Al Gore, Global Warming, And The Burden Of Proof

**John L** · 10-04-2008, 11:00 PM

I really like this article. It shows how Algore is using the time honored policy of requiring proof of innocence from those who differ from his ideas of how the world should work. It's an elaborate scam, and he is reaping millions in profit from it. So, naturally he has not incentive to change his path.

The slick trick behind global frauding

By James Lewis
In Stalin's Russia any dissenter from the Party Line was guilty. Innocence had to be proved. It's a standard tyrant's trick. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England, witchhunters did not have to prove that their victims were guilty. The accused witches had to prove their innocence.

That's what Al Gore has done to science: He and his friends have flipped innocence and guilt from normal science to Stalinist science.

In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil. Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh, yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless.

Stalin twisted scientific biology over four decades in the Soviet Union. His favorite fake-scientist, Trofim Lysenko, used all the powers of the police state to enforce his batty belief that the bleeding disaster of Soviet agriculture could be fixed just by making plants grow bigger. It's the old idea that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks out more and more, to nibble at higher leaves on the trees. It's nonsense, as horse breeders have known for ages. You can't make a great race horse just by making their ancestors run fast. You have to do selective breeding.

But breeding takes time, and Stalin was in a hurry. So he fell for the Lysenko fraud, and flipped the burden of proof: Any Soviet biologist who disagreed with Lysenko was shot. This went on for forty years, and caused endless suffering as one harvest after the next crashed. People died by the millions, in part because biological science was fundamentally corrupted.

Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science. It's as if Jeremiah Wright demanded that all white folks must prove to him that they're not blue-eyed devils. If politically correct ideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything.

In normal science the burden of proof is on the proposer. Albert Einstein had to prove in his historic 1905 paper that there was a fundamental flaw in classical physics. The distinctive predictions of Relativity Theory had to be verified for decades afterwards. Some are still being tested today. His predecessor Max Planck remarked that he encountered so much skepticism that he had to wait for the older generation of physicists to die off before his work was accepted. Darwin said the same thing.

A healthy scientific community is extremely skeptical. It needs to see more and more evidence, over and over and over again, before it adopts some wild-eyed new idea. It takes all the time it needs; good science is very patient. Einstein himself was a complete skeptic about quantum mechanics, and never accepted it over the last forty years of his life. He had a perfect right to question it, as long as he had rational arguments, and he did. (He was wrong on QM, but he was right on Relativity.)

"Catastrophic global warming," caused by human beings, is a really wild-eyed idea, given the fact that animals have survived on earth for half a billion years, with thousands of massive volcanic explosions, giant meteors hitting the earth, drifting continents, and great biomass changes that would have perturbed the climate, if the hypothesis were true. Just imagine the amount of C02 that must have been released with the Cambrian explosion of animal life. If the earth really saw superfast global ups and downs in temperature, no animals could have survived those 500 million years. The Ice Ages drove animals and people south, but they were not superfast, global events, or you and I would not be here today. Animals and plants are able adapt to temperature changes. Polar bears grow layers of fat and long, dense fur. Camels can stay cool in the desert.

In biology, "catastrophism" has been treated with intense skepticism since Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. Except today, when biological catastrophism is the in thing. Why would that be, do you suppose?

How have Al Gore and the fraudsters pulled it off? It's really simple. They just flipped the burden of proof and put it on the "deniers" --- the skeptics, who don't believe the computer models. With the Left in control of the media, you can do it.

So now it's prove to me you're not a witch! Because there is no decisive evidence. There are 21 computer models that "prove" global warming over the next century. By the time 2050 rolls around, most of the modelers will be dead.

To answer the biggest con trick in the history of science, you just have to address a single question to True Believers: What's your evidence for this barmy idea? (Not: Here's my evidence against it. That's not how it works).

And the answer is: There are no facts robust enough, consistent enough, and verified enough to support the mass hysteria. The climate system is hypercomplex, nonlinear and poorly understood. The media spinners are immensely ignorant about real science, and just care about the next scare headline. There's a lot of wild speculation and a mob of self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and media types who stand to gain a ton of power and money by suckering millions of taxpayers. Al Gore just started a 300 million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody. When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven? We're not spending millions to prove the existence of gravity. The uproar and money involved in this fraud is in direct proportion to the lack of solid facts.

