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

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

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?