An Inconvenient Truth

Amassing power is enough right? They get viewed as environmental leaders and so if people care about environmental issues people will vote for them. If environmental issues do not have actual data to support claims sufficient to take an interest in that issue, we must suppress or revise data. I don't know if I'd call it nefarious, it is political. He was discussing what exactly? Pissed about what? Before you characterized both articles as if they were discussing a single event. Wrong. No you say he gave no reason. Wrong.In any case, this does not explain your use of this man and organization as long as he criticizes Bush, then turn him/them into bitter cranks when they criticize Clinton. Read my posts. I have already answered it. You will not get exact names, times, and environmental concern. You do not need them, and I certainly am not going to hand them out. I gave you the general concept of what was going on. I have shown you examples where others have recognized similar activity. You tell me, as I said I made the statement you are now claiming agreement on in my first post involving evidence about manipulation of science. You were the one that kept replying to it as if I never said what i said in that first post.So you tell me, why did you keep doing that? What was your point? How should I know? Hm. So now you see what I feel about Gore, oh yes and you. But here's the catch, your statement above is flawed. You can't say I often lie unless you know what I know and have experienced. Your consistent claims of my lying have been total BS. Unless of course you are going to tell me what I am doing and thinking and experiencing.I totally grant you can THINK anything you want about me. You can even PERCEIVE me to be a certain way. But you don't actually know whether I have lied or not... ever. It comes as no shock and its no problem. I have been honest. You have not. People can make up their own minds. I love how you tell me to repair my image and credibility, like you are some authority on my image and credibility. Hey I have been honest. Your ESP powers are on the blink.How about dealing with the evidence and the topic for once, instead of consistently worrying about my image? Its that part in yellow that would be an issue. If it is in the movie, the nature of how it is presented could be an issue. If you don't care about it then that's fine. Clearly others are, as in the creator of this thread who specifically mentioned Kyoto in relation to this movie.Given that I never wrote you, you wrote me, and my first post in this thread discussed issues I had with factual statements on the movie's website as well as the poster's claims in relation to it, I don't understand what your malfunction is. This is about everything in the film, right? And as extension that website the poster plugged, right? I don't know. Why did you post to me in this thread? I didn't write to you and I didn't even mention your specific arguments so I didn't "summon" you. My guess is you are willing to post to me for any reason as long as it gives you an opening to discuss how much you despise me.Otherwise we could have just discussed the movie, materials surrounding it, conclusions to be drawn from it. Have you watched the PPP yet? Is it close to the movie?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What the???How is "you seem to feel we should not listen to what Al Gore says", any different than saying "you told people NOT to see the movie and/or not to believe anything in it"?And by the way to be clear you did just say I "felt", you said I was TELLING people they should not listen. I mean the movie is considered part of what he's saying right? You even say "baby out with the bathwater" which would indicate everything. Not at all. The only thing you did was clarify your personal opinion, and then tell me that I am giving the American public too much credit. How does that change what you said about what I was saying that public should do? Tome? It wasn't that long, and as it was included a few quotes from the movie website. If you want me to accept your apology, maybe you shouldn't write it with a poison pen. It was not long enough you couldn't have figured out my position before getting on my case. Ah, you are correct, I had not addressed that. I discussed this a while back in another thread. If it is recent enough the paper may have new info.The problem is this, storms were already on a natural increase in strength. That has extremely strong consensus. The potential degree of "increase" by rising temps is not significant to attribute what we are seeing, much less any particular storm, to CC.More importantly they are (or at least were) finding that there was a cap on what increased temps could do to storm strength and number. This is similar to the problem of showing a large CO2 spike and suggesting temps might follow some similar trend. There appear to be natural physics based breaks on how strong a storm can be regardless of increased energy in the atmosphere.But like I said if it is a new article there may be new info. I haven't heard anything recently. I'll poke around for it and for the old thread if you want.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

So we're in agreement, then. Well, that's good. Think I'll sit back and see what others have to say.