The last ten years have seen global cooling, not warming.

Temperatures over the last hundred years look like the stock market: ups and downs, a very slow rise of a fraction of a degree until the late 1990s, then a drop for the last ten years, with so much cooling in the last year as to cancel out a century of warming. Why? Nobody really knows, but Mr. Sun is the logical suspect.

Look it up. But don't get caught in the trap of proving the negative. In normal, healthy science, the skeptics ask questions. It is the proponents who carry the burden of proof.

Now can we talk about 9/11? That's a fact. But Al Gore doesn't think it's a big deal, compared to his favorite science fiction story. Al Gore just wants power, fame, money, and the US Presidency. Well, three out of four ain't bad.

Oliver Cromwell and his witchhunters would have understood perfectly.

l

**Northern Scum** · 11-04-2008, 12:56 AM

Global Warming is a crock of shit.

The earth hasn't got hotter in the last seven years & won't in the next three.

They're calling it 'climate change' now instead.

I call it the climate change racket.

So does Littlejohn - & he knows his stuff.

**John L** · 11-04-2008, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Shitman

Global Warming is a crock of shit.

The earth hasn't got hotter in the last seven years & won't in the next three.

They're calling it 'climate change' now instead.

I call it the climate change racket.

So does Littlejohn - & he knows his stuff.

Couldn't agree more. However, Algore's love for Napoleonic Law leads me to believe that he is either playing a huge con game, or is a pocket tyrant, who we almost allowed into the White House

**Hootad Binky** · 11-04-2008, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by John L

Algore is using the time honored policy of requiring proof of innocence

Originally Posted by John L

Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative

Disproving a theory is part of science; it's how a theory is tested. Quantum mechanics and evolution are both still theories, but they're essentially Laws now because they haven't yet been disproven, after thousands of attempts. It's what's required for true science to take place.

Anyway what does disproving a theory have to do with "innocence"?

Originally Posted by John L

really silly alarmist hogwash

Global warming can be caused by greenhouse gases; we know that, that is not in dispute. We know we are pumping more of these gases faster into the atmosphere than ever before, the poles are melting, deserts are increasing, sea levels are rising.

In science, the onus is now on the Skeptic to disprove the hypothesis global warming draws from observation and analysis of this statistical climatic data. In other words, reproduce the experiment, run the same data, and what results do you get? Unless you have a better theory.

This article is just a negative argument; it can't provide a better explanation to global warming so it just complains over and over that it doesn't have to disprove anything!

Originally Posted by John L

It's the old idea that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks out more and more, to nibble at higher leaves on the trees. It's nonsense, as horse breeders have known for ages. You can't make a great race horse just by making their ancestors run fast. You have to do selective breeding

So, giraffes have longer necks because of "selective breeding"? Who's the selective breeder? God?

Originally Posted by John L

Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science

Not if the theories of the doubters cannot account for climatic facts better than than the theory of proponents.

Originally Posted by John L

It's as if Jeremiah Wright demanded that all white folks must prove to him that they're not blue-eyed devils

That's ridiculous!

Originally Posted by John L

If politically correct ideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything

So Global Warming, endorsed by the vast majority of the world's scientists, is not based on science? It's the best current explanation for accepted climatic data, not just a "politically-correct idea."

Originally Posted by John L

some wild-eyed new idea

It's not a new idea.

Originally Posted by John L

Einstein himself was a complete skeptic about quantum mechanics, and never accepted it over the last forty years of his life. He had a perfect right to question it, as long as he had rational arguments, and he did. (He was wrong on QM, but he was right on Relativity.)

Right! Good example of the rigorous standards of science; even though Einstein himself questioned QM, because he couldn't come up with a better explanation of sub-atomic phenomena he was proven wrong exactly as you state!

Originally Posted by John L

If the earth really saw superfast global ups and downs in temperature, no animals could have survived those 500 million years

Define "superfast." If you mean global warming is unprecedented, it's not, and if you mean it's happening quickly now, it certainly is, but never accompanied with these levels of rapidly, artificially-created manmade greenhouse gases.

