'
What the hell are you talking about? Do you vote for the guy with the nobel peace prize or the guy that killed hundreds of thousands of people? its a fairly simple question, why are you dodging it. But the fact you dodged it I think I know the answer to that question, you just don't want to make it public.
Politics, of course, being the only place in the world where 'sticking to your guns', even if to a bad decision, is considered a positive thing. I guess people aren't allowed to change their opinions at all over the course of a decade, let alone say two different things on two rather different occasions.
9 minor flaws? As far as I can tell, these are all examples that he uses to "prove" that global warming is affecting us right now. And now we've found out that he's just been lieing. There's a difference between sloppy research and lieing.
Ha? That's exactly what he just said your opinion was:
No Limit said:
Not going to answer the question are you? I guess you don't have to, I think we all know your answer is Bush. And if thats the case I don't think I need to add anything else.
9 out of how many? Are you trying to say he only made 9 claims in the entire movie? If not that means most of everything else was valid according to the judge. And yes, they were minor flaws. I'll give you one example. He said the winds that pass through greenland were likely to stop if global warming continued leading to huge problems. The judge said this was alarmist. Well the IPCC said that there was a 5%-10% chance of this happening. So Gore wasn't lying or being alarmist, as if this actually happened we would be in some huge shit. So everything depends on the judge's definition of what alarmist means, its a minor detail.
So you never ever denied global warming existed like these people did:
Maybe I wouldn't vote for either of them?
Ok, so there's a percentage chance of one of the things happening - But then again, this is according to a panel which uses the research of scientists and cuts away what they don't agree with. I don't know how objective the IPCC are when you've got people sueing them to get their names off of their research after it's been recut to fit their agenda.
Nemesis wouldn't vote? The guy that sits on this message board day in and day out talking about politics. Please, you can't possibly be serious. But lets pretend in some crazy world you don't vote, who would you support?
Gore used research based on the largest global warming study ever conducted. They said there is a 5%-10% chance that this could have happened. Therefore when the judge said it was alarmist that would depend on what his defenition of alarmist is. I don't know why you are trying to derail this simple point, the IPCC study has nothing to do with the point you made about Al Gore when you called him a liar.
I am showing you how over the last few years the people you support and share your opinions with totally flipped on their position on global warming. Just 6 years ago they were saying it didn't exist, now they are saying it exists but is not caused by humans. They are pulling bullshit out of their asses, bullshit not based on any real science, and throwing it out there in such a huge medium to cast doubt on global warming. If they have totally "flip flopped" as you put it why should I listen to the latest talking points these same people came up with?
You are skipping over the parts of my post you don't seem to like. If you believe the judges then there were only 9 mistakes in the movie, one you just admitted was a minor mistake. That leaves plenty more claims made in that movie that must be accurate as has been reviewed by the courts. Thats only 9 mistakes in a 3 hour long presentation.
Maybe because he's talking about voting for a third candidate?
Nope. If there are no good candidates I wouldn't vote. As easy as that.
I thought you said it was the IPCC who talked about that 5 to 10% chance of the Greenland winds thing. Still, this is just detail. What about all the other things? The snow on Mount Killimanjaro melting? Islands being swallowed gobbled up by the Pacific sea? Just a few examples of course, and both of those classify as scare-mongering because they're lies.
So knowing what you know now you wouldn't vote to try and help get Gore elected?
I posted a link to an article you can read which went through each example one by one. If you find anything factually wrong with that article let me know.
Flip flops in what way? The example you posted shows him flip flopping from being wrong to being right. With the right wing they flip flop to whereever the political atmosphere is at that perticular time.
Why do you continue to base your opinion off entertainers? As much as I love south park they have been wrong numerous times.
The first criticism on that wikipedia page comes from a guy that works as a consultant to the oil lobby. So he pretty much sold his soul to them for I think around $2,500 a day. By your own standard that must invalidate all other criticism on that wikipedia page, no?
