BS: Palin v. Gore...

Subject: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:54 AM

Well, this one oughta be fun to watch...

Palin says that global warming exists but has nuthin' to do with human behavior...

Gore says that like gravity it is not debatable that human behavior is causing global warming...

Palin shoots back that global warming is like gravity: a natural occurance...

Al???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:22 AM

Hummm - the Nobel Prize vs the Ignoble Princess. A true battle of the wits when one side is completely unarmed. Al needs a more worthy challenger; I'd suggest Joe the Plumber.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:34 AM

Well, art, ya' gotta admit that Sarah is ahead on points right now...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:46 AM

Can someone plesee change the title of this thread to "Palin vs. Reality"

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: olddude
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:51 AM

I would not expect anything different from her. I have a friend who is all excited about her and told me she will win in 2012 because she represents the real Americans ... Gosh .. that is a scary thought ... If that is really the case, we are in a lot more trouble then I think we are. Somehow, I believe he is pretty much wrong on his assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:01 AM

Oh, come on, ya'll... She's just planted a left hook up under the jaw of Al Gore and he's on the ropes hangin' on fir dear life... Don't discount Ms. Sarah... Heck, if she's even close in the polls the month before the election she'll pose nude for Playboy and the rest will be history...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:17 AM

esterday, the Washington Post published a "falsehood-laden" op-ed by Sarah Palin attacking the science underpinning climate change. In her piece, Palin cast doubt on the science of global warming, stating that she "recognize[s]" global warming as merely "cyclical environmental trends" that are unrelated to the burning of fossil fuels. Responding to Palin's misinformation about climate change science, Al Gore said yesterday:

    The deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes. What do they think is happening? [...] It's a principle in physics. It's like gravity, it exists.

In turn, Palin responded on her Facebook, writing incredulously:

    However, he's wrong in calling me a 'denier.' As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don't think we can primarily blame man's activities for the earth's cyclical weather changes.

Both claims — that she's never denied climate change and that she's always doubted anthropogenic causes — are untrue. As early as last month, she was indeed denying the existence of climate change. Unable to understand the science, she asked Rush Limbaugh: "Are we warming or are we cooling?" And merely 15 months ago, Palin told voters during the 2008 campaign that human activity is contributing to climate change:

    PALIN: I belive that man's activities can certainly be contributing to the issue of global warming and climate change.



While warming temperatures — caused by the burning of fossil fuels — are prompting the bark beetle to devour a chunk of forest the size of Connecticut in Alaska, Palin is more interested in throwing political bombs. Like her phony "death panels" designed to kill health reform, Palin is making a mockery of science in order to stop clean energy reform.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:43 AM

First all the Republicans were saying there is no global warming.

Next, they said there is global warming, but it is natural, not caused by humans.

Next they will be saying there is global warming, and it is caused by humans, but it might actually be a good thing.

(There is at least one guy who is already saying this. Unfortunately I can't remember his name.)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: olddude
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:47 AM

Amos,
sure is, but what would big oil do if we all got 50+ miles per gallon on our cars and we all started to rethink all of it.   When you are in bed with big oil as she is... the denial approach is all that remains.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:25 AM

Come on, Amos... Do you really thing that Ms. Sarah wrote that op-ed??? I doubt it seriously... The grammer and spellin' was too perfect even for the accomplished journalist/author that she is...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: olddude
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:52 AM

She can Russia, so maybe one of those great Russian authors penned it!
Come on Bobster, and Amos how about a "Sarah Palin Blues song?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:53 AM

Sarah Palin and Al Gore were both journalism majors (at one time) in college.

Sarah Palin has a four degree in journalism.

Al Gore changed his attentions to poly sci, but his bachelors degree is said to be in "government". He also was classified as a "journalist" during his three months in Viet Nam.