Originally Posted by John L

The Ice Ages drove animals and people south, but they were not superfast, global events, or you and I would not be here today

Right, because they happened slowly.

Originally Posted by John L

Animals and plants are able adapt to temperature changes. Polar bears grow layers of fat and long, dense fur. Camels can stay cool in the desert

Right, but it takes a long time to adapt. So, if global warming continues to accelerate, it will drastically affect large area like coastlines, deserts and the polar regions. I don't think polar bears will be able to shed their coats in the next 200 years!

Originally Posted by John L

Temperatures over the last hundred years look like the stock market: ups and downs, a very slow rise of a fraction of a degree until the late 1990s, then a drop for the last ten years, with so much cooling in the last year as to cancel out a century of warming.

Really?

Climate Change 2001:
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

Table of contentsSummaryForewordPrefaceSummary for PolicymakersTechnical SummaryChapter 1. The Climate System: an OverviewChapter 2. Observed Climate Variability and ChangeChapter 3. The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon DioxideChapter 4. Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse GasesChapter 5. Aerosols, their Direct and Indirect EffectsChapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate ChangeChapter 7. Physical Climate Processes and FeedbacksChapter 8. Model EvaluationChapter 9. Projections of Future Climate ChangeChapter 10. Regional Climate Information – Evaluation and ProjectionsChapter 11. Changes in Sea LevelChapter 12. Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of CausesChapter 13. Climate Scenario DevelopmentChapter 14. Advancing Our UnderstandingAppendix I GlossaryAppendix II SRES TablesAppendix III Contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment ReportAppendix IV Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Third Assessment ReportAppendix V Acronyms and AbbreviationsAppendix VI UnitsAppendix VII Some Chemical Symbols used in this ReportAppendix VIII Figures and Tables in this Report Get Javascript Other reports in this collection

Table of contents
Other reports in this collection

Even Skeptics Admit Global Warming is Real [Video]

Sure, global warming is real, said participants in a recent climate change conference, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it.

The 2,500 or so scientists, economists and other experts of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) call global warming "unequivocal" and think it "very likely" that humans have contributed to the problem. The world's governments agree with the panel, which also shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Then there's the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). These 23 individuals from 15 countries, including a handful of scientists, disagree.

Led by physicist S. Fred Singer—best known for his denial of the dangers of secondhand smoke—they argue the reverse: "Natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause" of climate change.

The NIPCC goes on to contend: "We do not say anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot produce some warming. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a significant role."

In other words, even skeptics, deniers, contrarians—pick your favorite term—agree that global warming is real, or so it appears from the recent three-day conference in New York City put together by the Heartland Institute, a bastion of free-market thinking on the perils of junk science and government economic regulation. They just disagree—even amongst themselves—whether it is man-made.

On the one side sits Patrick Michaels, the recently resigned state climatologist of Virginia who ascribes global warming to fluctuations in the sun's energy output aided and abetted by human activity. In his conference dinner address, Michaels said: "Global warming is real and people have something to do with it."

On the other side is astrophysicist Willie Soon of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. He lays the blame on the sun for all the agreed-on warming. And meteorologist William Gray of Colorado State University in Fort Collins believes the sun will soon reverse its effect. "We should begin to see cooling coming on," he predicts. "I'm ready to make a big financial bet."

If you are interested in seeing a contrarian in action, here is your chance:

See the president and co-founder of the Heartland Institute, Joseph Bast, explain how the science of climate change is shifting, how a little global warming would be a good thing, and the reason not to vote.

(download the original)

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

Even Skeptics Admit Global Warming is Real [Video]: Scientific American

**John L** · 11-04-2008, 07:22 AM

In answer to your very short and concise post,.......Perhaps, yes, yes, no, sometimes, only time will tell, sometimes, and I don't think so.

Just kidding.

One thing.

Obviously you are relying upon the well disproven, and I am talking about absolute proof, Hockey Stick graph. It's a fraud, and only the intellectually dishonest, or intellectually lazy, still rely upon it. Incidentially, even the IPCC no longer uses it, and conveniently left it out of their last biased assessment.

Let me ask for your kind patience and take the time to read the following about the Hockey Stick episode.

The "Hockeystick" : The Global Warming Scandal of the Decade,By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.

