[N_Fiddledog]

There's another good one about Begley. It should be at YouTube, but I'm too lazy to look right now.

It's one of those the-mics-still-on-dummy things.

In it he's speaking at an event, and he's following now-disgraced, green jobs czar Van Jones. Begley comes on crying - choking down sobs actually - talking about the impassioned speech of Jones.

Afterwards mic-still-on he's accepting congratulations from somebody on his honest outpouring of emotion. That person leaves. He turns to his buddy, and says something like "Hey, I'm just a good actor. It's what I do for a living".

(Actually that's just my interpretation. You'll have to go to youtube, for the source). The clip is from Not Evil Just Wrong.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Ed Begley is LOONY!

I saw this interview before. For him to do that on national TV is telling. He's nuts and isn't willing to listen to any counter argument.

No wonder the GW message is failing, no real proof, losers like Gore and Begley promoting the message and the renta-mob crowd who were anti-globalisation 5 years ago and now have decided GW is the new target of 'youth' protest.

Hardly a compelling crowd, hardly a credible message.

Well first off a single interview does not a loony make. It takes at least a Fox TV spot. What I meant when I said he walked the walk is that he truly does try and live his life as green as he can and has been doing so for a long time.

The credible message as you say is still from the scientists.

For example I know you believe in a God and are Catholic (or Christian at least). Would you tell people to look at the message beyond the loony rantings of any TV evangelist? Do you think they have taken a message you believe is true and are distorting it into something hideous based on politicizing it?

No and you make a good point. My point is though that these, shall we say more 'radicalised' and vocal supporters of GW do the cause no good.

The media is bombarding us with one message, GW is down to human activity. The argument is not proven or convincing.

The renta-mob mentality further dilutes the credibility.

The whole 'cult' like status of the GW worries me. It's like a religion for the agnostics.

The cap and trade thing seems like a big con to get us to pax more taxes and give it to third world despots who are squandering their own natural resources.

It isn't doing it for me at all and it seems I'm not alone.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There's another good one about Begley. It should be at YouTube, but I'm too lazy to look right now.

It's one of those the-mics-still-on-dummy things.

In it he's speaking at an event, and he's following now-disgraced, green jobs czar Van Jones. Begley comes on crying - choking down sobs actually - talking about the impassioned speech of Jones.

Afterwards mic-still-on he's accepting congratulations from somebody on his honest outpouring of emotion. That person leaves. He turns to his buddy, and says something like "Hey, I'm just a good actor. It's what I do for a living".

(Actually that's just my interpretation. You'll have to go to youtube, for the source). The clip is from Not Evil Just Wrong.

Sheesh, you really have a hate-on for absolutely anybody who shows the slightest regard for the environment, don't you? What is it? Are you threatened because you think they are trying to come off as better than you somehow? Or do you just really, really hate Mother Nature?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I will agree about the Ed Begely thing here. And you know, even if he IS loony, he is at least living his beliefs, AND more importantly, those beliefs aren't hurting anyone.

You do make a good analogy between this topic and TV evangelists. The difference is, I don't think man is affecting global temps as much as we are being asked to believe, at least not in the direction we're being pointed.
I personally believe, that if there is elevated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, that it is caused, at least in part by, the deforestation of rain forests. Less trees to absorb CO2 and expel O2. THis may sound a bit far fetched but stop and think about it, plants are the lungs of this planet. Just imagine how much less efficiently your body would work if you had even a half a lung removed.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh hi Zip. Here's one I've been saving for you. I want to show you how big I can be about admitting defeat when it actually happens.

You're gonna love this.

Your side actually won a more or less fair, more or less organized debate!!! I know, crazy, eh. When was the last time you saw that happen. First time for me (Ok, in the interest of full disclosure, maybe second, but again, "maybe", and there's one I haven't seen yet where the results are supposed to be debatable).