Both these people are trained writers and word-slingers. It's the content of those words that is quite different.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM

Sarah Palin is that unusual character one runs into on occasion. Stupid yet glib. It's a dangerous combination because they string words together just well enough to sound like they might have a brain driving the mouth. Alas, it is simply methane gas and hot air propelling those muscles.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Louie Roy
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:16 PM

You have described Al Gore very well remember he is the one who invented the internet

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:35 PM

This may help Ms Sarah's case
false GW data

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:41 PM

Global warming claims 'based on false data'

By Robert Matthews
Published: 12:00AM GMT 14 Jan 2001

FRESH doubt has been cast on evidence for global warming following the discovery that a key method of measuring temperature change has exaggerated the warming rate by almost 40 per cent.

Studies of temperature records dating back more than a century have seemed to indicate a rise in global temperature of around 0.5°C, with much of it occurring since the late 1970s. This has led many scientists to believe that global warming is under way, with the finger of blame usually pointed at man-made pollution such as carbon dioxide.


Related Articles
Alps may crumble as permafrost melts
Scientists' discoveries give lie to doom-monger predictions
BBC abandons 'impartiality' on warming
Climate change to cause rise in kidney stones
Global warming to push London temperatures up to 105F
Global warming and a tale of two planetsNow an international team of scientists, including researchers from the Met Office in Bracknell, Berkshire, has found serious discrepancies in these temperature measurements, suggesting that the amount of global warming is much less than previously believed.

The concern focuses on the temperature of the atmosphere over the sea, which covers almost three quarters of the Earth's surface. While scientists use standard weather station instruments to detect warming on land, they have been forced to rely on the crews of ships to make measurements over the vast ocean regions.

Crews have taken the temperature by dipping buckets into the sea or using water flowing into the engine intakes. Scientists have assumed that there is a simple link between the temperature of seawater and that of the air above it.

However, after analysing years of data from scientific buoys in the Pacific that measure sea and air temperatures simultaneously, the team has found no evidence of a simple link. Instead, the seawater measurements have exaggerated the amount of global warming over the seas, with the real temperature having risen less than half as fast during the 1970s than the standard measurements suggest.

Reporting their findings in the influential journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists say that the exact cause of the discrepancy is not known. One possibility is that the atmosphere responded faster than the sea to cooling events such as volcanic eruptions.

The findings have major implications for the climate change debate because the sea temperature measurements are a key part of global warming calculations. According to the team, replacing the standard seawater data with the appropriate air data produces a big cut in the overall global warming rate during the last 20 years, from around 0.18°C per decade to 0.13°C.

This suggests that the widely-quoted global warming figure used to persuade governments to take action over greenhouse gases exaggerates the true warming rate by almost 40 per cent. The team is now calling for climate experts to switch from seawater data to sea-air temperature measurements.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 05:44 PM

"By Robert Matthews
Published: 12:00AM GMT 14 Jan 2001

FRESH doubt has been cast on evidence for global warming "

FRESH doubt?? 2001?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:00 PM

Well, lemme see, now. With the Arctic Sea ice melting, polar bears will no longer be able to go after their main diet, seals, by waiting at a seal's blow hole and grabbing it. With no ice to walk on, the bears will have to take to the land to seek for provender.

Maybe some nice, cuddly polar bear will come along, grab sweet Sarah, and eat her all down.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:00 PM

Sorry Bill....I'm having trouble with m'clickies.
That wasn't the page I intended to link to.

I'll try again

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM

HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM

Oh my. Here we go again. Next, we'll be told the gays are causing global warming. Trolls are in the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM

gnu.. give it a break, I believe human activity over the last few decades has contributed to "global warming".
I was simply trying to provide a bit of additional information...the situation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I take exception to your continual sniping..if you dont like a thread, read and contribute to another.
Contrary to your expressed opinion, I am not a "troll", but stand by everything I write on here......that doesn't mean my opinions are always correct:0)...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:33 PM

Are 'we' aware that many of those leaked/hacked emails - whatever one may think of the folks who may have sent them, are up to 13 years old?

"In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote:..."

and later in the same article:

"Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public." But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way."

The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."

Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "It would be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found out doing something as wrong as that."