Breaking the “Hockey Stick”

And for some detailed, dry, and entirely bland science, you can go here and read all about the folly of the Hockey Stick. PDF:BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS:THE “HOCKEY-STICK” AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, by David Holland

And if you are only interested in a "Good Read" about it, try Orson Scott Card's account. He is a great Si Fi writer, so you will be able to enjoy his account of how the fraud was pushed on to us and how it was totally exposed by a fellow Canadian. All in a Good Cause, By Orson Scott Card

And since you are a "True Believer", it it likely that nothing will sway your faith. But If you are interested in getting ALL SIDES of the debate, let me suggest you journey to the Coyote Blog and read his thoughtful publication, Table of Contents: A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming. He is not interested in bias and only wishes to bring out the truth.

Now, if you are a glutton for punishment, lastly you can go to my forum, Ai-Jane.org, and check out Accumulated Global Warming Skeptic's Guide. If that does not put you in to "Tilt" mode, nothing will.

**Northern Scum** · 11-04-2008, 07:51 AM

That hockey stick graph again

Is that their proof?

**sabang** · 11-04-2008, 07:55 AM

I'm afraid I am a bit of a global warming fatalist, because whatever the human activity role may or may not be in global warning, I honestly do not see humankind being able to work together and do something meaningful about it- especially given such trends as the industrialisation of China and the developing world in general, and the continuing acceleration of rainforest destruction in SE Asian and Amazonia.

The decisive factor in both cases is greed, or to put it more benignly, peoples quest for a better life. There is also the fact that, if all carbon producing activities were to cease tomorrow, the level of carbon in the upper atmosphere would still rise for the next thirty years at least, due to the latent amount in the lower atmosphere and ground. Any meaningful measures I suspect will happen on a more localised level, for example some Chinese cities are becoming almost unlivable because of the amount of pollutants in the air, and general filth. Another example is 'burning season' in SE Asia. The air quality around CM can become quite apalling, and causes several respiratory complaints- as can the air in Singapore and southern Malaysia, due to Indonesian forest burning.

So I will only comment on the articles above. HB's article quotes credible scientific sources, and makes a case to answer or refute.

JohnL's article throws around accusations of the 'unscientic' basis of the Al Gore school, and is quick to employ terms such as 'fraud' and 'slick trick'. Yet it does not employ one ounce of science or scientific evidence during the whole diatribe to support it's case. In other words it is an opinion piece, a Blog. As such, it is aimed at the Faithful- those who already believe what it states. Who else would give it any credence?- it does not actually make any case against global warming.

You'll have to do better than that John!

Your view may have merit, but wheres the Beef?

Incidentally, whilst a link to the article was provided, it did not show the source of the article, which is American Thinker, a daily Right Wing Blog (predictably). It's news Editor, one Ed Lasky, has been accused of conducting a smear campaign against Obama.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_slick_trick_behind_global.html

**Northern Scum** · 11-04-2008, 08:00 AM

My latest edition of Nice Work comes from the People's Republic of Islington, where the council is anxious to employ a 'Carbon Reduction Adviser' on thirty grand a year.

It's just one of 3,500 new jobs created by local authorities to cash in on the 'global warming' hysteria.

"Islington Council is leading the way in tackling climate change..." the advert boasts. You could have fooled me.

Islington may be leading the way in deliberately creating traffic congestion, vindictive parking enforcement and turning almost every road in the borough into a crazy golf course.

It could mount a convincing case for leading the way in stabbing, street crime, litter, graffiti and child molestation in council care homes.

But saving the planet? No one would ever confuse the Holloway Road with the Brazilian rainforest, even without the CCTV cameras every five yards.

Where Islington has always led the way is in hiring graduates of pretend 'universities' for lucrative non-jobs at the taxpayer's expense. But it doesn't have the field to itself.

Just as I predicted, the latest employment bonanza for the Guardianistas is the 'climate change' racket.

Town Halls across Britain are estimated to have spent more than £100 million recruiting an army of green warriors.

Take Hull. A couple of weeks ago, the council was woefully unprepared for the floods which swept through the city. Residents washed out of house and home were left to fend for themselves.

