Is Shermer flipped out, or just a sucker for Al Gore ?

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Is Shermer flipped out, or just a sucker for Al Gore ?

Post by Karyn » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:38 am

Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance. ...
From the aptly titled "The Flipping Point" article in Scientific American. Al Gore and an Inconvenient Truth convinced Michael Shermer. When Michael buys in, he doesn't fool around. In for a penny in for a dollar.
It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)--too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm--just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip.
What happened to Michael just prior to this loss of intellectual function ? In 2006 there was already evidence of the scamming. What happened to Michael Shermer ? He was skeptical of the science, but when Al Gore shows some of his "photos", and other faked and incorrect items, Shermer becomes all agog and breathless ? WTF ?
Last edited by Karyn on Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9950
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Only Ninjas flip out.

I have little use for diatribes that accuse people of mental problems because they don't share the accuser's opinion. Your argument fails miserably because of your reliance on ad hominem instead of a reasonable approach.

The article you are complaining about dates from 2006:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ping-point" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are articles from 2008 and 2009, although parts of the 2008 article are directly copied from the 2006 article.

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/04/c ... l-skeptic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/09/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:54 pm

I think your argument fails because I did not argue that, or arrive at conclusions by the method you stated I had.
I well remember watching television programs about the environment hosted by David Suzuki. They were visually stunning and brilliantly presented. But my mind had already been hardened by the failed predictions of the extremists, and so I watched and listened, but I did not see or hear. But you were right, David, and for many decades of tireless work on behalf of this pale blue dot and its inhabitants, we all owe you a debt of gratitude.
Almost a biblical "Heart was hardened" :roll: "watched but did not see", "listened but did not hear".

The failed predictions of the extremists. :lol: Like 50-200 million climate refugees by 2010. :lol:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/52560/cov ... rediction/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
UN General Assembly:
Background

Following up on the high-level thematic debate on climate change held last February (see Press Releases GA/10687, GA/10689 and GA/10690), the General Assembly met this morning for an informal meeting on “Climate change and the most vulnerable countries: the imperative to act”.

Statements

SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.
So he jumped from seeing and hearing one set of extremists, to the other set...most of all shocked out of his skepticism by the photoshopped work of Al ?

Big thanks to David Suzuki, who thinks elected representatives should be jailed for not swallowing his bunk ?

I think elected representatives such as Gardner, shown here doing a fantastic job on behalf of his people, to cut through the obfuscations, are our best hope - whereas Shermer wildly applauds the jailing proponent and loose talker Suzuki..

'" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then Shermer presumes to speak for me.
we all owe you a debt of gratitude.
Shermer2009
or involve state controls best portrayed as fascistic.
Hmm..wouldn't that fascist type of action include doing stuff like jailing democratically elected representatives, for not bowing to David Suzuki's demands ?
former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth.
Shermer scores a giggle with that foolish talk. Unconvinced by any scientific works, but immediately convinced by a lying politician and his film.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:46 am

Here is a timely video by Olsen ( who Revkin introduces as "a kind of evangelist") describing what apparently "got" Shermer.

"Arouse and Fulfil"
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aroused by the scene of the religious converting to the AGW camp, he sought out more, and was fulfilled by Big Al's images and exhortations- even calling the presentation the best exposition of the science he'd ever heard - which is truly an astounding thing to say.
Would wholesale inaccuracies and photoshopped pics, followed by dire predictions of the end of the world due to sin, convince Michael of Jesus ghost sightings ? Not without the arousal. Olsen gets it right.

Big Al the Preacher did Michael like he was a supple choirboy.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
fromthehills
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by fromthehills » Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:15 am

I'm going to need help in not feeding the troll.
I'm going to need help in not feeding the troll.
I'm going to need help in not feeding the troll.
;)
{!#%@}.

