If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Herald Sun)   Al Gore tried to buy the rights to firestorm footage, that had nothing to do with climate change, to include in his climate change presentations. Huh, wonder why he would do that?   (heraldsun.com.au) divider line 107
    More: Interesting, Al Gore, Alice Springs, Australians, climate change  
•       •       •

1098 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Oct 2012 at 11:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 12:50:34 PM  
Nothing like an Al Gore thread to bring out the lame in some people.

I haven't clicked the link, but I am 99% sure it is pure bunk spun up to create a new Al-Gore-Is-A-Phony myth.
 
2012-10-03 12:55:19 PM  
Clicked Link. Sure enough, pure hooey.

It was agreed by everyone that the specific event had nothing to do with climate change.

It could be, however, a good illustration of what we will see more of if climate change persists with the present trends.

You might not agree, but no scandal here.
 
2012-10-03 12:56:44 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: More on average than the average changeist?


Changeist?
 
2012-10-03 01:00:08 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Vodka Zombie: Who makes money off firestorms?

Firefighters.


No shiat? Where do I go to collect my check?

/volunteer


I... :: looks at user name ::

Makes sense.
 
2012-10-03 01:00:25 PM  

Rincewind53: Gosh, it's almost as he may imply that firestorms will become more common as a result of climate change causing more severe weather incidents, and has therefore tried to find a video of such a firestorm in order to illustrate his point.

THE HORROR!


So you're saying he needs it to make an argument that's blatantly false? (There's not really any such predicted connection in the literature.)

Anyhow, in all seriousness, he needs it because he presents power-point shiat for a living and he's from the '90s. Having random explosions and 'funny' or metaphorical pictures as clip-art is one of the common-wisdom ways to keep one's audience's attention when you're otherwise in danger of boring them all to death.
 
2012-10-03 01:01:17 PM  
Subby, try reading this link. It's for kids, so it should be simple enough for you to understand.

As the Earth gets warmer and droughts increase, wildfires are expected to occur more often and be more destructive. Wildfires do occur naturally, but the extremely dry conditions resulting from droughts allow fires to start more easily, spread faster, and burn longer. In fact, if the Earth gets just 3.6°F warmer, we can expect wildfires in the western United States to burn four times more land than they do now.

The footage in question was localized, so it's difficult to tie it to climate change - or, for that matter, to rule it out.

Without this footage, I guess Al Gore will be limited to hours and hours footage of the wildfires that destroyed a lot of Texas wilderness last year and Colorado this year. I wonder how he'll manage...
 
2012-10-03 01:01:27 PM  

AntiNerd: Clicked Link. Sure enough, pure hooey.

It was agreed by everyone that the specific event had nothing to do with climate change.

It could be, however, a good illustration of what we will see more of if climate change persists with the present trends.

You might not agree, but no scandal here.


really? A good illustration of what might happen? That makes it okay to add more lies to the lies that he already included in his little comedy film?
 
2012-10-03 01:03:15 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: Holocaust Agnostic: More on average than the average changeist?

Changeist?


I think the word she's looking for is "scientist."
 
2012-10-03 01:05:12 PM  

quatchi: Really? We need to explain this to them too?

Sorry, some arguments are just so dumb they don't even warrant anything beyond...

*eyeroll*

/Judges woulda also allowed *dismissive jerkoff motion* there.


I think that hasn't worked so well. With children, one typically tries to show them their position doesn't make sense and help them discover better critical thinking skills through demonstration. I think I've come to admit that we may have too high of expectations for "adults". Obviously 40,000 years ago, we didn't expect "adult" humans to understand complex logical connectives, though with some of the simple (wood/stone) technology of the time, there were some who did. Our brains haven't evolved much at all since then, but we place much greater understanding requirements on our "adults". If we're going to place those requirements on people, we should take the responsibility to ensure that they are taught what they need to and don't fall through the cracks.

What I'm saying is: maybe we need to handhold those who make it to adulthood and still have very poor logic skills. Treat them like children, since they basically are in those critical thinking areas. If we do that, maybe we can help them some.

If we don't, they might start a political party or something.
 
2012-10-03 01:09:11 PM  
Holocaust Agnostic
Account created: 2012-09-04 23:06:32


Bets on who's latest troll alt this is?
 
2012-10-03 01:10:13 PM  

abb3w: ...wait, Australia still has feral fire elementals?

[resources2.news.com.au image 650x366]


If it can kill humans with the same reckless disregard we show to insects, then Australia has it. In spades.
 
