Al Gore for President: The Inconvenient Truth

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
Please contribute something meaningful to this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL It would appear that anyone who disagrees with you, even in the slightest sense, or even with your use of hyperbole has ZERO chance of ever contributing anything meaningful.

You have stated your credentials for discussing climate change as having been dedicated to the subject, read tons of information and attending numerous talks. I accepted that as sufficient. I put forth my backgorund as a certified engineer with experience in powerplant technology and you dismiss them offhand as "a call to authority."

Seriously dude. Lighten up. Think how difficult it is for the world to accept your force fed beliefs especially when they are shouted loudest by those who have ZERO time for any dissent of any kind and dismiss "out of hand" even those who agree with them, in essence.

I think, your arguing (with whom aside from your own strawman I'm still unsure) distills the very problem of those trying to warn the world of the coming crisis. They do it such a way as to make their audience tune out before the message is ever heard.

Makes me wonder which is the greater danger, the climate crisis or those doing the crap job of delivering the message which makes it far more difficult to do anything about the crisis.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I accepted that as sufficient. I put forth my backgorund as a certified engineer with experience in powerplant technology and you dismiss them offhand as "a call to authority."

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair argument. But if somebody uses authority I expect them to provide data. You have not yet done so. That is a key difference.

[ QUOTE ]
Think how difficult it is for the world to accept your force fed beliefs especially when they are shouted loudest by those who have ZERO time for any dissent of any kind and dismiss "out of hand" even those who agree with them, in essence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you certainly disagreed with me on something otherwise you wouldn't claim "your theory is the shift from the accepted norm not vice versa". I'm still waiting for empirical evidence to support your argument. If I'm curt it's because most of these threads are a monumental waste of time and I like to get straight to the raw data. You have provided no raw data to support your claims despite almost a dozen requests. So for you to claim I have "ZERO time for any dissent of any kind" is a bit rich. I have time to listen, I just don't have time for wild goose chases for non-existent data. Which quite frankly is what you are leading me on.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair argument. But if somebody uses authority I expect them to provide data. You have not yet done so. That is a key difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL nice ninja edit out the apologies.


[ QUOTE ]
Well you certainly disagreed with me on something otherwise you wouldn't claim "your theory is the shift from the accepted norm not vice versa"....

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you missed this bit?

[ QUOTE ]
Now from a DA's point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for empirical evidence to support your argument. If I'm curt it's because most of these threads are a monumental waste of time and I like to get straight to the raw data. You have provided no raw data to support your claims despite almost a dozen requests. So for you to claim I have "ZERO time for any dissent of any kind" is a bit rich. I have time to listen, I just don't have time for wild goose chases for non-existent data. Which quite frankly is what you are leading me on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! the holy grail of your requested data! What is it you are looking for? I have already agreed, in essence with the bulk of your position, multiple times. What is this fantabulous data I am supposed to come up with? Am I now tasked with proving that man has no part in climate change (something I do not believe in)?

The only major point I have disagreed with you about in this thread is your hyperbole/absolutism WRT delivering the message.


The earth has had significant global climate change (according to best studies/sciene today) for millions of years throughout it's existence without man being any sort of significant factor.

ergo

It is is reasonable to make the leap that the earth continues to go through climatical change for natural reasons even if man had never become a significant factor.

Now that is accepted FACT and is the starting point for any argument regarding man's signifcance.

I would argue man has become a signifcant enough factor to either enhance the natural cycle or attempt to alter it.

Your original statement about "zero evidence it is part of a natural cycle" is a long diversion from the accepted facts thus requires significant support because this statement implies man is now stronger than natural forces and nature has zero role anymore.

IOW I wouldn't have/need to provide any data. You have already accepted the "accepted facts" and feel the need to make hyperbolic claims. Thus once again the burden lies with your argument NOT a counter argument with a firm basis in accepted facts, that nature also plays a significant factor.

[Mr. Now]

bill217,

Mr. Now thanks you for the reminder, and notices your single-sentence post is written in 3rd-person, present-tense syntax.

bill217, what is your take on Al Gore in 2008?

[Mr. Now]

It appears that many readers here now agree with Mr. Now, regarding the likelyhood Al Gore will run. New threads now appear in Politics Forum, regarding this likelyhood.

Let the record show the date and time of Mr. Now's original 'Inconvenient Truth' post, regarding this matter.

At that date and time, Mr. Now's assertion that Al Gore is likely to run appears laughable to most readers.

Prediction markets say otherwise then-- and continue to say otherwise now. No less than the WSJ is "predicting" a Gore-Obama ticket.

It seems everyone "knows" Al Gore is actually running, now.

A Gore-Obama ticket is unstoppable in Mr. Now's political estimation.

www.intrade.com

[Case Closed]

dude, the other thread cited an article from a trash newspaper