Why do people hate Hillary?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Obviously he does matter, or he wouldn't be mentioned constantly by the ignorant. Al Gore is dead wrong about a great many things, and his share of the Nobel prize is a travesty, but much of the derision he receives is from those who have no clue what exactly he is wrong about, and mock him for false reasons or as a generic "liberal" punching bag. He is a man who has accomplished much, but whose accomplishments are ignored because of the regrettably poor way in which he communicates, and the threat he poses to those who endeavor to avoid facing certain facts.

Those who mock him are often those who are far more wrong on environmental issues than Gore is. Gore exaggerates the facts, while his critics tend to ignore the facts entirely. Which is worse?

Well the conservatives have Richard Lindzen, MIT professor, and the liberal wacko alarmists have Al Gore, you decide which person has more credibility.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by woot

Obviously he does matter, or he wouldn't be mentioned constantly by the ignorant. Al Gore is dead wrong about a great many things, and his share of the Nobel prize is a travesty, but much of the derision he receives is from those who have no clue what exactly he is wrong about, and mock him for false reasons or as a generic "liberal" punching bag. He is a man who has accomplished much, but whose accomplishments are ignored because of the regrettably poor way in which he communicates, and the threat he poses to those who endeavor to avoid facing certain facts.

Those who mock him are often those who are far more wrong on environmental issues than Gore is. Gore exaggerates the facts, while his critics tend to ignore the facts entirely. Which is worse?

Gore only exaggerates the facts? Interesting. He's a bald faced liar.

It's worse to make people think you know what the hell you're talking about, when in fact, you know you don't, which is exactly what Gore does. Those who you claim to ignore the facts - perhaps I'm one of them and if so, I have no problem with it because nobody like you will explain why, if global warming is a man made problem, is there proof that the earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles? It would seem that it is the environmentalist crowd that sucks up to Al Gore who ignore the facts that the earth goes through cycles and we're in a warming cycle right now. Nothing can stop it or slow it down.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Well the conservatives have Richard Lindzen, MIT professor, and the liberal wacko alarmists have Al Gore, you decide which person has more credibility.

The liberal wacko alarmists have the great majority of the scientific community, and the conservatives have Ann Coulter. You decide which side has more credibility.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

The liberal wacko alarmists have the great majority of the scientific community, ...

... and a few governships, and senatorial and congressional seats. As long as we're counting.

[Homo Erectus]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Gore only exaggerates the facts? Interesting. He's a bald faced liar.

It's worse to make people think you know what the hell you're talking about, when in fact, you know you don't, which is exactly what Gore does. Those who you claim to ignore the facts - perhaps I'm one of them and if so, I have no problem with it because nobody like you will explain why, if global warming is a man made problem, is there proof that the earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles? It would seem that it is the environmentalist crowd that sucks up to Al Gore who ignore the facts that the earth goes through cycles and we're in a warming cycle right now. Nothing can stop it or slow it down.

IPU - How is it that a lay person like yourself (I'm assuming you're not a climatologist), can conclude that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is out to lunch with respect to global warming? Do you honestly think they've never considered the fact that the earth's climate is cyclical, and they failed to consider that fact when they developed their global warming analysis? You can always find a handful of scientists who will espouse a contrarian view, or worse, will sell-out to big business and outright lie (see "scientists" on big business payrolls testifying before congress that smoking tobacco isn't addictive or otherwise harmful to one's health). Perhaps I'm naive, but if the overwhelming majority of scientists espouse a certain theory, I'm thinking its probably got some merit.

[woot]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Gore only exaggerates the facts? Interesting. He's a bald faced liar.

It's worse to make people think you know what the hell you're talking about, when in fact, you know you don't, which is exactly what Gore does. Those who you claim to ignore the facts - perhaps I'm one of them and if so, I have no problem with it because nobody like you will explain why, if global warming is a man made problem, is there proof that the earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles? It would seem that it is the environmentalist crowd that sucks up to Al Gore who ignore the facts that the earth goes through cycles and we're in a warming cycle right now. Nothing can stop it or slow it down.

Do you really think the experts aren't aware of these cycles? Not only are they aware of them, they know exactly what causes them, how long they last, etc., and yet they still find sufficient evidence to conclude that humans are having a detrimental effect on the environment. Imagine that.

Global warming isn't one of my pet issues, and I think it's not nearly as important as all the other damage we're doing. We're in the middle of a mass extinction event on the scale of the one that killed the dinosaurs, and global warming's role in all these extinctions is relatively minor. What I generally see from global warming deniers is an overall "who cares about the environment" attitude that goes far beyond ignoring facts about global warming specifically.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Homo Erectus

IPU - How is it that a lay person like yourself (I'm assuming you're not a climatologist), can conclude that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is out to lunch with respect to global warming? Do you honestly think they've never considered the fact that the earth's climate is cyclical, and they failed to consider that fact when they developed their global warming analysis? You can always find a handful of scientists who will espouse a contrarian view, or worse, will sell-out to big business and outright lie (see "scientists" on big business payrolls testifying before congress that smoking tobacco isn't addictive or otherwise harmful to one's health). Perhaps I'm naive, but if the overwhelming majority of scientists espouse a certain theory, I'm thinking its probably got some merit.

Scientists can't get past the fact that the have VERY incomplete historical climatological data and that they are taking a very short time span and doing some wild extrapolating.

There are even serious questions about the credibility and methodology of modern record-keeping.

Anyone with even a passing exposure to science and statistical regression should recognize there are problems with mainstream global warming science.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Scientists can't get past the fact that the have VERY incomplete historical climatological data and that they are taking a very short time span and doing some wild extrapolating.

There are even serious questions about the credibility and methodology of modern record-keeping.

Anyone with even a passing exposure to science and statistical regression should recognize there are problems with mainstream global warming science.

Really? I honestly can't believe you people. "Scientists can't get past the fact..." Do you really think that your random thoughts in your spare time are more valid than the findings of the thousands of people who do that stuff all day, every day? It's absolutely amazing to me how many idiots like you there are you honestly believe that they have great insights that the entire scientific community hasn't considered. They are aware of weaknesses in their methods, they are aware of Milankovich cycles, they are aware of solar variations, etc. These aren't stunning revelations that science never thought of.

[Indy Coug]

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2535276

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Really? I honestly can't believe you people. "Scientists can't get past the fact..." Do you really think that your random thoughts in your spare time are more valid than the findings of the thousands of people who do that stuff all day, every day? It's absolutely amazing to me how many idiots like you there are you honestly believe that they have great insights that the entire scientific community hasn't considered. They are aware of weaknesses in their methods, they are aware of Milankovich cycles, they are aware of solar variations, etc. These aren't stunning revelations that science never thought of.

They can take stabs at causation, but the simple fact remains that they don't have measurements of all the potential factors at play during even one previous major climate shift, let alone multiple shifts.

Without those reference points, how can you fit a model? You can't; and therefore scientists are left trying to do extrapolation that goes well beyond the bounds of what their limited historical data can provide.