One can find almost any opinion if one looks long enough, but the huge majority of scientists involved in studies agree on the basic facts of climate change and our part in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:45 PM

Surely it does not matter that some of the e mails date back to 1999?

Is it not the veracity of these e.mails, not their age that is being called into question.

Apparently many of the statistics had been "manipulated".

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:14 PM

Ake... "continual sniping"... ??? Sniping? I thought I was rather clear. Perhaps not. You are a troll plain and simple. Either that or you are truly intolerant and ignorant. Or both. Hundreds of your posts verify it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:18 PM

I think Sarah Palin is closer to the truth on this one than Al Gore is. In other words, I think she is correct that human-based activities are not a primary factor in climate change, and that cyclical events in Nature are the primary factor, while human-based activities are a much secondary factor.

To support Al Gore's particular views on climate change is simply to parrot a popular cause that has become a holy gospel to the Left and the "liberal" intelligentsia, to the extent that they will personally attack and ridicule anyone who doesn't repeat that gospel as a mantra, and they'll do it with the same hungry zeal shown by people in Salem who hunted around for witches back when people were burning witches.

This does not impress me with either the honesty or the impartiality of many people who imagine themselves to be good, clear-thinking "liberals". It seems more like the self-righteous raving of a group of religious fanatics against "the unbelievers" than the comments of people who actually wish to talk in a useful way about something.

I might add that in a general sense I am "liberal". I'm also a Leftist in a general sense. And I like Al Gore in a general sense and I regard Sarah Palin's political stance on most things as way off the beam.

So it is not knee-jerk loyalty to some pre-arranged set of political assumptions that lies behind my opinion of her opinion of climate change. It's my own independent perspective on the matter, period.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:30 PM

"It's my own independent perspective on the matter, period."

Gosh, Little Hawk, doesn't it get a bit lonely up there on that mountain top?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:34 PM

Her period 'er yers, LH???

Nevrmind that question...

Hey, I think Ms. Sarah has really found her issue here... I mean, she has ol' Al on the ropes and it's only the 2nd round... Does that mean I believe that she wrote that op-ed??? Of course not, but who cares... She's a fox...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:37 PM

Fox... yeah... the whole KIT and KABOODLE... what a babe! But, then she talks and ruins it. What an airhead.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:40 PM

We all enjoy that heady "voice in the wilderness" feeling from time to time, Don...specially when resisting a massively marketed and hugely popular fad. ;-) I bet you have enjoyed it on occasion too. Just not on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:44 PM

The situation of climate change--anthropogenic climate change--is, indeed, beyond all reasonable doubt. Some folks., of course, are less reasonable than others.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:46 PM

Sarah Palin more and more exhibits unbelievable scientific ignorance, whether it be genetics, earth history or economics.

Airhead or blockhead, she would be a disaster in national political office.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:52 PM

Oh, I agree, Q... We don't need her as, ahhhhh, president... That much is for sure... Maybe Miss January...

But let's get one thing clear... Like it or not she has at least put together some backroom team of folks helping her with her positions... No, not those positions... Political positions, gol danged it... I read the op-ed and thought that while it provided no real scientific evidence, it did hit all the right wing talking points... That's better than she did last yer as VP candidate where she said purdy much anything that came into her head... Which, I'll admit, wasn't much...

But now Gore??? Man, he's gonna have to pull himself up off the mat and try to make a fight out of it 'er it's gonna be a long night for him...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:55 PM

Little Hawk, you always seem to operate on the assumption that no one is as clear headed and well-informed as you are. Did it ever occur to you that you may be the one who is uninformed?

No, of course not!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:58 PM

Miss January? She could be my whole year... gosh she is a babe... alas, it will never be, as I actually want to be able to have an intelligent conversation with my true love.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:05 PM

Don, you do that too... ;-) And so do most argumentative people, specially when it comes to politics. We all have a tremendous respect (if not admiration) for our own clear-headedness and objectivity when it comes to matters deemed worthy of debate.

