiside of our solar system, now we know of many. 10 years ago we thought the age of the universe was 8-10 billion years old, now we know it is closer to 20. We may find something out about the sun, and it warms and cools every so often and this is a warming phase. Then again maybe not, but when someone who is skeptical of global warming as a human cause presents an alternate theory, global warming believers don't need to dismiss it as lies, or right wing hogwash.

Answer 4

Granted, that Global Warming is a trend that is caused by increasing greenhouse gases (both from nature and man-made sources). Now, what will we do about it?

I think America is the biggest contributer to Global Warming, followed not far by China. But these two have very different sources of pollution.

America: Most of the pollution is from automobiles and trucks.

China: Most of the pollution is from industries.

So, let's say Al Gore is right.. What will we do about Global Warming?

Hint: America has the cheapest gasoline prices in the world. Why?

Answer 5

I don't deny it, I just deny it's man-made. I mean you gotta look at the big picture here. When I mean the big picture I mean that giant ball of hydrogen gas 93million miles away that heats and cools our earth and the rest of the solar system. The Sun for any idiots out there. Polar ice caps on Mars are melting. There's global warming and global cooling. It occurs in 12000yr cycles with 100yr sub-cycles.

What they're aiming for is to make us all believe that our cars and trucks are the cause of global warming so they can put in a global carbon tax. That won't stop their myth. Volcanoes produce more CO2 in an eruption(example: Mt. St. Helens) than man has in the last hundred years. Documented, research it, and stop believing has-beens who think their so FCUKING smart.

Answer 6

It's the same old RedsStater attitude that made them fight for slavery. They simply don't like being told anything by a non Red.

In the Civil War a very small minority of the Confederate Army actually owned slaves. But a million RedsStater types grabbed the Stars and Bars and went to war for Bush... I mean the Southern Aristocracy.

Today millions of the spawn of Dixie are again rallying to the cry of the Super Rich, There is no Global Warming Let the smoke Stacks Blow!!!

Blow Smoke Blow

Go big Red Go

Answer 7

Your website provides the rub itself...

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.

The whole agency is NONSCIENTIFIC..

Both sides have created a theory and ONLY use the science that supports THEIR views and completly ignore the science that contradicts their views. Until oneside can account for the holes in their theory it will remain a theory and not fact...that is the basis of science.

Answer 8

OK see the burden of proof is on YOU precisely BECAUSE you're the ones seeking to restrict our freedom of action.

The fact is it's been warmer for other multi-century periods when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were lower.

That means you can't just assume that the very rough (within 7-8 decades) correlation of THIS warming period with increased atmospheric CO2 concentration means that the one was caused by the other.

Answer 9

OK. Here's some sound science, presented by a politician. If algore (not a scientist) can present science, so can our side.

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/HOT%20AND%20COLD%20MEDIA%20SPIN%20CYCLE.pdf

I will concede algore is his own large round ecosystem, which quite possibly qualifies him as a small globe. So the global warming, greenhouse gasses, pollution, etc that he is seeing may be his own. Maybe we could even replace the recently deposed Pluto with planet gore, mostly composed of hot gasses.

Answer 10

Maybe because Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about. Sort of like listening to Rosie O'Donnel rant and rave about guns.
Plus, Al Gore is the ultimate hypocrite....telling everyone to conserve when he and Tipper live in a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion using 20x's the average in electricity.
And as stated above, there is just as much evidence against global warming as for it.

Answer 11

Your link is crap.

It's funny how you believe less than 100 years of data when the Earth has been in existence for more than a few billion years.

Your data was gathered and published by scientists that jumped a bandwagon on the funding express. The same ones, by the way, that did it in the 1970's for the "ice Age" and in the 80's for the "Ozone" scare.

Get a grip. Your "Proof" is junk.



Edit....

Funny thing is...you have several people posting links that are pwning your "proof" yet you prefer to ignore the facts....LoL