I'm sad to say that I don't think your an idiot, Karen. I just think that you are a cherry-picking troll. You didn't bother reading Pyrrho's links, you don't bother with context of what is really being said. You don't bother with the content of one's arguments, rather you decide to pick out phrases with no connection to the original meaning, and counter argue according to your own ideology, whatever that is. I believe that so far you have been tolerated because your posts are laughable. You fail in all directions, yet pat yourself on the back for those failings. I envy that, yet could never do it myself. Your arrogance has completely cut you off from actual constructive argument, and yet you persist in some fantasy that you have the upper hand. Pyrrho is far kinder than I, I would have just banned you because I think you are being confrontational just for the hell of it, and aren't really adding anything of substance. Of course, if that were the policy, there'd only be about ten of us, unless of course some worthy posters quit, because they may think you are the norm.

Whatever, that was my possibly uncalled for tirade. I will continue to not take you seriously now.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:01 am

fromthehills wrote: You didn't bother reading Pyrrho's links,
You offer a lie.
you don't bother with context of what is really being said.
untrue
You don't bother with the content of one's arguments, rather you decide to pick out phrases with no connection to the original meaning, and counter argue according to your own ideology, whatever that is.
untrue
I believe that so far you have been tolerated because your posts are laughable. You fail in all directions, yet pat yourself on the back for those failings. I envy that, yet could never do it myself. Your arrogance has completely cut you off from actual constructive argument, and yet you persist in some fantasy that you have the upper hand. Pyrrho is far kinder than I, I would have just banned you because I think you are being confrontational just for the hell of it, and aren't really adding anything of substance. Of course, if that were the policy, there'd only be about ten of us, unless of course some worthy posters quit, because they may think you are the norm.

I show my work on this thread linked below, to show that you are lying I went through every single study connected, and analyzed what the possibilities were, and presented my evidence.
Further, I contacted a well known scientist involved in the very discussions, to ask opinion and for any news he might have, and got a nice reply.. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from post 229 on, I round up the evidence and conclude...after asking the scientist for opinion. You've been beaten fair and square in argument, and that is what has you all sore. Therefore all that is left to you is to apply ad hom - giving zero for evidence, in support of your lies. Counter to your reckless claims, I am careful, and do not lie, and answer every pertinent question as fully as I can.

I have beaten you in argument - isn't THAT the reason for this puerile attack ?

You know nothing about Evolution, and I showed that, and you are just a damn sore loser. here is evidence...something you chose not to include in your attack

You
So you're saying you don't know anything about evolution, so you renounce it on those grounds? Argument from ignorance. It's a very weak and cliche christian apologist argument.
Me
No, if you had read, you would see that I am asking for Lance's position. I do not require a link nor a dissertation, it's a simple matter of his being straightforward on answering this question about his position. A simple matter of a couple of "yes" or "no" replies will tell me. I honestly believe he thinks we are monkeys. Are you a monkey ? yes or no ?

You got sucked in, as a loser does. You didn't know that Linnaean systems are not so useful in phylogeny, and yet you ploughed in. You lose for that. You thought you had an easy target to ridicule for creationist ideas...but it was your undoing there. The Linnaean taxonomy system easily bowed to accommodate the Deist and the racist thinking. You are backward.

Instead of attacking me, you should just install towels under your desk to catch the tears of rage.

Here's your buddy JJM going awry too
Pretty sure about what a gene is, that was the topic you raised. What is uncertain about it (that was your claim)?
and of course, he ended up like you, only worse. I provided excellent, irrefutable evidence, he had nothing to come back with, and so he has campaigned against me with the same stuff you just did.

If you were not a liar, you could point out where you have found me to be in error - even once.