It was Monbiot versus Plimer, and there's no doubt about it Monbiot (the warmer) wiped the floor with Plimer (the skeptic). It's the first time I've ever seen a skeptic so thoroughly disgraced in a debate.

Plimer is becoming one of those guys skeptics want to turn to, and say, "Please, don't help me".

I've got a link, but it doesn't work for me. I saw the video off the homepage, but that video link seems to be gone.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 772906.htm

To be fair though, I'd like to see Monbiot try that critique of no-warming-since-98 with somebody like Lindzen, or Monckton. You'd see a different result.

[DerbyX]

(making this short because for me its like 11:30 at night.)

Eyebrock: Sure the media hype and the personalities aren't helping. Hell they are downright hurting. Unfortunately we the people are responsible for that. We as a society crave tabloid news. We had how many threads about Tiger Woods? As well you know the tabloid papers outsell the real papers and so that is the message we get bombarded with.

At the end of the day you need to simply investigate for yourself the science involved just like you need to look past the political rhetoric of politicians and look at the issues.

PA#9: At least you are looking at the science aspect of it. The main point should be not to be put off by the hype as long as the science is sound which I believe it is. Remember that it's the hype guys with the doomsday scenarios mostly while the science guys are mearly showing that CO2 is rising because of human activity; global temperatures are going up and their is a scientific correlation between the 2 events.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh hi Zip. Here's one I've been saving for you. I want to show you how big I can be about admitting defeat when it actually happens.

You're gonna love this.

Your side actually won a more or less organized debate!!! I know, crazy, eh. When was the last time you saw that happen. First time for me.

It was Monbiot versus Plimer, and there's no doubt about it Monbiot (the warmer) wiped the floor with Plimer (the skeptic). It's the first time I've ever seen a skeptic so thoroughly disgraced in a debate.

Plimer is becoming one of those guys skeptics want to turn to, and say, "Please, don't help me".

I've got a link, but it doesn't work for me. I saw the video off the homepage, but that video link seems to be gone.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 772906.htm

To be fair though, I'd like to see Monbiot try that critique of no-warming-since-98 critique with somebody like Lindzen, or Monckton. You'd see a different result.

Monbiot was the only AGW proponent of note with the balls to state clearly and unequivocally the damage that Phil Jones et al did in the ClimateGate scandal. Most of the rest of them were trying to play it down.

Lindzen is a bit of a different animal. I don't think it's as easy to put him in either the "skeptic" or "believer" camp. Bjorn Lomberg is like that too. More nuanced positions.

But thanks for the note--I'm going to look at it tonight, with popcorn!

[N_Fiddledog]

There's another one you might be interested in Zip. I can't find the actual debate, but you might be able to. You'll particularly like this one if you can find it, I think. Monbiot teamed up with Elizabeth May. The results are debated, but supposedly your guys did well.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX DerbyX:

PA#9: At least you are looking at the science aspect of it. The main point should be not to be put off by the hype as long as the science is sound which I believe it is. Remember that it's the hype guys with the doomsday scenarios mostly while the science guys are mearly showing that CO2 is rising because of human activity; global temperatures are going up and their is a scientific correlation between the 2 events.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, despite my personal beliefs in God( NOT organized religion, just God), I'm not an anti-science type, I'm just not foolish enough to put my blind faith in science. Just as I'm not foolish enough to do the same with organized religion.
I think I also have a unique view of the world. It's no surprise that EVERYTHING here is interconnected. But, I also see the world as something more.
When asked what the biggest living thing on Earth is or was, most people will think of the Blue Whale. I think of the Earth's outer crust. The plants, especially the forests are it's lungs, the oceans and rivers are it's blood system, and the winds are the like the lymph system.
And we, are like parasites upon it. The difference is we have the brains to choose to live in symbiosis with our "host".
Quite frankly, I think there are more important things to worry about environmentally than just us producing some CO2 emissions.
WOW I just had a scary thought. These "carbon credits" sound to me like the first step in some sort of global currency system.