15 Year old Girl creates anti-Inconvenient website...

Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Cite your source.
Click to expand...
The ICAA report and Al Gore's flick you moron. Can't you read?

I read the report, they predict a rise of 23 inches in the worst case. Al Gore spent time in his flick talking about 20 feet rises in sea levels and spoke as if they were close to being reality.
 
I asked you to cite a specific source. Do you really need me to cite a source where an extremist idiot makes a ridiculous, and fallacious attempt to refute Human Caused Global Warming?

You fucking know better.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
I asked you to cite a specific source. Do you really need me to cite a source where an extremist idiot makes a ridiculous, and fallacious attempt to refute Human Caused Global Warming?

You fucking know better.
Click to expand...
The ICAA report is a specific source. It is the report on Global warming from the UN. You can look it up and read it too. You can also watch Al Gore's flick. Some things are understood. If you can find where the ICAA report states that 20 feet of sea level rise is going to be reality then you can refute my point. Otherwise act as if you have educated yourself on this, or go and do so.

And I wasn't making an argument against Human Created Global Warming. I was making a case that we can create the same effect for different reasons, ones that might be wholly agreed to by those you seem to despise.
 
It is well known that said report states THE MOST CONSERVATIVE estimate, for political reasons. Several scientists involved in the study have spoken out due to this.

I was trying to elicit this from you. Are you aware of it?
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
I asked you to cite a specific source. Do you really need me to cite a source where an extremist idiot makes a ridiculous, and fallacious attempt to refute Human Caused Global Warming?

You fucking know better.
Click to expand...
Plus, such a source would not be making a "constutional argument". You stated, as fact, that when they "obstruct" it, it magically becomes protection of the constitution. I'd love to see what argument they'd bring up for that. It isn't a constitutional issue.
 
It is unfair to attack Gore's statements based on a study that has obvious political affectation.

Amusingly enough, said attacks originate with those who have spent years denying Human Caused Climate Change based on IDEOLOGY ALONE.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
It is well known that said report states THE MOST CONSERVATIVE estimate, for political reasons. Several scientists involved in the study have spoken out due to this.

I was trying to elicit this from you. Are you aware of it?
Click to expand...
And others spoke out that they were asked to write to the conclusion, actually asked to redact their few pages because they didn't match the previously written conclusion. Were you aware of this?
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
It is unfair to attack Gore's statements based on a study that has obvious political affectation.

Amusingly enough, said attacks originate with those who have spent years denying Human Caused Climate Change based on IDEOLOGY ALONE.
Click to expand...
It is ridiculous to state that Al Gore's movie has no political affectation because the UN's report has some. The reality is no report that I have read other than from Uber-Liberal sites has any warning quite so magnificent as Gore's of 20 Feet rises in Sea Level.
 
BTW - Have you watched any source other than those that agree with you on this subject?

I watched Gore's flick. While I agree we should work to make the least imprint on the Earth possible, I don't necessarily agree with Gore. Clearly.

Have you watched, oh let's say Glenn Beck's show on this?
 
"And others spoke out that they were asked to write to the conclusion, actually asked to redact their few pages because they didn't match the previously written conclusion. Were you aware of this"

As was FUCKING OBVIOUS, show me THAT.
 
Crap. IPCC... IPCC... IPCC>>>

Duh... Replace ICAA with IPCC because I have ephasia and typed the wrong thing...
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
"And others spoke out that they were asked to write to the conclusion, actually asked to redact their few pages because they didn't match the previously written conclusion. Were you aware of this"

As was FUCKING OBVIOUS, show me THAT.
Click to expand...
Watch Glenn Beck's show on Global Warming. Several are actually interviewed on the show talking about that. I like that I don't have to limit myself to shows that agree with a preconceived conclusion on this.

Oh, and I goofed. It was the Summary that was prewritten and they were asked to redact their writing to agree with the Summary. Sorry about that, it was more ephasia... I'm getting all Alzheimer in my almost middle age.
 
Republican History:

Destruction of Ozone Layer:

Not True. Not True!
You can't prove it!
It's not as bad as you say!
We never said it wasn't so!
Fixing the problem has ALWAYS been a Republican initiative!

Do we remember this?

There IS NO INSURGENCY!
The attacks in Iraq are almost entirely due to foreign Terrorists!
Fuck the facts, there IS NO INSURGENCY!
Who could have known that an insurgency would arise?
Democrats embolden the enemy with their democrati-ness!
 
Face facts. The Right Wing has been nothing but WRONG when it comes to Climate Change. They have REFUSED to accept the facts pertaining to it, preferring IDEOLOGY, to REALITY.

Of course, this doesn't apply to ALL of The Right. There are some who have accepted to reality, but they have been SHOUTED DOWN by a majority of their peers, who choose ideology, and Power Politics, over doing what is right.

Now, it is time to see whether Democrats will do the same thing. I have little faith, and a fool's hope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top