Sore losers. You're too aggressive in hunting targets, therefore fairly easily despatched. I enjoyed it immensely. :lol:

It's not too late to show where I committed an error. You go right ahead and show it, Cholmondeley.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
busterggi
Regular Poster
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 pm
Custom Title: General Weirdness
Location: New Britain, CT

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by busterggi » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:09 pm

We're gonna need a bigger bag of troll chow.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:26 pm

Well, I speak my mind. Find a single unclaimed error in the number of things I have said... or it looks like the troll is in your mirror. When i am wrong, I say so. I quickly agree. That makes my shield impervious, and you hate that. I'll fix any wrong statement and apologize as quick as I can.
Last edited by Karyn on Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
numan
BANNED
Posts: 2938
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:04 pm
Location: What! Me Worry?

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by numan » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:28 pm

'
Well, it took you long enough to see the obvious, Shermer !!

But better late than never.
Neither man nor woman can be worth anything until they have discovered that they are fools. This is the first step toward becoming either estimable or agreeable---and until it is taken, there is no hope.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:37 pm

numan wrote:'
Well, it took you long enough to see the obvious, Shermer !!

But better late than never.
Oh, I suppose that must be true...it's human.

Michael Shermer
Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.
You'll agree of course, that complexity of a problem rules out Skepticism as a tool.


I'd be just as flabbergasted if Hitchens embraced Islam and cursed Atheism.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Brian Ganek » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:52 pm

Michael Shermer,

What test of climate change mitigation shows it's feasible? Which experimental test of AGW theory compelled you to believe man made CO2 is causing harm to the climate, and how much harm? Is it all movies and lectures?

V/R
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9950
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Pyrrho » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:54 pm

What's really funny is that AFAIK, Michael Shermer doesn't read this forum.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:55 pm

Pyrrho wrote:What's really funny is that AFAIK, Michael Shermer doesn't read this forum.
It would be great if he commented. He could use some help sorting it out.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:44 pm

numan wrote:'
Well, it took you long enough to see the obvious, Shermer !!

But better late than never.
You'll be offering commendations http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1JtxtfISL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
to the new partner in sending the message ?

One thing you can say ...at least he's not a denier
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by JO 753 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:16 am

Karyn wrote:It's not too late to show where I committed an error. You go right ahead and show it, Cholmondeley.
I don't get the CUMLE ref.

User avatar
fromthehills
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by fromthehills » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:09 am

JO 753 wrote:
Karyn wrote:It's not too late to show where I committed an error. You go right ahead and show it, Cholmondeley.
I don't get the CUMLE ref.
Pronounced Chum-lee, it's the dumb guy on a popular reality show called Pawn Stars. I'm assuming, as Karyn fancies herself witty, that this was what she was playing on.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9950
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Pyrrho » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:18 am

Karyn wrote: What happened to Michael just prior to this loss of intellectual function ?
FAIL due to irrelevant ad hominem. Try dealing in facts next time.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:27 am

Pyrrho wrote:
Karyn wrote: What happened to Michael just prior to this loss of intellectual function ?
FAIL due to irrelevant ad hominem. Try dealing in facts next time.
How do you not ad hom, when the subject is a hom ?
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
Lion IRC
Poster
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:01 am

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Lion IRC » Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:41 am

Drats.
I thought it was thread for AI not AL.
Never mind.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by JO 753 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:03 am

Karyn wrote:What happened to Michael just prior to this loss of intellectual function ?
So youre saying that he had better function before?

Shoud be a red flag for you that you juj peoplez intelligence at least partially by wether they agree with you or not.

The great thing about this iz that he showz the ability to change hiz mind; a rare skill amongst humanz.
Frum my experience, 'smart' people usually pour harder cement than average people, so its much more difficult to bust it up wen they are rong.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:48 am

JO 753 wrote:
Karyn wrote:What happened to Michael just prior to this loss of intellectual function ?
So youre saying that he had better function before?

Shoud be a red flag for you that you juj peoplez intelligence at least partially by wether they agree with you or not.