2012-10-03 01:13:29 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yes.


Well, you might want to let

Vodka Zombie in on your little secret.

NateGrey: I... :: looks at user name ::

Makes sense.



You're about an ignorant motherfarker aren't you?
 
2012-10-03 01:13:55 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: Holocaust Agnostic: More on average than the average changeist?

Changeist?


Changist:climate change advocate as denialist:sceptic. Being on the side that is evidently factually correct doesn't excuse the behavior.
 
2012-10-03 01:16:13 PM  
Al Gore? Who is that? Seems the only people who care about him are conservatives. Newsflash conservatives, nobody hates Al Gore like you guys do. Most people's reaction to Al Gore is "meh" and only think about him when conservatives get their periodical "Al Gore Butthurt".
 
2012-10-03 01:16:17 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You're about an ignorant motherfarker aren't you?



Aren't you the vehemently independent guy that repeats GOP talking points almost verbatim?
 
2012-10-03 01:16:24 PM  

BMulligan: Are the deniers really that stupid, or are they counting on their audience to be that stupid?

I think it is the both.
There are to many people acting around the world for people to not be affecting the climate. Plain and simple truth. anyone with human level intilligence can see this if they actually look at the issue.
The realy questions we need answers to are :
To what extent?
What is the "Point of No Return" where we can not recover?

Until we can awnser those 2 questions we need to act as cautiously as possible for fear of crossing the "Point of No Return" and wiping ourselves out. however this would be bad for business in the short run and the corporate busniess world is not mentally capiable of seeing past a couple months into the future to know what harm they are doing to their long term interest (the exact same thing that created the current economic situation BTW the signs were there for years if they capiable of looking any further then ther next quarterly review)
 
2012-10-03 01:17:00 PM  

Lord_Baull: Dancin_In_Anson: You're about an ignorant motherfarker aren't you?


Aren't you the vehemently independent guy that repeats GOP talking points almost verbatim?


You forgot the part where he runs out of the room crying when he can't cite his assertions and refuses to address criticisms.
 
2012-10-03 01:17:20 PM  
I'm not an Al Gore fan, to say the least, but if it takes hot, dry conditions to have a fire and also to spur dust devils, then if you have conditions around the world that are hotter and dryer overall, then you have a higher chance of those elements coming together. It's a bit of a stretch, but it's not completely unrelated.
 
2012-10-03 01:18:30 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Zulu_as_Kono: Holocaust Agnostic: More on average than the average changeist?

Changeist?

Changist:climate change advocate as denialist:sceptic. Being on the side that is evidently factually correct doesn't excuse the behavior.


Wait, what behavior?
 
2012-10-03 01:21:32 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: HotWingConspiracy: Yes.

Well, you might want to let Vodka Zombie in on your little secret.

NateGrey: I... :: looks at user name ::

Makes sense.


You're about an ignorant motherfarker aren't you?


After all these years I am surprised your question mark key hasnt widdled down to nothing.
 
2012-10-03 01:24:09 PM  

Zafler: Holocaust Agnostic: Zulu_as_Kono: Holocaust Agnostic: More on average than the average changeist?

Changeist?

Changist:climate change advocate as denialist:sceptic. Being on the side that is evidently factually correct doesn't excuse the behavior.

Wait, what behavior?


Using bullshiat to cloud an important issue and extract money and/or fame. Like cutting a year off a graph to turn warming into steady. Or taking a picture of a polar bear resting on an iceberg and saying his home melted.
 
2012-10-03 01:25:28 PM  
Jesus people, not ALL footage in a presentation like this would necessarily be of something directly attributable to global warming. Sometimes you mention wildfires and just need a picture of one to demonstrate the word "wildfire", rather than have a blank screen, and this on looks like it would illustrate that rather wel. Calm the fark down, this isn't some "shocking new revelation", you people have too high of blood pressure, if you're not careful, you're going to blow a seal...
 
2012-10-03 01:26:43 PM  
so he can have people buy more carbon credits.
profit!
 
2012-10-03 01:27:20 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Zafler: Holocaust Agnostic: Zulu_as_Kono: Holocaust Agnostic: More on average than the average changeist?

Changeist?

Changist:climate change advocate as denialist:sceptic. Being on the side that is evidently factually correct doesn't excuse the behavior.

Wait, what behavior?

Using bullshiat to cloud an important issue and extract money and/or fame. Like cutting a year off a graph to turn warming into steady. Or taking a picture of a polar bear resting on an iceberg and saying his home melted.


