The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

More reasons I do not buy into the whole man made global warming stuff.

Interesting info refuting many claims from Gore made in an inconvenient truth from a wide variety of sources.

[mousepod]

Reasons that I'm skeptical of the op-ed piece that scaeagles linked to:

Some interesting information about the institute that the author of the piece works for, from a wide variety of sources.

[wendybeth]

I think anyone who seriously believes that there is no negative impact by mankind on the Earth and it's environment is in a place beyond denial. I believe that persons such as the one in your link, Scaeagles, are motivated by profit, or they are too stupid to live. I suppose it's all a moot point- we'll probably destroy ourselves in other creative ways long before the Earth ceases to be a habitable place for us, but it still irritates the hell out of me.

[wendybeth]

Since when do you consider the UN to be a credible source of anything, btw?

[scaeagles]

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Regardless of who the messanger is, isn't he citing sources that are reputable by most standards? He cites the UN, Nature magazine, the Journal of Glaciology....are you suggesting the studies he cites are bogus?

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Regardless of who the messanger is, isn't he citing sources that are reputable by most standards? He cites the UN, Nature magazine, the Journal of Glaciology....are you suggesting the studies he cites are bogus?

Absolutely not. I know that both sides of the global warming argument use hyperbole and shortcuts, so I'm sure that there are nits to pick in Gore's powerpoint presentation. By the same token, I'm also fairly certain that the articles that Taylor cites are not saying exactly what he says they say.

I'm a skeptic. Part of being a good skeptic is to examine the motivation behind any pedagogue. The Heartland Institute? I question their motives.

I'm also not defending Al Gore, by the way, so I'm not disturbed by the conservative "attack the messenger" moves that call him a hypocrite.

You have the right to doubt global warming, scaeagles, but I certainly have the right to question Exxon's Heartland's unbiased opinion too.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by mousepod

I'm a skeptic.

This is a good thing. The major thing that scares me is that there seems to be little tolerance of skeptics on the issue of man caused global warming.

Originally Posted by Al Gore, as quoted in the article from his new book

We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth.

It would seem as if he would consider anyone who disagrees with his science as someone who distorts.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This is a good thing. The major thing that scares me is that there seems to be little tolerance of skeptics on the issue of man caused global warming.

Some say it's a religon

[wendybeth]

There are accusations on both sides of the fence regarding distortions. I think skepticism is healthy, but a distrust of big business is healthier. I work from a distrusting viewpoint, and I have less reason to distrust Gore than I do persons such as the author of the article cited by Scaeagles. This is not to say I completely trust Gore, but I have less reason to question his motivation than some mouthpiece for the energy companies.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Regardless of who the messanger is, isn't he citing sources that are reputable by most standards? He cites the UN, Nature magazine, the Journal of Glaciology....are you suggesting the studies he cites are bogus?

Cites can be taken out of context... just look at Michael Moore's body of work