What I really think is that we are all just partially informed. Matter of fact, we may know less than 5% of what there is to know about it. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:09 PM

"Oh, yes, master," he says, with hands clasped and bowing humbly. "Please pardon one so ignorant as I!" (tugging forelock).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:16 PM

Where do you stand on the alleged link between smoking and cancer, Little Hawk?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:31 PM

"Apparently many of the statistics had been "manipulated".
Does the phrase "out of context" ring any bells?

**THE** statistics? I just 30 min. ago saw in interview with a climate scientist who explained that the most quoted set of emails... the ones that seem to expose wholesale deceptive manipulation of data, were in fact talking ONLY about studies of trees in Siberia! They were discussing (if I understood it correctly)how to re-state data in order to use it for different purposes...not to 'deceive' the general public!

   Now... IF that is true, and IF releasing all the emails would clarify the matter, I would hope we could learn something about not assuming too much about damning 'disclosures' which appear right before some major event... like Copenhagen.


I am searching and watching to try to find out more details.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:38 PM

I think smoking causes so many illnesses, McGrath, (cancer included) that if you wrote them all down it would fill a scroll from here to China. It's an idiotic practice. It hurts your health, makes you age faster, and makes everything you own stink. I've been an anti-smoker all my life. No animal is stupid enough to deliberately inhale smoke (except for this one chimpanzee in a zoo somewhere....I've seen him smoking on Youtube). Only human beings would do something so unnatural to themselves. There's nothing good I can think of to say about it.

However, I also have some ideas on cancer that might strike you as...unconventional. Don't get me started. ;-) I don't have time for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:43 PM

FactCheck.org took a look at this earlier today, and basically concluded that the disagreements in those hacked emails don't have any effect on the overall scientific consensus on global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:50 PM

Don, false humility will not win you points at a good Ashram! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:31 PM

Smoking stinks, too...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:29 AM

You guys really should ditch your political affiliations (on all subjects) and start living your own lives.

Everyone here is reasonably intelligent, why dont you allow youselves to be guided by your intellect, not a bunch of slimy, self serving politicians.

gnu talks of "trolls" on the threads, but the political manipulators are the real trolls.......they determine what you say and what you think.
When a real human like LH comes along and rocks the boat, you try to savage him.....is independent thought physically painful to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 07:06 AM

Anything that challenges a ruling orthodoxy is mentally painful to most people and arouses their hostility, contempt, outrage, etc. Suggest that drinking cow's milk is quite bad for your health or that some vaccines are considerably more dangerous to your health than some of the illnesses they are supposedly going to protect you against...and many people will pretty much go berserk, because you are challenging some of their most basic and long-held assumptions...and that's part of their identity.

It's kind of like publicly saying "I do not worship Allah nor do I believe that Mohammed is the greatest prophet!" while inside a mosque in Riyahd or Mecca... ;-) It's more dangerous to do that there, of course. Even Chongo is not that reckless.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 12:17 PM

ake... I believe a troll is anyone who tries to wind up someone they perceive as tight arsed, oh so right on "liberals" because if they lose their cool the troll finds it really funny!

I believe that is a fairly accurate partial description of this type of bully.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:08 PM

Well gnu I dont try to wind people up, they manage that perfectly well all by themselves.
I told you before, I really believe all I write on this forum, I dont lie or try to curry favour with anyone if you find my opinions disgusting or perverted or whatever, I'm sorry because I rather like you.....but I will continue to say what I think, as anything else would be a waste of my time and the time of all the other members.

There are a few really good people here gnu and I'm glad I found this site...I've probably learned more from them in my few years on Mudcat, than twenty in the real world.

Let the discussions continue I say!! Let nothing be left out, this could be one of the last outposts of freedom!    :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:24 PM

The pharoah Akenaton confined his worship to the sun god and ignored the rest of the gods, thus was somewhat of a trouble maker.

Beware those who take his name!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:36 PM

So sayeth the mighty Q........:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM

ake... crap. Sod off troll.