The great thing about this iz that he showz the ability to change hiz mind; a rare skill amongst humanz.
Frum my experience, 'smart' people usually pour harder cement than average people, so its much more difficult to bust it up wen they are rong.
Doesn't it depend on what basis the change is made ? I'd be dumbfounded if Randi changed to support Spoonbending Truth because Uri had the best exposition of it he'd ever seen. If he changed back and forth ten times in a year, I would hardly consider it a greater and greater accomplishment.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Karyn on Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Brian Ganek » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:07 am

Pyrrho wrote:What's really funny is that AFAIK, Michael Shermer doesn't read this forum.
Why should he? He has his own publishing empire, the media mints money with scare climate headlines. Scientific American holds the same line, the debate is over; deniers are anti-science bumpkins funded by the fossil fuel industry and there is no dispute in the science of controlling human carbon dioxide emissions to mitigate climate change. They agree on the goals, only the method is in debate.

Climate depends on an ever increasing supply of carbon from human activity. We have a system but Mike and Al are screwing it up. Production and growth requires more CO2.
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:23 am

Pyrrho wrote:What's really funny is that AFAIK, Michael Shermer doesn't read this forum.
In what way is it funny ?
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
numan
BANNED
Posts: 2938
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:04 pm
Location: What! Me Worry?

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by numan » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:14 pm

'
Pyrrho wrote: What's really funny is that AFAIK, Michael Shermer doesn't read this forum.
Well, I just assumed THAT !!

After all, he is a busy and fairly intelligent man, and certainly would have neither the time nor inclination to read the gibberish that fills these threads.
Neither man nor woman can be worth anything until they have discovered that they are fools. This is the first step toward becoming either estimable or agreeable---and until it is taken, there is no hope.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by JO 753 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:02 pm

Karyn wrote:Doesn't it depend on what basis the change is made ?
UV course it duz. Same az NOT changing your opinion.

Naturally skeptical people hav a strong tendency to be skeptical uv new information and it takes a MOAB to disloj even the most obviously rediculous errorz in their 'established' beliefs.

The flaw in the process iz that established information iz the standard used to juj the validity uv new information insted uv lojik.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:26 pm

JO 753 wrote:
Karyn wrote:Doesn't it depend on what basis the change is made ?
UV course it duz. Same az NOT changing your opinion.

Naturally skeptical people hav a strong tendency to be skeptical uv new information and it takes a MOAB to disloj even the most obviously rediculous errorz in their 'established' beliefs.

The flaw in the process iz that established information iz the standard used to juj the validity uv new information instead uv lojik.
So if the reason for flipping was not justifiable logically, then it's not smartness, it's just flipping about like a fish out of water when under duress.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by JO 753 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:55 pm

'IF' being the operative word. You are accuzing Shermer uv gullibility.

I am naturally gullible. Usually a disadvantage, but it duz make it eazier to change my mind wen the evidence and lojik seem to justify it. I dont know Mr. Shermer well enuff to say wether he iz a natural born skeptic, a gullible like me, or sumthing else.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:14 pm

JO 753 wrote:'IF' being the operative word.
Correct
I am naturally gullible. Usually a disadvantage, but it duz make it eazier to change my mind wen the evidence and lojik seem to justify it. I dont know Mr. Shermer well enuff to say wether he iz a natural born skeptic, a gullible like me, or sumthing else.
Yes, It's difficult to tell which. Or if he's a ninja.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a big sucker for Al ?

Post by Karyn » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:43 am

Lion IRC wrote:Drats.
I thought it was thread for AI not AL.
Never mind.
Made a change to the title. Thanks. Maybe Al Gore invented artificial intelligence.

Gore 2006, eh ? This isn't what knocked Michael's boots " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;,

but this is the February 2006 TED slide show : http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_on_ave ... risis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and it's got nothing.