I'm sure it came as a great comfort to them to learn that Hull now has 30 staff beavering away on 'environmental issues'. It's just a pity they weren't beavering away building dams, instead of dreaming up exciting new punishments for people who put the wrong kind of rubbish in the wrong kind of sack.

In Tower Hamlets, the poorest borough in London and arguably the most deprived in Britain, 58 employees have job titles which contain the words 'climate change' or 'global warming'. Tower Hamlets still has the worst recycling record in the country, as well as some of the Nottingham has 22 staff dedicated to dealing with 'issues around global warming'.

The city also boasts 70 'green champions'.

We're not talking Robin Hood and his Merry Men here.

East Hampshire, hardly a hotbed of the Guardianistas, is employing someone to go round schools showing impressionable pupils Al Gore's propaganda flick An Inconvenient Truth - even though scientists remain deeply divided on what the 'truth' about climate change really is.

As far as the bien-pensants are concerned, the debate is closed. The truth doesn't enter the equation, it's an article of faith.

Global warming is the new multi-culturalism. And it can only be addressed by a vast new bureaucracy, backed up by a raft of laws, inspectors, monitors and enforcers.

Carbon advisers? Just empty the bins! | the Daily Mail

I know who I trust.

**John L** · 11-04-2008, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

I'm afraid I am a bit of a global warming fatalist, because whatever the human activity role may or may not be in global warning, I honestly do not see humankind being able to work together and do something meaningful about it- especially given such trends as the industrialisation of China and the developing world in general, and the continuing acceleration of rainforest destruction in SE Asian and Amazonia.

So,....you are generally a pessimist?

The decisive factor in both cases is greed, or to put it more benignly, peoples quest for a better life.

I believe the proper phrase is "Self-Interest". Greed gives ammunition to the ClassWarriors and GetEvenWithEmIsers to label them as E V I L.

So I will only comment on the articles above. HB's article quotes credible scientific sources, and makes a case to answer or refute.

JohnL's article throws around accusations of the 'unscientic' basis of the Al Gore school, and is quick to employ terms such as 'fraud' and 'slick trick'. Yet it does not employ one ounce of science or scientific evidence during the whole diatribe to support it's case. In other words it is an opinion piece, a Blog. As such, it is aimed at the Faithful- those who already believe what it states. Who else would give it any credence?- it does not actually make any case against global warming.

Sounds like you have your mind made up?

You'll have to do better than that John!

Your view may have merit, but wheres the Beef?

Where is your open mindedness?

Incidentally, whilst a link to the article was provided, it did not show the source of the article, which is American Thinker, a daily Right Wing Blog (predictably). It's news Editor, one Ed Lasky, has been accused of conducting a smear campaign against Obama.

This is typical 'boiler plate' Collectivist Left Wing tactics. Rather than address the content of the message, attack the character of the conveyer of the message. Logic is not as important as "feelings"

Why don't you address the points?

**sabang** · 11-04-2008, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by John L

So,....you are generally a pessimist?

A Fatalist John- it's not the same thing. If climate change is real and accelerating, it is our ability to adapt to it as a species that will be more important than current attempts at international co-operation to reduce the human contribution to it, imo.

Originally Posted by John L

believe the proper phrase is "Self-Interest".

I have no problems with that- call it Self Interest. A powerful motivating force, for each and every one of us.

Originally Posted by John L

Where is your open mindedness?

My open-mindedness is on how much human activity is responsible for global warming. My jury is still out.

Originally Posted by John L

This is typical 'boiler plate' Collectivist Left Wing tactics

Not really. Apart fom the fact I am far from Left Wing, the plain fact is no rational, objective person would give the same credence to an opinionist Blog (wherever it may be in the political divide) that fails to employ any scientific evidence to back up it's point of view, and uses emotive language such as 'fraud', plus emotive imagery such as 911, compared to a more rational piece that quotes actual documented scientific evidence, which you can then analyse and refute if you can.

Again- wheres the Beef?

**John L** · 11-04-2008, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

Again- wheres the Beef?

As I requested above, kindly go to The Coyote Blog and read A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming. It's extrememly well written and easy to follow. All it requires is your time.

Then come back and ask for the "beef".

**Butterfly** · 11-04-2008, 10:05 AM

^ that blog is garbage, so again where is the beef John ? or are your trying to feed us with garbage ?

