Political Science Has A Whole New Meaning Thanks To Warmalarmists

Political Science Has A Whole New Meaning Thanks To Warmalarmists

Whatever you think about the wonderful prospect of a warmer environment, there's no denying that elitists are trying use scare tactics to gain greater control over you and your money.

The fact that an actual judge has stated that Al Gore's exercise in self-agrandizement is riddled with errors should be enough to cause anyone to take a step back and demand that cooler heads prevail

Here's an article that puts matters in good perspective.

"Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, put a positive spin on Judge Burton's ruling: 'Of the thousands of facts, the judge seemingly took issue with only a handful,' she said."

As Brit Hume noted:

You'll recall a British judge ordered the film must be accompanied by opposing views when shown to students and he cited nine scientific errors in the movie… Now former adviser to Margaret Thatcher — Christopher Monckton — has published a 21-page rebuttal to the Gore response. He says there are actually 35 errors or exaggerations in the film and he points out the British judge did in fact use the word "errors" throughout his ruling.

As for the contention that the movie contains thousands of facts, Monckton points out that even if the 93-minute film had just 2,000 facts they would have had to be recited at a rate of one every three seconds.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Political Science Has A Whole New Meaning Thanks To Warmalarmists

  1. Scio, Scio says:

    Al Gore invented pants. Do you remember that commercial?Sorry…

  2. TedWest says:

    ROFL! It's OK this once. Am I that scary?
    No, I don't recall the ad, but speaking of pants, boy does John have a load in his.
    So Malthus qualified his alarmism did he? Poor John, that doesn't enhance Malthus, it diminishes him. Anybody can "predict" anything if they qualify it. A qualifier is an escape route. I mean, he either knows or he doesn't, don't give me this "if" nonsense.
    Anyway, Paul Erlich was even more of a scare monger. Could you ask John what his qualifier was? And Erlich has way more awards than Gore.
    And the first thing I'd always tell John is, "Show me." Because is his Malthus comment like his "the divorce rate was lower in the thirties," or "Gerald Ford took commercial flights to save fuel" comments?
    Those are other eyebrow-raisers I've seen from John, but then I've only seen him three times, so he's batting a thousand in the "suspicious facts" department with me.

  3. Inukshuk says:

    Dear Mr. West:
    What was missing from your blog entry, Mr. West, was despite the errors, the judge's accepts the four main tenents of An Inconvenient Truth, as posted in TimesOnline, October 11, 2007, which were "fully backed up by the weight of science"; the main thrust of the argument that "climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of … greenhouse gases…; and that "global global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts."

    Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
    In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
    The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

    Toronto, Canada

  4. TedWest says:

    Dear Ostrich,
    I have no idea what your element might be, but you're out of it here, and I'm not going to allow you to continue if you can't do better than that.
    The first indication that you're a closed-minded alarmist is that you think the article you presented reinforces your position, when not only does it cast more doubt on Gore's propaganda, but you clearly have no idea how the legal process works.
    See, what's significant is not what the judge allowed to stand, What matters is only the fact that he found significant errors, bias, and even subterfuge in that it's (primarily) political propaganda. The judge is no scientist, and he's certainly no authority – since no scientist is either when it comes to conclusions about climate.
    But there's problems even with what you presented here – No quotes in context.
    Now, I see I'm going to have to do what I do with liberals in their other arguments… kindly present what you think is your best point, and we'll go from there.

  5. Inukshuk says:

    Dear Mr. West:
    On my behalf, see a response from Real Climate: Climate Science From Climate Scientists, on October 15, 2007, "Convenient Untruths" by Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, whose biographical information http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10 follows before the link to the article:
    6 December 2004

    Gavin A. Schmidt
    Filed under:

    Contributor Bio's— gavin @ 12:00 PM

  6. TedWest says:

    My Dear Canadian,
    Broadly speaking… you know, the way Gore's movie is accurate, I don't insult people who are responsive, and you'll be happy to know that I find that your last post broadly fits that category.
    I read the article, and I must say it works if you want it to. But do you ever read the comments? Not just here, but in a link you provided elsewhere?
    I think I understand that you feel it's better to let experts do the talking where possible, but global warming may be unique in that not only do experts disagree, but the "solution" (note the quotes) may be wholly unnecessary – or impossible.
    Now, what are you objecting to concerning what I've said? Is it just that you feel that Gore's movie is dead on? Because it isn't, and it's not that I disagree with your experts. Again, experts disagree with your experts, and as I said, I will not accept anything from the IPCC.
    I understand you may not like that, but the IPCC is tainted, and probably fatally so.
    I'm not trying to obfuscate in order to avoid getting nailed about something, as I would love that to happen. I want someone to show me exactly where I've gone astray, and I will even give you an idea of what it is you have to overcome.
    The article referred to events that have happened in the past as indicative of what will happen in the future (actually, I noticed a "could" or three, and that's a real no-no). And unfortunately, if it's happened before, theres a real problem with charging that man is responsible for it happening again.
    That holds even if something worse happens. Scientists have to be able to show that we've caused it and that we can stop it. Not only that, they have to show that the results will be largely undesirable if we don't stop it.
    It's not enough to show that species will go extinct and that ecosystems will be disrupted. There could be tragedy in that, but only if it leaves mankind worse off. I personally don't care if every other disease carrying, filth dropping species vanished, but that's just me.
    And there were also references to models. Now I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but there's not a single model that's been proven accurate. Even temperature data can't be proven accurate, and as an aside, hey, what happened to the huricanes?
    You may not think that the failure of the hysterical huricane predictions to materialize… for two years straight is significant, but if experts can't even predict that, well…
    Do you think they'll predict an another above average number – above average force huricane season next year or just wait now (since they;ve ben burned so badly) and when something horrible materializes say, "See, didn't we tell ya!?!"
    So I hope you see that I can be both civil and reasonable, but if you can't, who cares, you know what I mean? Your problem is not with me, anyway, since I keep my eyes open, and if I can see the error in my thinking, I'll change on a dime. I mean, do you think I got where I am right now by being rigid? And , if you do win me over, a lot of other guys will follow since they consider me to be the last word and will simply fall in line.
    And thank you for your perseverance. I may be thick, but if you achieve a breakthrough in the end, it will be doubly satisfying for you. But now one thing, I have very little interest in wading through articles, no matter how comprehensive and accurate they may be, so I again suggest you take one point, make it your own, and sell me on it. I call it "baby steps."
    Then once you have my trust, there's every possibility your success will snowball… even in a warmer environment. See the irony?
    And please say "hi" to Ms. Smith in Mississauga for me. if you think that's frivolous, know that she used to be a cheerleader for the Argonauts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s