Or basically any argument used by the right.
 
2012-10-03 01:30:59 PM  
www.asitecalledfred.com

You probably could get the footage at a flea market.
 
2012-10-03 01:31:44 PM  
The documentary also included footage of a river, even though rivers don't cause global warming. WE'RE BLOWING THE LID OFF OF THIS STORY, GUIZE!
 
2012-10-03 01:34:03 PM  

heavymetal: Holocaust Agnostic: Zafler: Holocaust Agnostic: Zulu_as_Kono: Holocaust Agnostic: More on average than the average changeist?

Changeist?

Changist:climate change advocate as denialist:sceptic. Being on the side that is evidently factually correct doesn't excuse the behavior.

Wait, what behavior?

Using bullshiat to cloud an important issue and extract money and/or fame. Like cutting a year off a graph to turn warming into steady. Or taking a picture of a polar bear resting on an iceberg and saying his home melted.

Or basically any argument used by the right.


Pretty much, yeah.
 
2012-10-03 01:34:53 PM  
This footage is probably available, Al.

cdn.thedailybeast.com
 
2012-10-03 01:39:28 PM  
If this outrages conservatives just wait until they hear about the concept of "stock footage".
 
2012-10-03 01:44:13 PM  
So this is kind of like a "christian" fundie holding the Bible in his hand during a sermon to his congregation despite the fact that the message he says has nothing to do with (and sometimes quite the opposite to) what Jesus actually said he wanted us to do?
 
2012-10-03 01:44:28 PM  
When you can't attack the data, attack the icons. Believers have tried this for thousands of years. It's failed for thousands of years, too.

Why is attacking people who back science a fool's errand? Let me put it to you in my own words from my own sucky blog:

Sir Isaac Newton outlined the laws of motion and thermodynamics, so they're called "Newtonian" in his honor. However, we would be calling them Whistonian laws of motion and thermodynamics if he didn't and his disciple William Whiston had. Concepts need to be verifiable on their own for a rationalist to accept it. It wouldn't matter if Newton or Whiston or Joe Schmo had outlined them; if the concept is sound, it will be accepted by a rationalist. The alternative is simple: If the concept isn't sound, then the rationalists tear it apart.

On the other hand, Sir Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy, and was a big believer in God (though, ironically, not Jesus, because he thought that was idolatry.) Creationists use this as an argument for alchemy and God, thinking that those who "believed" him on motion and thermodynamics will "believe" him here. However, the only reason that they're bringing these beliefs up is that they were believed by Isaac Newton. This is a fundamental flaw in Creationist (aka "believer") thinking, and a form of projectionism: They think that rationalists believe in the person rather than accept the concept. But again, it doesn't matter who outlined motion or thermodynamics; they've been tested and retested and found just as true most every time they've been (and where they weren't, they were refined and revised). Alchemy, on the other hand, has never really been an accepted scientific theory, despite many ancient scientists trying to make it work. In fact, many ancient scientsts trying to make it work have made rationalists accept that it can't. And, of course, rationalists are still waiting on the evidence for the Christian God, or any god, for that matter. Saying Isaac Newton believed both will not sway a rationalist at all, because just because Newton was right about thermodynamics and motion doesn't mean he was right about everything.
 
2012-10-03 01:49:21 PM  
There is no such thing as a climate. The word climate is never mentioned in the Bible, therefore it does not exist.
 
2012-10-03 01:51:33 PM  

the_rhino: There is no such thing as a climate. The word climate is never mentioned in the Bible, therefore it does not exist.


Neither are computers. They don't exist ei***CARRIER LOST***
 
2012-10-03 01:53:20 PM  

sprawl15: You forgot the part where he runs out of the room crying when he can't cite his assertions and refuses to address criticisms.


Which were...?
 
2012-10-03 01:57:58 PM  

LiberalWeenie: Flooding can happen anywhere where there's a lot of water. I don't see how this footage of a flood is relevant to a piece on hurricanes.


Exactly
 
2012-10-03 02:00:15 PM  

LordZorch: Al Gore may be a lying idiot, but he knows how to fleece other idiots out of their cash.


You should see a medical professional about that knee spasm problem you're suffering from.
 
2012-10-03 02:05:33 PM  
Just because A-l Gore is a hypocritical self-promoting tool doesn't invalidate the scientific evidence of mankind-induced climate change.
 
2012-10-03 02:07:12 PM  

nmemkha: Just because A-l Gore is a hypocritical self-promoting tool doesn't invalidate the scientific evidence of mankind-induced climate change.