**PlanK** · 11-04-2008, 04:31 PM

Is this the 'Who can make the biggest zebra crossing post' thread?

**Hootad Binky** · 12-04-2008, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by John L

In answer to your very short and concise post,.......Perhaps, yes, yes, no, sometimes, only time will tell, sometimes, and I don't think so.

Just kidding.

One thing.

Obviously you are relying upon the well disproven, and I am talking about absolute proof, Hockey Stick graph. It's a fraud, and only the intellectually dishonest, or intellectually lazy, still rely upon it. Incidentially, even the IPCC no longer uses it, and conveniently left it out of their last biased assessment.

Let me ask for your kind patience and take the time to read the following about the Hockey Stick episode.

The "Hockeystick" : The Global Warming Scandal of the Decade,By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.

Breaking the “Hockey Stick”

And for some detailed, dry, and entirely bland science, you can go here and read all about the folly of the Hockey Stick. PDF:BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS:THE “HOCKEY-STICK” AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, by David Holland

And if you are only interested in a "Good Read" about it, try Orson Scott Card's account. He is a great Si Fi writer, so you will be able to enjoy his account of how the fraud was pushed on to us and how it was totally exposed by a fellow Canadian. All in a Good Cause, By Orson Scott Card

And since you are a "True Believer", it it likely that nothing will sway your faith. But If you are interested in getting ALL SIDES of the debate, let me suggest you journey to the Coyote Blog and read his thoughtful publication, Table of Contents: A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming. He is not interested in bias and only wishes to bring out the truth.

Now, if you are a glutton for punishment, lastly you can go to my forum, Ai-Jane.org, and check out Accumulated Global Warming Skeptic's Guide. If that does not put you in to "Tilt" mode, nothing will.

Don't like my "hockey stick"?

Are you saying the information it contains is not correct? if so, please point out (in your own words) how the graphs I posted are incorrect. Also, in your own words, let's have some simple yes/no answers to these two fundamental questions:

1) Do greenhouse gases contribute to global warming?
2) Has human activity dramatically increased the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
3) Are the poles melting?
4) Are sea levels rising?
5) Is desertification increasing?

But thanks for the links!

Originally Posted by John L

This is typical 'boiler plate' Collectivist Left Wing tactics. Rather than address the content of the message

With all due respect, you haven't addressed or refuted anything in my initial post, you've just posted some links.

Originally Posted by John L

Why don't you address the points?

Right, in your own words

let's start with this exciting new idea:

Originally Posted by John L

the time honored policy of requiring proof of innocence from those who differ from his ideas of how the world should work. It's an elaborate scam

that theories don't need to be disproved with empirical data

Btw, what does "proof of innocence" mean? What does it have to do with science?

A simple, direct answer from you will suffice (not another link)

I'm interested in what you think and what theory and data it's based on.

**John L** · 12-04-2008, 01:10 AM

Hootad Binky, I am placing you in the same category as Butterfly, who I know better than I would like. Neither of you are interested in reading the other side of the argument, so you are a complete waste of time and energy to me. So, until you can show that you can rise above Butterfly's adolescent nature, I am not going to bother with you.

Having gone from an AGW True Believer, to a position of sanity, I can see both sides of the issue. Unfortunately you are not willing, so I shall bid you good day.

**Hootad Binky** · 12-04-2008, 02:02 AM

I'm more interested in what you have to say, so it's unfortunate you were unable to answer any of the simple questions I posited.

Oh well

**John L** · 12-04-2008, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

I'm more interested in what you have to say, so it's unfortunate you were unable to answer any of the simple questions I posited.

Oh well

You should be interested in the TRUTH, above all things.

**stroller** · 12-04-2008, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by John L

It's a fraud, and only the intellectually dishonest, or intellectually lazy, still rely upon it.

Or those who happened not to come across your sources before?

Originally Posted by John L

Having gone from an AGW True Believer, to a position of sanity, I can see both sides of the issue.

When was this, John?
You've been a believer of the "AGW-is-a-scam" variety for as long as I can remember.

**Butterfly** · 12-04-2008, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by John L

Hootad Binky, I am placing you in the same category as Butterfly, who I know better than I would like. Neither of you are interested in reading the other side of the argument, so you are a complete waste of time and energy to me. So, until you can show that you can rise above Butterfly's adolescent nature, I am not going to bother with you.

