Re: Gore admits Kyoto horribly flawed, needs replacing

On Mar 25, 8:26 am, trotsky <gmsi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:45 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

RichA wrote:

On Mar 24, 2:51 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, Gore is specifically referring to West Antarctica, and claims if it
'were to go' sea level would rise 20 ft. (I can find no mention of "23
ft." making you a liar right there) and NO TIME FRAME IS EVER MENTIONED,
NOR IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS HAPPENING EVER MENTIONED.

Then why mention it at all?

I think I covered that in the part you snipped, dickface. Care to
revise your bull*** story?

Gore obviously included it like some doctor saying, "Well, you've got
a spot on your liver, but don't worry, it likely doesn't mean
cancer." Designed to scare the average science-illiterate goofball
like yourself.

Right, so the question still remains: when you claimed the "IPCC
material" was directly comparable to what Gore said (which you
misquoted) were you lying or just being pig ignorant.


Gore did what all "showman" did, he used a sensationalist piece of
worthless speculation as a base for a supposedly accurate agument
about controlling pollution. He got caught and was made to look like
a fool. To anyone with a brain, that is. This is like the "asteroids
are going to hit us" people who advocate spending billions on a
"shield." In fact it's worse because at least once every 10 million
years, an asteroid DOES hit us.

.

Loading