This.
 
2012-10-03 02:14:27 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Zafler: Holocaust Agnostic: Zulu_as_Kono: Holocaust Agnostic: More on average than the average changeist?

Changeist?

Changist:climate change advocate as denialist:sceptic. Being on the side that is evidently factually correct doesn't excuse the behavior.

Wait, what behavior?

Using bullshiat to cloud an important issue and extract money and/or fame. Like cutting a year off a graph to turn warming into steady. Or taking a picture of a polar bear resting on an iceberg and saying his home melted.



Or claiming Mexicans are invading America to take your jobs.
Or obstructing every attempt to stimulate the economy then saying Obama has been ineffective at job creation.
Or creating a mailer that says Democrats will ban the Bible.
i13.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-03 02:25:35 PM  
You do get it!
 
2012-10-03 02:28:36 PM  

Rincewind53: Gosh, it's almost as he may imply that firestorms will become more common as a result of climate change causing more severe weather incidents, and has therefore tried to find a video of such a firestorm in order to illustrate his point.

THE HORROR!


I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

I already know you want to buy it.
 
2012-10-03 02:33:28 PM  

fiver5: Rincewind53: Gosh, it's almost as he may imply that firestorms will become more common as a result of climate change causing more severe weather incidents, and has therefore tried to find a video of such a firestorm in order to illustrate his point.

THE HORROR!

I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

I already know you want to buy it.


Not even close to the same thing.
 
2012-10-03 03:07:57 PM  

sjmcc13: There are to many people acting around the world for people to not be affecting the climate. Plain and simple truth. anyone with human level intilligence can see this if they actually look at the issue.
The realy questions we need answers to are :
To what extent?
What is the "Point of No Return" where we can not recover?

Until we can awnser those 2 questions we need to act as cautiously as possible for fear of crossing the "Point of No Return" and wiping ourselves out


What the wingnuts don't get is this is the conservative position, at least as "conservative" used to be defined. We like the climate the way it is. We know we can survive in the climate the way it is. A "progressive" position might be "warmer climate would be good for blah blah blah, so let's go ahead and warm the climate." No one in his right mind takes this position. The wingnut position is "drill baby drill, burn baby burn, there are profits to be made, to hell with the consequences!" This isn't progressive and it certainly isn't conservative; it is just plain reckless.
 
2012-10-03 04:08:47 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: sjmcc13: There are to many people acting around the world for people to not be affecting the climate. Plain and simple truth. anyone with human level intilligence can see this if they actually look at the issue.
The realy questions we need answers to are :
To what extent?
What is the "Point of No Return" where we can not recover?

Until we can awnser those 2 questions we need to act as cautiously as possible for fear of crossing the "Point of No Return" and wiping ourselves out

What the wingnuts don't get is this is the conservative position, at least as "conservative" used to be defined. We like the climate the way it is. We know we can survive in the climate the way it is. A "progressive" position might be "warmer climate would be good for blah blah blah, so let's go ahead and warm the climate." No one in his right mind takes this position. The wingnut position is "drill baby drill, burn baby burn, there are profits to be made, to hell with the consequences!" This isn't progressive and it certainly isn't conservative; it is just plain reckless.


Ummm...THIS...Ten Thousand Times...THIS
 
2012-10-03 05:00:01 PM  

IlGreven: When you can't attack the data, attack the icons. Believers have tried this for thousands of years. It's failed for thousands of years, too.

Why is attacking people who back science a fool's errand? Let me put it to you in my own words from my own sucky blog:

Sir Isaac Newton outlined the laws of motion and thermodynamics, so they're called "Newtonian" in his honor. However, we would be calling them Whistonian laws of motion and thermodynamics if he didn't and his disciple William Whiston had. Concepts need to be verifiable on their own for a rationalist to accept it. It wouldn't matter if Newton or Whiston or Joe Schmo had outlined them; if the concept is sound, it will be accepted by a rationalist. The alternative is simple: If the concept isn't sound, then the rationalists tear it apart.

On the other hand, Sir Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy, and was a big believer in God (though, ironically, not Jesus, because he thought that was idolatry.) Creationists use this as an argument for alchemy and God, thinking that those who "believed" him on motion and thermodynamics will "believe" him here. However, the only reason that they're bringing these beliefs up is that they were believed by Isaac Newton. This is a fundamental flaw in Creationist (aka "believer") thinking, and a form of projectionism: They think that rationalists believe in the person rather than accept the concept. But again, it doesn't matter who outlined motion or thermodynamics; they've been tested and retested and found just as true most every time they've been (and where they weren't, they were refined and revised). Alchemy, on the other hand, has never really been an accepted scientific theory, despite many ancient scientists trying to make it work. In fact, many ancient scientsts trying to make it work have made rationalists accept that it can't. And, of course, rationalists are still waiting on the evidence for the Christian God, or any god, for that matter. Saying Isaac Newton believed ...


It's silly to attack alchemy anyway, because the fruitless and foolish search for the "philosopher's stone" led to the discovery of modern chemistry. Trying to turn base metals into gold helped alchemists understand the properties of those metals, discover properties of gasses and chemical reactions, and formulas that would lead to an understanding of thermodynamics and heat transference later on. Sure, we can call it stupid and flawed today--but if ancient alchemists hadn't done their foolish experiments for their silly reasons, nobody would have discovered anything.

The same is true of the other great false science, astrology. Tycho Brahe was a master astrologer, an art which demanded a precise knowledge of the position of the planets before the development of the telescope. Without his observations, and the money he made off his astrological charts, Kepler could not have challenged the prevailing opinion of the perfection of the universe. On such tiny changes hang major alterations in thinking.
 
2012-10-03 05:48:33 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Vodka Zombie: Who makes money off firestorms?

Firefighters.


No shiat? Where do I go to collect my check?

/volunteer


Are you and I on the same side? Against Vodka Zombie???

What is this world coming to... You better be trolling, Potato Juice Undead, YOU HEAR ME?!?!?!
 
2012-10-03 06:13:36 PM  

NateGrey: Dancin_In_Anson: Vodka Zombie: Who makes money off firestorms?

Firefighters.


No shiat? Where do I go to collect my check?

/volunteer

I... :: looks at user name ::

Makes sense.


...How the hell am I, the guy with NO FARKING SARCASM DETECTOR, able to see the sarcasm in the teabagger's statement, and yet nobody else seems to be able to?

Lay off, ya bloody tosspots. There's plenty to criticize Dancin' for, but THIS AIN'T ONE OF THOSE THINGS!

Lord_Baull: Dancin_In_Anson: You're about an ignorant motherfarker aren't you?


Aren't you the vehemently independent guy that repeats GOP talking points almost verbatim?


Yes, he is. Which is why I'm so pissed to have to defend him here.

Holocaust Agnostic: Using bullshiat to cloud an important issue and extract money and/or fame. Like cutting a year off a graph to turn warming into steady. Or taking a picture of a polar bear resting on an iceberg and saying his home melted.


One is a lie, the other is an exaggeration for effect. If you can't see the difference between fudging data and using illustrations like this, you need to repeat kindergarten, badly.

Lee Jackson Beauregard: sjmcc13: There are to many people acting around the world for people to not be affecting the climate. Plain and simple truth. anyone with human level intilligence can see this if they actually look at the issue.
The realy questions we need answers to are :
To what extent?
What is the "Point of No Return" where we can not recover?

Until we can awnser those 2 questions we need to act as cautiously as possible for fear of crossing the "Point of No Return" and wiping ourselves out

What the wingnuts don't get is this is the conservative position, at least as "conservative" used to be defined. We like the climate the way it is. We know we can survive in the climate the way it is. A "progressive" position might be "warmer climate would be good for blah blah blah, so let's go ahead and warm the climate." No one in his right mind takes this position. The wingnut position is "drill baby drill, burn baby burn, there are profits to be made, to hell with the consequences!" This isn't progressive and it certainly isn't conservative; it is just plain reckless.


My only criticism of this is your characterization of a "progressive" position. The bad outweighs the good, so the progressive stance would be "stop the warming, it causes bad shiat that halts progress."
 
2012-10-03 06:27:42 PM  
You know, the scientists have figured it out. It's all the socio-political bullshiat that gets in the way now. Good going society. Good going.
 
2012-10-03 08:01:33 PM  
Climate change creates droughts where they are not historically likely.

Drought conditions increase chances of wildfires.

More wildfires mean increased chances of fire tornadoes.

Therefor subby is dumb.
 
2012-10-03 08:11:49 PM  

vpb: LordZorch: Al Gore may be a lying idiot, but he knows how to fleece other idiots out of their cash.

I don't know. The lying idiots who spin for the coal industry make more I'll bet.


No kidding. I want to punch that biatch in the stomach every time I see one of those idiotic "clean coal" commercials. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL!

blog.cleanenergy.org
www.renewablepowernews.com
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report