Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

Jocko said:
In the same sense that Badnarik want to teach me about the Constitution;
In the same sense that Rev. Phelps wants to teach me about God's plan;
In the same sense that Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson wants to teach me about racial harmony;
That is the sense in which Al Gore wants to teach me about responsible environmental stewardship.

If that makes me an "unthinking" yet "right-thinking" (you have to explain that one to me sometime) American, then I guess that's what I am. But tell me, what do you call someone who blindly falls in line behind the loudest, stupidest proponent of a cause, even when that proponent has a dreadful track record of accuracy?

Is the volume of the message more important to you than the correctness of it?
Click to expand...

Right wingers used to like to refer to themselves as Right-thinking americans. Its just a term I find amusing. they liked to use it a lot in place of any kind of a real argument. Corps posts kind of reminded me of them.

This book sux its by a (supposed) librul (crazy!). I can therefore tell you its full of lies before even looking at it.
 
Renfield said:
This book sux its by a (supposed) librul (crazy!). I can therefore tell you its full of lies before even looking at it.
Click to expand...


Waaah, someone is prejudging a politician I like, waaah. Honestly, do you expect a book with an outright agenda (that being to provoke people in reducing their "carbon output") won't be propaganda coming from a politician? Did you bother reading the website or the sample I quoted from it?
 
corplinx said:
Al Gore is releasing a new book on global warming as well as promoting the film where he scours the globe cherrypicking his data to promote his environmental agenda.

Let's take bets now on how many global warming myths and how much pseudoscience Gore serves up?

(for the record, I haven't dont enough research on the subject of global warming to form an opinion about it, I am just anti-bull)

Here is the website related to his project:
http://climatecrisis.net/

I notice on this page there is a picture of hurricane katrina or rita:
http://climatecrisis.net/aboutthefilm.html



Sounds like a bastion of credible scientific data.

Two people from the Byrd Polar Research Institute are on the scientific advisory panel. Gee, I wonder if they informed Gore that while sea-ice is melting (thus not increasing sea levels) the antarctic icecap is thickening. One member of the scientific advisory panel is merely an MD turned bureacrat. Hillary Clinton summarily dismissed Michael Chrichton's senate testimony about bad global warming advocacy because he was an MD and worse an author.

Looks like it may be fun to pick apart bad advocacy. Here's hoping.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are doing some cherry picking here. One person is not a scientist, so all board is not to be listened to.

The issue of rising water levels is not the sea ice melting, but where did he claim it was? The glaciers in question are land based.
 
corplinx said:
Waaah, someone is prejudging a politician I like, waaah. Honestly, do you expect a book with an outright agenda (that being to provoke people in reducing their "carbon output") won't be propaganda coming from a politician? Did you bother reading the website or the sample I quoted from it?
Click to expand...

If scientifically it is found that increasing CO2 is the main cause of global warming, then reducing CO2 emissions would be the logical response to the problem.
 
Renfield said:
Right wingers used to like to refer to themselves as Right-thinking americans. Its just a term I find amusing. they liked to use it a lot in place of any kind of a real argument. Corps posts kind of reminded me of them.

This book sux its by a (supposed) librul (crazy!). I can therefore tell you its full of lies before even looking at it.
Click to expand...

Well, Al Gore gives the impression that he loves fuzzy bunnies, so if you swap out terminology, most of his stances are pretty much the same thing, IMHO. Nothing more than argument from authority, no matter which side it comes from... even you, as you paint a stereotypical and inaccurate picture of most of the poster here who happen to think Al Gore is a flake not becuase he's a liberal, but just because he's Al Gore.
 
a_unique_person said:
And for much of it's history, earth has been completely uninhabitable for humans.
Click to expand...

If we confine ourselves to just those periods where the Earth was habitable by humans, then we still have swings in temperature where the temperature is greater than it is now.
 
corplinx said:
Some ice is thickening, some is melting. If you cherrypick melting ice as evidence, its cherrypicking isnt it? That is my point.
Click to expand...
Corp, you are about 180% off base in every respect. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is the single exception in the world. Glaciers are retreating everywhere else. You have picked the singular odd cherry.

On top of which, the thickening is caused by global warming! It's no longer too cold to snow there.

Excerpts I've read about that in the film Gore visits a melting glacier somewhere to hammer home the point that we humans are causing the melting.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that this is an incredibly vague piece of information, there is strong evidence supporting human induced GW. Here's some important, recent research that I suggest you read:

Scripps Researchers Find Clear Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in World's Oceans

If you want to debate human-induced GW that's one thing. A strong argument can be made that you are: 1) probably wrong on the facts, and 2) in the scientific minority. My point though is this: Even if you are skeptical about human-induced GW, to frame it as an extreme position is ridiculous.

