Gore: Polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years

Who are "his" scientists? When did Gore say this?

I've answered this time and again for you. Why do you keep beating a dead horse? Do you ever conceive of something new to argue? Once more . . . and I'll try to use small words.

I agree with some of his proposals and not with others. Why? Because I can. Only a fool would imagine that believing in something means that one must blindly support every idea of every advocate out there. Some have good ideas, some don't. What I advocate is the validity of the science of the matter, not the politics of it. Let everybody pick his own politics, I don't care. I just won't let you get away with phony science here.

You have never once offered a shred of proof that AGW is a "scam", much less offered anything substantial to support your quaint notions about rich white folks.

 

You aren't paying attention very well.

No, don't try to speak for me, it's a childish tactic. I spoke very clearly and you just don't like the answer.

No I didn't. He understands the scientific argument on AGW, but it's not "his" science, Gore is not a scientist. He's just smart enough to read and understand it. Your transparent attempts to obfuscate and suggest agreement with you is another bush league debating maneuver, as is your silly attempt to make it appear that Gore somehow controls "his" scientists.

"Science" doesn't support policies at all, they just reach conclusions about the evidence. I support policies that are prudent, economical, and have a high chance of success--like better stack scrubbers, shifting to alternate energy sources, and energy conservation steps. They have benefits beyond AGW like reducing foreign oil imports and upgrading to high-efficiency, modern industrial plants. I do not support far-fetched, ridiculously expensive, or ineffective--like replacing every coal plant with wind farms overnight, mandating electric cars, or prayer.

You lie. "We" did not establish that at all. It is merely something you allege without substantiation. You have the logical progression of a spider on LSD.

My, how convincing . . .

I've said time and again, I'm defending that science has it right about global warming. Period.

I do not and never have advocating each and every proposed solution, nor do I think that politicians have any answers except political ones.

You know this. But since you can't debate the science of climate change you attempt to conflate it with the politics of climate change and then demand that I defend it. Once again . . .no.

Come back when you have something new.

 

Blah, Blah, blah . . . you aren't even arguing the topic anymore, it's another martin diversion to a criticism of moderates. Next you will steer it to big government and stupid white people guilt. You are becoming stale, martin.

More childish attempts to evade my clear response. I do not agree at all.

That's right.

I must do nothing of the kind. The issues are politicized, but the science is science.

Nonsense. You understand so little of science. What do you do anyway?

:insane:

You are really thick today, amigo. I never said it "is not a political issue, but is pure science". I said and have always maintained that there are two issues-- a scientific one and a political one. You confuse and conflate them and attempt to make one issue of them. I do not.

 

Based on what? Did you examine the entrails of chickens to determine this?