Well as far as your take the second sentence, my understanding (and this is based on more than just the Al Gore movie)is that you are incorrect here. And you base this on what? Remember, many other respected scientists disagree with your assessment of the situation. This may very be one of the biggest understatements I have ever read. You know, it's not like the rising sea levels are only going to increase where a few cities are located. What about Florida? What about India. Are you aware of the predictions? Wait, I forgot, you know that this actually isn't going to happen. Sorry. Are you fucking kidding me. For Christ sake, go to a library or something. Come on Holmes...honestly, I am not going to waste my time providing you with evidence that a blind three-year old could located with both arms tied behind his back. It's hardly my fault that you have this amazing gift of prophecy and know that all the predictions about global warming are BS. Such as? Ya know, when I was reading the little squabble you were having with Crashfrog in another thread, I was actually rather enjoying myself and chuckling out loud. It went on for a while and eventually Crashfrog had a melt down and got suspended. I can totally relate to his experience. I'm fighting the urge to tell you to fuck off (oops, I guess I just did) but I can tell you that my blood pressure is shooting through the roof.You have got to be the most condescending, self-righteous blow hard I have ever dealt with. How DARE you tell me to "Please don't do that again" when you are perhaps the KING of misrepresenting what others have said.I have re-read the entire exchange on which your latest "request" is based and I fail to see how I misrepresented your claim. Hell, I even explained why I came to the conclusion that I did, and I completely stand by what I wrote. Again, I agree that natural fluctuations should be considered. What I don't think you understand is that until we tackle the man-made contributions we have no fucking way of knowing what the natural fluctuations are. Do you understand what I'm saying. If we fail to remove the man-made emissions, how are we to know what the natural "emissions" happen to be. Again, maybe your amazing gift of prophecy can help us out. So let me see if I have your position correct. Way back when (you pick the date) humans survived major climate changes. What was the human population at that time? Are you now saying something along the lines of "Well, some of us...actually quite a few of us...most likely, Third World, poor Nations...are basically screwed. Hey it's the survival of the fittest man". How else am I to read this. There are five billion people of this planet now. NOT a few thousand, not a few million...Five billion. Your compassion is touching. But I will admit that you are correct, (nor I might add, have I said differently) in that global warming does not spell the end of mankind. Bwahahahahah . Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. I see, you didn't say I said that, you were only "asking" me if I said that. But then, since I assume you read what I wrote, you know I didn't ask that, so you were just being "funny". But yet, when the same happens to you, you get your panties all in a bunch. Maybe you should practice what you preach.

Ummmm, because they're not the same? One of them says "you seem to feel we should not listen to what Al Gore says" while the other says "you told people NOT to see the movie and/or not to believe anything in it". Hey, maybe you should close your eyes and have someone else read them to you. Now, what exactly was poisonous? The use of the word "tome"? Puh Leaz...get over yourself. Granted, you have written much longer posts, but even you have to admit, your rarely write short posts.Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to fix "quote" box

I totally admit I tend to write long posts. I wasn't really upset that you referred to it as "tome" but even you have to admit it was a cheap way to make your not having read something you should have read sound reasonable.The first sentence of that "tome" should have told you I wasn't suggesting what anyone else should think but rather that I would go and see it, but I had some reservations about what I would find. It wouldn't have taken much effort to find the other sentence. Again, let me point out you have changed the language. Your original quote was that I was telling people they should not listen to what Al Gore says. And no I do not see a difference between the former and the latter sentences when the movie is what is under discussion and that is what Gore is saying.At least give me some practical difference between the two. If I tell a person not to listen to what Gore has to say, wouldn't that include watching his movie?Edited by holmes, : tenses

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This sums up the first half of your post. Unfortunately you ARE going to have to provide evidence. That's how it works with claims and all. If it were so easy my guess is you would have done so already.What I have NOT said is that ALL predictions are BS. What I have said is that there is not much if any scientific consensus on any of the predictions, with perhaps the exception of total loss of certain glacier areas. What I have said is that I am unaware of any models with adequate data to predict calamities on the scale that some are claiming.I have gone out of my way to look for evidence of such. I am telling you I have not found this massive consensus on those issues which you claim exist, much less the models supported by data.If they are there, then supply them. I'll ask you ahead of time to make sure these are good examples. I don't want the whithering by attrition type argument where you post something, and when I show flaws you bring up another and then another and then another. Its easy to find garbage and keep throwing it at someone to clean up. Find something that you feel is convincing and explain why that is. Uh-huh. All I did was ask you not to place a quote of mine against a quote of yours in a place where it did not go. You want me to show you where you did that?I have not misrepresented you in this thread, nor have I misrep'd crash in any thread. I have no doubt that you agree with crash, the two of you complain about how long my posts are and clearly do not read them. But of course this is how it rolls with you guys, when you make a mistake it is my fault, when I make a mistake it is intentional distortion.Heck, you show me where in my opening posts to crash in that other thread where I was condescending to him at all. I'm sorry... what? So if we remove the manmade effects we will then know what the natural fluctuations are? Why is identification of manmade effects not enough to identify natural fluctuations? And indeed how do you remove all manmade effects without first identifying all manmade effects... which is done by contrasting their relation to natural influences? Your entire argument there is bogus. I don't see where you get that out of what I said. I'm suggesting that we made it through worse periods of temps with less technology, thus with our present state of technology it should even have less effect on us. That there were less people in the past only helps my position. Third world nations have better tech than past generations have had, and there is no sense that they cannot be helped by others.Can you please show me models which indicate how many people will be effected by a specific effect? Where these will be located? You can be funny all you like. The only thing I asked you not to do was create an illusion that a quote from me was a reply to something it was not. That's all I said.In my post I included the portion of your text I was replying to. In your following post you did a layered quote effect which didn't include what I was refering to and instead placed another quote, followed by my response as if that is how it happened. That's a patent quote mine.Here it is one more time. You can make a mistake on what I mean, you can make jokes all you want. You can even swear. I'd love to swear here. I'm not the one who won't allow it. All I ask that you not do is create a graphic misrepresentation by positioning a quote of mine against a quote of yours as if that is how an exchange occured when it did not.As far as I know that is the only time you did that which is why I asked, and didn't lecture you about it or something.Edited by holmes, : not

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

removedEdited by holmes, : removed

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Great. I am still interested in hearing if the PPP bears any resemblance to the movie. Even if you don't want to spend time defending errors in the PPP, it would be useful to know how they differ.Edited by holmes, : removed pointless discussion

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

So here is where it stands so far...Ohnai boosted the movie and the website. Then I stated I would see the movie but had doubts about what it would contain, and detailed errors at the website for the movie.No one has dealt with the factual claims at the website for the movie which are errant or misleading.I downloaded and watched the PowerPoint Presentation (PPP) on which the movie is based. It did not contain much discussion of data and spent most of its time punking on anyone who disagreed using guilt by association, making connections to other well established environmental issues which have nothing to do with CC as if to bolster the credibility of his own assertions, and did not accurately discuss models regarding possible effects.No one has gone and watched the PPP to tell me if it has any close relationship to the movie, nor whether they saw problems within the PPP.Is there anyone willing to discuss what the movie presents, using data (preferably from the movie), or let me know how the website or PPP relate to the movie? Errors in the latter items?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I changed the language? Holmes, I quoted EXACTLY the sentences you used. I changed nothing. Where do you get this stuff?Here's what you said in message 77:Here's what I wrote in message 80:Ok, ya with me so far? Carefully re-read your statements in message 77. See where it says...and I quote: “you seem to feel we should not listen to what Al Gore says"? Now, again, carefully re-read what I said in message 80. Do you see the part where I said...and again, I quote: "you seem to feel we should not listen to what Al Gore says"Do you see how the two sentences are exactly the same? You can repeat this little exercise with the other sentence in question and I think you'll find that I did not change the language in any way. Honestly Holmes, if I wanted to say that you said people should not see the movie, that's how I would have said it. You know,something like this: "Hey, Holmes says not to go see the movie". I didn't, but you mistook what I did write into somehow saying you told others to not see the movie. Ok, fine...sorry if you took it that way. I'm telling you now that that was NOT my intent. I say things like that all the time to people ("man, don't listen to that Sean Hannity") and yet none of them take that to mean they should not watch "Hannity and that other guy". But nonetheless, you took it one way and I meant it another way...sorry. Well, that would depend on what else you have said. But on its face...as it stands alone...honestly Holmes, "No", I for one would NOT take that to mean that you suggest we not see the movie.Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to change a "massage" into a "message"

Can you not see that you're doing it RIGHT NOW!! Where have I complained that your posts are too long?And because I do not have a photographic memory like you do, the fact that I forgot about one sentence in your opening post means I clearly do not read them? (A mistake, I might add, I apologized for).Hey, just read post 86 for an example of even more "non-misrepresentation" on your part.And yet, you claim to not have misrepresented what I have said. Simply amazing.God, I wish I were perfect like you.I'll get to the other stuff in your message when I have a bit more time.

I get this "stuff" from following and remembering the conversation. I wasn't saying that you had just changed the language. The "again" at the beginning of my statement should have clued you in to the fact that I was repeating an earlier charge.Let me cut to the chase, your statement was originally found in post #30... See that yellow part? In post #74 you changed it to... That is a change which I noted in post 77 and you conveniently did not include in your quote from that post. Immediately following the quote you gave was... I see there is a typo and that it should read "didn't" rather than "did" but the read of the sentence should make that obvious. I was telling you that while I was using your new language, it was not identical to the original language. The latter was conveniently less imperative in nature.Do you understand now? Right, now let me repeat that original sentence for you... I'm not trying to act like an expert in english, but look at that sentence. Honestly, look at it. It says that Al made a movie and because of errors I am telling people they should not listen to it. I don't see how you can argue that the subject of that sentence is NOT Al's Movie. The fragment "should not listen" can only relate to that. Even if you put the rest of the paragraph around it to somehow broaden the context to "all environmental messages" or something, at the very least it must include the movie. Okay, that's fine. I'm totally willing to accept that. Mistakes are made in writing all the time. And that goes double when people are writing quickly to a forum. Some things get jumbled up. Just don't try and pass off that my read was somehow errant, and so how I responded to schraf (and then crash) was somehow errant.Sheesh.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I thought that's what your implication was when you used "tome". And when I discussed the length of that post you said in reply... That doesn't exactly look like a glowing endorsement of my brevity. Just read my response to 86 to see that there was no misrep on my part, just more of remembering exactly what we are discussing. Despite people claiming that's how I think about myself, that's not the case at all. I don't even think I have a great memory.This is dimestore psychoanalysis, but might I posit the following theory? You guys come here to enjoy punking on people you hold in contempt and believe far far beneath yourselves. And so when someone challenges something you say, you project YOUR feelings towards others onto that person? That is to say you see me as taking the exact same position toward you, that you are taking towards others. That I must believe I am better than you, because I am challenging you?Either that or when your ego gets bruised, because you get called on something, you blow an opponent's actual thoughts and activities out of proportion to feel better about yourself?I say this, because your opinions of what I think and what I intentionally do are wayyyyyy off. Edited by holmes, : No reason given.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Here's a radically different theory. We're all people who enjoy arriving at an equitable consensus on issues, positions of agreement, but we find it enormously frustrating to have to repeat, over and over again, exactly what our position is to someone who repeatedly misrepresents it in every way possible, and then demands that we defend the misrepresentation in lieu of our own actual position. Oh, sure. That's completely reasonable. You're the lone voice of sanity, and we're all nuts. You're in the eye of the storm, and we're just a bunch of dishonest/crazy people who don't know even how to speak English, or how to think.God, what would we all do if Holmes weren't here to lay it out for us!