It's kinda wacky. Al says buying green electricity is a carbon efficiency money profit item. Really. It's not a cost, he says - " The sign is wrong ". It's a profit. He's NOT lying. It does profit someone.
It's difficult to tell from these, what Michael is talking about in his S.A. article, so maybe The Inconvenient Truth, itself, is the best reference.
However, this slide show from 2008 is more representative, what with the "Science" presented. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Karyn on Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a sucker for Al Gore

Post by Karyn » Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:00 am

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


From the start. exhortations, exhortations...then at 5:00
First bit of Big Al's Science; The Logo
Michael must know about cherry-picking . Start and end dates or comparative dates. So a quick check would be done on 1980 and what Big Al was relating about "last fall I checked with Boulder..." 2007 ...those dates, to see what might be significant.

Remembering that the choice of cherry picked subject material was all Big Al's. He did not take a random spin of the wheel to decide which before and after pics of what, to show that year. It could have been global temperature. It could have been Antarctic ice. It could have been Polar bear population. It could have been anything, from any years . But it wasn't. It wasn't a random pick For his presentation, Big Al picked an item that was at a record low and then picked a suitable peak . Why not 1979 to start ? That's when recording began, not 1980
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091755.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Red Flag Big Al is cheating. Even though he hardly needs to, in this case, given his cherry picked subject material being still quite impressive using 1979. To cheat a little bit when you already have something impressive to show, indicates to me, that we are dealing with a chronic, compulsive liar.

Then he flips to Antarctica and Big Al shows .... "snow melt in 2005". Not ice extent in 1980 and 2007. Why the switch ? Why would Big Al not show the Antarctic ice extent situation to the crowd ?

Now, one might argue that it's consistent with models, that Antarctic ice builds. The point being, that Al just can't allow an image of ice growth anywhere, to spoil the imagery of loss.

Shermer even notes that he was moved by visuals...to discard skepticism
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a sucker for Al Gore

Post by Karyn » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:57 am

but wait just a minute..did Big Al slip in an inch or two of his bologna during the glide from Arctic to Antarctic ? 6:48

He says "Already, around the Arctic Circle...this is a famous village in Alaska...this is Newfoundland" ....shows the 2 buildings falling into the sea. Daniel's Harbour Newfoundland Canada . Landslide


Daniels Harbour Latitude : 50.2 N

Frankfurt, Germany Latitude 50.7 N

Michael, Michael, Michael.
Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence ...
Here's the rest...politics and remediation and buy into his carbon trading scheme.

http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_ ... risis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But one slide that it seems Dr Shermer saw from AIT was "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" shrinking...debunked already.
Big Al is talking about CO2. He shows Venus and compares temperature with Earth's.
Then he says he wants to show an old picture ( forcings)
8:37 Big Al says about the old picture:
... I show it because I want to briefly give you "CSI Climate"....The Global Scientific Community says man-made global warming pollution put into the atmosphere thickening this is trapping more of the outgoing infrared ... you all know that ..at the last IPCC summary .. compromise. ..90% certainty
Is this accurate ? No, it is not. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... g-and.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
Michael could have looked it up. Now Al has slid from talking about CO2 all along, then changed that into "thickening this stuff"..
Noted that Gore was talking all along about the Arctic - which is, of course, high latitude.
NASA shows this study
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... ls_prt.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.

The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.
Aerosols. These are not GHG's.


So that's where it stands.

Dr Shermer discarded skepticism for approximately that.



Oh...in 2006 ...prolly saw a photo of a Polar Bear, too.
In the memorandum filed with the Court, the Service explained how its biologists had concluded in 2008 that the polar bear was not facing sudden and catastrophic threats, was still a widespread species that had not been restricted to a critically small range or critically low numbers, and was not suffering ongoing major reductions in numbers, range, or both. Accordingly, they were not considered in danger of extinction at the time of the listing determination, i.e., not warranting listing as an “endangered” species at that time. However, the Service also found in 2008 that the polar bear was facing serious threats in the foreseeable future from the projected destruction
Projected. The threat of the threat. Not the threat itself. but the agency gave them status from a projected threat, as they increased, even through First Nations limited hunting . Al Gore obfuscating like a politician " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

Then Shermer reads some books and starts with the prognistications
It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon...
...
Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip.
Now look at Michael go. 500ppm CO2 is too warm.