Hootad Binky, you should take this as a compliment

As soon as John is confronted with his own ignorance, he basically run and put you on ignore. If he was a mod here, you would have been banned for "disrespecting" a mod and "pursuing" impure ideas

Like I say, you don't debate with loonies, you just watch them and laugh

**Northern Scum** · 12-04-2008, 06:45 AM

Jeremy Clarkson says global warming is cobblers, too.

FOR years, we’ve been told that unless we buy a stupid electric car and eat mud for the rest of our lives, the world will boil, our children will be microwaved and all the polar bears will sink.

But now, the World Meteorological Organisation has announced that this year, the world will actually cool down a bit.

As a result, scientists are being forced to admit that the planet (which weighs 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms) is more resilient to the Range Rover (which weighs 3,000kg) than was first thought.

In other words, everything we’ve been told for the past five years by the Government, Al Gore, Channel Four News and hippies everywhere is a big bucket of nonsense.

I’m not surprised. Because there’s always someone somewhere telling us the world is about to end.

And it never does.

First of all there was God, who said that if we carried on fornicating, a big seven-headed monster would gobble us up.

Well, it hasn’t even got round to eating Warren Beatty yet, and he’s spent most of his life fornicating.

Then, in the early 20th Century, we were solemnly informed that the world’s population would eventually become too stupid to survive unless white people stopped mating with black people and disabled people were banned from breeding at all.

And this wasn’t some half-arsed Nazi theory either. Winston Churchill supported it. So did H G Wells, Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw and almost all contemporary scientists.

Right up to the 1970s, Canada was sterilising Inuits in case their silly semen somehow got into the womb of a white woman.

But then, one day, everyone realised that actually it was all a pack of nonsense and the whole idea — an idea which had gripped and terrified the world — simply went away.

Later, when I was growing up, we were all assured that the only possible outcome of the Cold War was a nuclear holocaust.

Everyone agreed the world would end in a blinding flash of cancerous light.

No one — not even the CIA — ever predicted that Russia would just give up and that a pack of East Germans would simply knock down the Berlin Wall using nothing but DIY tools and their bare hands.

Starved of something to worry about, the human race came up with the Millennium Bug. All computers would shut down on New Year’s Eve, 1999, and in an instant we’d be plunged into the Dark Ages.

Then it was Sars, and then it was Bird Flu and then it was global warming.

Hopefully, when the next big scare is dreamed up, we’ll take a lesson from history.

And carry on as normal.

Ignore the end of the world | Jeremy Clarkson | The Sun |HomePage|News|Columnists|Clarkson on Saturday

It's true.

This climate change racket is just the next thing on a long list of bullshit we are fed to fleece us out of cash.

The only way to determine this debate once & for all is to take it to a high court & have all these 'facts' torn apart.

Scientists are unreliable as they will simply say whatever their paymasters want them to.

**stroller** · 12-04-2008, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Shitman

Jeremy Clarkson says global warming is cobblers, too.

Well, must be true if he says it...

I am particularly impressed by this unrefutable argument, the scientific community will bow in awe and respect:
" First of all there was God, who said that if we carried on fornicating, a big seven-headed monster would gobble us up."

**Butterfly** · 12-04-2008, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Shitman

Scientists are unreliable as they will simply say whatever their paymasters want them to.

yeah, exactly, we should deport them and shoot them

are you familiar with PolPot and Mao ?

**raycarey** · 13-04-2008, 04:20 PM

why hasn't john l answered these very simple questions...

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

1) Do greenhouse gases contribute to global warming?
2) Has human activity dramatically increased the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
3) Are the poles melting?
4) Are sea levels rising?
5) Is desertification increasing?

**PlanK** · 13-04-2008, 06:50 PM

Because they aren't proof of human caused climate change.

**Northern Scum** · 13-04-2008, 07:34 PM

^

I love watching people more intelligent than me tearing those climate change racket merchants apart.

Thread: Al Gore, Global Warming, And The Burden Of Proof

Thread Tools

Display

Al Gore, Global Warming, And The Burden Of Proof

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions