Lawsuit against Gore?

http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812

Just throwing this out there for discussion.

 

Gore is an idiot. However, a lawsuit is ridiculous. The problem with the global warming issue is that legitimate scientists are now worried to publically cricitize/question/discuss global warming science. This is not a healthy situation for science. Objective scientists need to be free debate methods, findings, etc.;just for the sake of good science. Now you have scientists who are worried about the integrity of global warming science but they dont want to be viewed as right wing in-denial extremmists so they dont engage in constructive debate.

 

revoking the license of weathermen (er, weatherpeople)?
you need a license to do that?

 

It's just a vehicle to further the debate.. aint gonna happen.
I dont think Gore is vulnerable because all he has to do is fall back on what his campaign actually IS... Political. Though THAT would be helpful IMO.

But it WILL embolden the REAL scientists, perhaps, to make their views known.

 

have to agree with Fog, this is just vehicle to present the other side. However, I don't know that scientists will ever be able to actually debat this issues as media has already influenced the world population about global warming. Just look at Gore's movie and concerts (no, I didn't see the movie).

 

And >>>I<< will take a NOTE from YOUR playbook and ask just what the hell does Evolution v Intelligent Design have to do with Gore's presentation on Global Warming?
and BTW... you have to be able to read BEFORE you can read a 'science' book. Jes' thought I'd throw that in..

And Had you LOOKED at the list of scientists, and their credentials, Gore had on board while they were touting that list?

 

This is stupid. The courtroom is not the right place to engage in a scientific debate.

 

Don. Gotta side with 'fog on this one - your link between Anthropomorphic Global Warming and Intelligent Design is so thin it makes monofiliment look broad in comparison.

Heck, (while I am not trying to start this debate), I don't believe in Macro-Evoluton and fit within the "Intelligent Design" side of the aisle. I do believe that Global Climate Change is occurring, but don't believe it is being caused, or even noticably impacted, by man.

I don't, however, see any link between the two discussions.

My reasons for "disbelieving" AGW have to do with the lack of clear scientific evidence (for example, temperature rises are occurring BEFORE the rise in CO2 levels) and by the overtly econo-political focus of the major AGW groups.

 

As far as 'science' goes, Don... I'll remind you of certain learned idiocies of recent times:

Hawking positing in the 70's that anything entering a black hole becomes nothing.

Current theory that the Universe occupied space smaller than an atom at the time of the 'Big Bang'

I WANT 'Evolution' taught in the schools but I'm not going to waste time arguing about theories.. whether with someone who believes in chaos-organized, or someone who believes the Universe is 6000 years old.

But since Gore made statements based on falsity that's easily questioned and/or soon to be disproved, that's a whole different thing. BUT IT"S STILL NOT ACTIONABLE!!!!

 

For example, what Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric scientist from MIT says in the Wall Street Journal,

Here's the link if you want to read the article

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

There is also the fact that everyone knows what the social climate is on this issue, and I feel it isnt one conducive to honest, objective science.

There is also the fact that scientists from all over the world are in the arctic right now collecting data. Why, so they can understand what is going because they dont understand it. From a press release from the National Academy of Sciences.

Al Gore is an idiot because he got a "D" in science at one of the easiest schools of any repute to get an "A". Also because his Nashville mansion uses over 10 X more coal fired electricity than the average American's house, until a few years ago he owned a mine that was cited for polluting the local river, and he and his father owe their Senate careers (along with that mine) to the head (a convicted criminal by the way) of Occidental Petroleum. Finally, because he couldnt even win his own state in 2000.

 

Don,

The problem is you're attacking people from a political position and not a scientific position. Mo is right to point out that there are people out there trying to silence scientists who disagree with Global Warming fearmongering. It's everywhere, but it isn't winning I think... some scientists are speaking out, amongst others (business leaders, economists, politicians, and other public intellectuals)

Evolution, like Fog wrote, IS something totally different. This isn't a right versus left thing, this is a honest debate/truth thing over false information and fearmongering.

Pay closer attention to what people are writing and stop going for the simplistic political attack.

 

'Pigs be flyin....'

 

Don, I'm probably wrong about the "the easiest school of any repute". Harvard may have been different when Gore was there. But the comment was based on anecdotal stuff. I had a friend who transfered from Harvard to Rice, he said it was very easy to get an "A" at Harvard. My husband went to MIT and as a result could take classes at Harvard. The saying at MIT is "Harvard, hardest school to get into, easiest school to get out of". Also, grade inflation at universities has been an issue for decades and Harvard is always mentioned. The average GPA there is pretty high.

But I still think I'm right on the other points. I dont want to debate though, my points were pretty clear and pretty simple

 

touche

If I edit the part about Gore out will you pay attention to the details of my points?