Link?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...5&postcount=57

Actually, I wish to show that there are other opinions out there that object to the :global warming hyteria" generated by people of Gore's ilk. I wish to show that there are many voices who object. This link shows that Gore's film , and "facts" within are debatable. It also shows that Gore doesn't kknow what the he## he's talking about. He's just another hack politician pushing some "global tragedy" snake oil. And there's many voices who object to his freak show.

You've posted stuff from this guy before, Sea Demon. Hang on till I find the thread.
It is not a dissenting voice if it's being paid to be dissenting. Simple as. The articles you have posted do not show what you want them to show.
From Monckton at the SPPI. A man with no training in climate science, who runs an oil-and-gas funded think-tank. I'm sure this will be reasoned and non-biased.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=634875&postcount=167

just quoting myself, will look at the paper later, not holding out much hope, mind.

No need Tchocky. Your article will be biased nonsense in favor of creating mass hysteria for the "global warming" tragedy people. For their own purposes or desires. There are many out there who disagree with the "whole world's coming to an end" nonsense that's spewing from the Internet these days. Did you know that most "published" scientists disagree with Gore and the "global warming" hucksters??? I posted a link in another thread. I'll try to find it. There are many voices in complete disagreement.

Pardon the copypasta, but you're off base here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Sea Demon, this is very, very tiring.

Yeah, there are lots of people who disagree. You're one of them. Unfortunately most of the people who know what they are talking about agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.
Cool. *waits*

You nailed it! Those small minds have a lot of money invested in fossil fuels and they won't give that money up easily. They will do whatever it takes to deny the truth.

All Gore is a great man. Anyone that belittles him is Afraid of him! That's too bad and very sad!

One note: This warming is taking place a faster pace than ever before. What use to take thousands of years is not happened much faster.

[quote=mookiemookie]
Pardon the copypasta, but you're off base here.

Not at all. They have their own opinions and biases on the issues. There are simply too many dissenting voices who have other opinions. The barn-burners in the "global warming" movement want to do alot of things, some of which may be harmful. Before you burn down the barn, there better be a darn good reason. And so far, the "global warming prophets" haven't done a very convincing job. Almost every tragedy brought along by these types of frauds in my lifetime have been nonsense, or just turned into the next tragedy of the day. The Ice Age of the 70's became global warming. In the 80's the acid rain was going to kill all our crops by the end of the century. There was a prediction in the 80's about how the oceans will be depleted in 10 years....and on.....and on....and on.......

Here's a good article by Mr. Buchanan on the topic:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=58279

I'm sure it is. :lol: Be prepared to be exhausted because millions don't believe the hype. In 10 years I predict that the "global warming" issue will turn into some other disaster to sell to the "idealistic" types always looking for tragedy....

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

There are meteorologists and other experts who would soundly disagree with you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

I wonder why Al Gore never goes into any open forum to debate anyone on the topic??:hmm:

And why does he own those really really big homes of his????? You do know how much his energy bills are for those home don't ya'???


An Inconvenient Utility Bill?? :lol:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...rld&id=5072659

Hmm...what reason could he have to disagree with environmentalists! :hmm:

Or is it that his own views, education, and his own observed facts just match those of the businesss sector. Which is....the world isn't going to end tragically because the warming fraudsters say so. He and the business types aren't the only ones who disagree with "big environmentalism". ;)

Lets look at these two experts.;)

Dennis T. Avery
He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.
He enjoys a high level of influence among some sectors, and his big-business-friendly articles are disseminated to thousands of newspapers as well as subscribers in governments, banks and businesses.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery

A pretty good enviromentalist plot :)
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html

Another nut job.
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Myths/2002-0120avery.htm

Avery makes a lot of noise about belonging to the Hudson Institute. Now lets look at a few corporations that contributes funds to the Hudson Institute:

Monsanto: Their leading products are the Roundup herbicide, PCBs, DDT, Aspartame. Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills.

Exxon Mobil

DuPont

Dow-Elanco: Agricultural Chemicals

American Crop Protection Association: Representing the manufacturers of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

CropLife International: A trade association representing the manufacturers of genetically engineered seed, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

Lets look at the other expert.

Siegfried Frederick Singer
In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

----------------------------------------------------
I just stopped any further research.

Two businesses are run out of his home. I can't think you can run businesses and live in a house without running up an electricity bill. Do you have an itemized bill of what items they run?