One member of the scientific advisory panel is merely an MD turned bureacrat.
Click to expand...
I can't find reference to this person on the web site. But what's wrong with an MD in any case? Is there a problem with this unnamed person's credentials you wish to bring to readers' attention? Did you notice this link on their home page to the group's impressive advisory board?

You are conducting object lessons in cherry-picking at every turn.
 
Jocko said:
Well, Al Gore gives the impression that he loves fuzzy bunnies, so if you swap out terminology, most of his stances are pretty much the same thing, IMHO. Nothing more than argument from authority, no matter which side it comes from... even you, as you paint a stereotypical and inaccurate picture of most of the poster here who happen to think Al Gore is a flake not becuase he's a liberal, but just because he's Al Gore.
Click to expand...

An argument from authority is wrong when the authority cited is not an authority in that area. You would have to demonstrate that his references are wrong, not that he is.
 
a_unique_person said:
An argument from authority is wrong when the authority cited is not an authority in that area. You would have to demonstrate that his references are wrong, not that he is.
Click to expand...

Considering he's the one advocating a position, I rather think it's up to him (or you, if you're not busy) to present his credentials as ecologist/meteorologist/etc., as opposed to his known credentials as a loser politician.

I mean, Yahoo Serious could issue a report you agree with; would you tout him as an authority based on conclusions alone?
 
You referred to an "argument from authority" fallacy. That is when you cite an expert to back up your argument because you are not an expert in that area, but the reference you use is not an expert either.

In this case, Gore is clearly not an expert, nor, like most of us, is he ever likely to be. In that case he has to use an expert as the authority. We then have to look at that expert to see if he has the authority to make the claims that are being made.
 
a_unique_person said:
You referred to an "argument from authority" fallacy. That is when you cite an expert to back up your argument because you are not an expert in that area, but the reference you use is not an expert either.

In this case, Gore is clearly not an expert, nor, like most of us, is he ever likely to be. In that case he has to use an expert as the authority. We then have to look at that expert to see if he has the authority to make the claims that are being made.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ace, I know that. If you look back, you'll see I was responding to Renfield's rather simplistic and polarized view of the credentials; i.e., he claimed Gore would be dismissed because he was a liberal. I countered that he is dismissed because he is an obvious flake. Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when you are, indeed, appealing to an authority. However, Gore's history paints him as something else... a cynical, opportunistic, jingoistic liberal who would hug Hitler if he'd say something nice about the rain forests.

Bottom line, I don't have any idea what the hell your problem is here.
 
I think I got confused when you posted this.

Considering he's the one advocating a position, I rather think it's up to him (or you, if you're not busy) to present his credentials as ecologist/meteorologist/etc., as opposed to his known credentials as a loser politician.

I mean, Yahoo Serious could issue a report you agree with; would you tout him as an authority based on conclusions alone
Click to expand...
 
a_unique_person said:
I think I got confused when you posted this.
Click to expand...
*Sigh* AUP, I think you got confused when you decided it was a good idea to sign up at a skeptic's forum.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
Click to expand...

Being able to VOTE on environmental issues doesn't make one an EXPERT on environmental issues... no matter how many willing Aussies line up to support him.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
 
a_unique_person said:
So, we can expect Bush and his administration to stop interfering in scientists speaking out on the issue, since they don't know what is going on? Gore seems to have gone to the experts for his advice.
Click to expand...

Yes, AUP, we are all aware how things "seem" to you. Let me know when you have something new to say.

Suffice it to say that, as flaky as Gore is, he sounds positively lucid next to the arguments you make and the sources you bring. I'll let your record speak for itself.
 
Jocko said:
Yes, AUP, we are all aware how things "seem" to you. Let me know when you have something new to say.

Suffice it to say that, as flaky as Gore is, he sounds positively lucid next to the arguments you make and the sources you bring. I'll let your record speak for itself.
Click to expand...
You have posted quite a string of posts attacking Gore as a flake, attacking the content of a book that you have not read, and attacking other posters.

Records are speaking volumes for themselves.
 
Jocko said:
Yes, AUP, we are all aware how things "seem" to you. Let me know when you have something new to say.

Suffice it to say that, as flaky as Gore is, he sounds positively lucid next to the arguments you make and the sources you bring. I'll let your record speak for itself.
Click to expand...

I take it you are conceding the OP is wrong, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom