It just takes one person, such as a history professor, to nominate anyone.

 

With a degree in history, I may nominate RTS or OR next year. With their

determination to stockpile an impressive personal arsenal, they are doing their dardest to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys and make the world more peaceful.:lol:

 

Why aren't they doing more to keep the North Koreans and Iranians from getting nukes, if they want to keep weapons out of the hands of the bad guys?

Fortunately, these people did not have the financial assets back then to wreck our economy trying to prevent another ice age.

You guys are the ultimate conspiracy theorists ...

Dude, I had some trouble finding a link to that show, but I think it was Dateline or 20/20, by the way what does 20/20 mean anyway, man? I had some algebra in high school, I thought 20/20 meant 1. Maybe that math dude can help with that, because I just don't know man.

 

But, I did find this article, that has a bunch of scientist, some real brainiacs that have changed their minds about the warm globe thing, they now say it is not what people like the Gore dude are saying. Here is a link to it, but man I tell you if you think global warming is real don't read it, because it will freak you out about it.

 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

From Wikipedia:

 

In 2005, the Free Press was engaged in a war of words with Ezra Levant's Western Standard over Rachel Marsden's suitability as a conservative commentator. The CFP was forced to apologize for casting doubt on Western Standard writer Kevin Steel's integrity and implying that he had plagiarized Toronto Star writer Antonia Zerbisias. Zerbisias herself has accused the CFP of plagiarizing an Associated Press story.

 

Toronto Conservative politician Paul Christie also won a retraction in 1997 after the website accused Christie of not being up to date on a subject because he had just returned from a five-week long holiday.

 

Canada Free Press and Garth Pritchard apologized in 2005 to David Pugliese and CanWest Global Media Works Publications Inc. for allegedly defaming them in an article written by Pritchard entitled "Bedroom Slipper Journalism". Pritchard had falsely accused Pugliese of not having any hands-on experience and lacking credibility. In fact, Pugliese has reported from active war/conflict zones as well as peacekeeping operations. The Canada Free Press admitted that their writer Pritchard had knowingly lied.

 

Sounds like a really reliable source of news and information ...

What is your point? That you heard about global warming before you heard about Al Gore?

 

As I have said in several threads, I have no problem with global warming research. Before Gore discovered that he could make a mountain of money on the issue, the scientists were busy studying data and publishing paper with out being demeaned based on their findings and theories. Al Gore shifted the debate from the laboratories to the media prematurely. Now, he is getting desperate because the global temperatures are not fitting the models that he has been pushing.

 

If this is true, why was there no discourse from the other side prior to Gore backing global warming? Some thing that it is naive of us to simply buy into something just because Gore supports it. I find it equally difficult to NOT buy into simply for the same reason. The more times I see "Gore" in an article/post the less credibility that I give to it.

From Wikipedia:

 

In 2005, the Free Press was engaged in a war of words with Ezra Levant's Western Standard over Rachel Marsden's suitability as a conservative commentator. The CFP was forced to apologize for casting doubt on Western Standard writer Kevin Steel's integrity and implying that he had plagiarized Toronto Star writer Antonia Zerbisias. Zerbisias herself has accused the CFP of plagiarizing an Associated Press story.

 

Toronto Conservative politician Paul Christie also won a retraction in 1997 after the website accused Christie of not being up to date on a subject because he had just returned from a five-week long holiday.

 

Canada Free Press and Garth Pritchard apologized in 2005 to David Pugliese and CanWest Global Media Works Publications Inc. for allegedly defaming them in an article written by Pritchard entitled "Bedroom Slipper Journalism". Pritchard had falsely accused Pugliese of not having any hands-on experience and lacking credibility. In fact, Pugliese has reported from active war/conflict zones as well as peacekeeping operations. The Canada Free Press admitted that their writer Pritchard had knowingly lied.

 

Sounds like a really reliable source of news and information ...

 

Dude, you may be right man, I can't vouch for all their sources, but I think I remember something about the New York Post getting caught doing something that was not cool. Plagiarizing, I think was the term that the talking heads called it. I think most people think they are a pretty righteous source, but it looks like they were uncool at one point. Plus, I have a friend who said "Dude sometimes the media slants stories to appeal to the viewer", and he is a righteously smart dude too.

If this is true, why was there no discourse from the other side prior to Gore backing global warming? Some thing that it is naive of us to simply buy into something just because Gore supports it. I find it equally difficult to NOT buy into simply for the same reason. The more times I see "Gore" in an article/post the less credibility that I give to it.

Please stop accusing me of taking a position simply because Al Gore has taken the opposite position and I will extend you the same courtesy and assume that you have reached your position upon careful reflection of the evidence.

 

The man-made global warming advocates have attacked many scientists for receiving money from the oil industry. In some cases, the grant amounts that those scientists received was as little as a few hundred dollars. The $300 million dollars that Gore's group is about to spend to influence public opinion (not to research the problem or solutions) is a valid issue.

 

As a science teacher, I hope that you recognize the danger of using a publicity campaign to squelch scientific debate. I am currently reading a book that chronicles the development of multi-dimensional theory that describes the scholarly debates that occurred over the years among Maxwell, Bohr, Einstein, Pauli, and the contributions of lesser known scientists such as Kaluza and Klein who made later breakthroughs possible. The contrast between how scientists hashed out the details of general relativity and quantum mechanics and the way that the global warming theory is being settled is stark.

 

Scientific debates should not be decided by public opinion polls but that seems to be where the global warming debate is headed. Even when the observed temperatures have shown cooling trends, such as the five-years worth of ocean temperature measurements, the media continues to focus on anecdotal evidence such as local glaciers melting or a few polar bears drowning - as if these events have not happened thousands of times since the end of the last ice age.

 

I understand how you feel about seeing Al Gore's name pop up so often in these threads but he is the face of the global warming movement. Gore is the man most responsible for getting the attention of politicians and he will be the man most responsible if this country begins spending billions of dollars to combat global warming without it being established that global warming is occurring or that we have the technology to combat it if it is occurring.

 

If Gore is right, then he will get the lion's share of credit for mobilizing resources. If he is wrong, then he will deserve ridicule and shame because he has used those tools to intimidate and silence many good scientists who disagree with him.

Please stop accusing me of taking a position simply because Al Gore has taken the opposite position and I will extend you the same courtesy and assume that you have reached your position upon careful reflection of the evidence.

 

I have not accused you of anything here. I am simply stating that I find that I tend to discount multiple Al Gore references.

 

I don't know how to make this any simpler. I want to move BEYOND the political trip from BOTH sides to make an informed decision. The more "Gore" I hear, the less likely I am to play attention, because people are still making it political.

I have not accused you of anything here. I am simply stating that I find that I tend to discount multiple Al Gore references.

 

I don't know how to make this any simpler. I want to move BEYOND the political trip from BOTH sides to make an informed decision. The more "Gore" I hear, the less likely I am to play attention, because people are still making it political.

The more Gore I hear, the less I am inclined to pay attention too. If critics of Einstein and Bohr had spent $300 million on an advertising campaign against them, we might be debating this issue in German today.

 

Gore and his allies have turned this into a political issue by running a fear and smear propaganda campaign.