Goldilocks, don't you worry about what Michael says....ppm is not a temperature unit. You can't burn your lip on even 10,000 ppm

Personal opinion for a conclusion:

Shermer doesn't know Science nor Stats nor Sales Pitches nor Skepticism, even before this. Probably nothing happened. He's just gullible, I think. Even though I have the benefit of hindsight here. He didn't have his eyes open, that's for sure.

But I wish he would not talk for me.
And if you happen to read this, Dr. Shermer, please forgive me...but you piiiiissssed me off ! To throw away reason because of the consequences presented...dire threats. Then the "flipping" part. Throw away skepticism now, you say. http://www.ihatethemedia.com/gore-our-c ... p-trickery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"No", I say.
Last edited by Karyn on Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:44 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.

User avatar
Karyn
BANNED
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Is Shermer flipped out, or just a sucker for Al Gore

Post by Karyn » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:01 pm

I ask myself "Were those things the real core of the science that Dr Shermer was likely reflecting upon ?"

And I must answer "Probably not. The core Science from The Inconvenient Truth is this, from 4:25 onward. Dr Thompson's record. The ice cores have a story to tell. Al's friend, Dr Lonnie Thompson has this thermometer. Dr. Thompson's Thermometer Graph. 4:25
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Al explains. He snickers at skeptics' useless talk of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) when pointing to it as nothing on his graph.

But:
1/ The x and y axes are mixed up.
2/ It shows both positive and negative values at the same time in the 20th century.
3/ The resolution changes
4/ If the 20th century had been treated as the others had, for the graph, it would not be looking anything like that spikey bit shoved on there in red. It too would be a softened averaged blip of a very few years overall .

How odd.Not like Thompson.

Odder yet, (or less odd, if you know about Al ), is that it is not Thompson. That "corroboration of hockey stick" ( as claimed in the book). is a version of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick corroborating Mann's Hockey Stick ( with Jones instrumental spliced on the end).. That's why you see both colours at the same time, positive and negative values at the same time.Telling a lie, misrepresenting what is being shown, one graph laid over the other to make a picture that matches the story.The kind of thing that lands you in jail if done in business. Or a Doctor in front of a Medical Board.

Oh no. Oh yes.

Michael Mann Hockey Stick pushing down MWP into nothing* - it was not Dr. Thompson's work at all.
"“Mann reconstruction (1000 – 1980) Jones (1864 – 2000)."
* that's what it does. Gets rid of MWP .

The shitecapper:

Who held the position of Scientific Advisor ? Dr Thompson. He disavows any responsibility for correcting the record.

Dr. Shermer. This was not worth throwing it all away.

Dr Thompson refuses to archive some of his most influential series so that they can be checked. These cores are very very expensive to get, to transport, and to house permanently, and to study. Paid for with taxpayer money. When Dr. Thompson passes on, the secrets of the cores die with him.

This is not Science. Is it ?

Dr Shermer , it's precisely when the heat is one, when the threats come fast and heavy, politicians group together to tax humankind, scientists need the doubters thrown in jail...that is when you need your skepticism...it's not to be thrown away like a soiled cloth upon delivery of a Dire Threat and a promise of Salvation. When you hear stuff like this from Jan Esper
The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.
A Unique Science that boasts CherryPicking ?

You just say:

EVIDENCE ?

At the very least, Dr Shermer, you would have to admit that you did not see what you thought you saw.

Last word:
My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.
Don't get bent out of shape by the other flippers flipping. Hockey Stick Making is Like Spoon Bending. Think of it like that. They don't stand up in the light of a good examination.
Blessings to you all.
May I never bore you but with the details.