Truth is often stranger than fiction, and Al Gore’s missives are often stranger than both. Robert Schaefer writes:
I just got back from the 2014 International UFO Congress, the largest UFO conference in the world, where somebody was passing out the following to the attendees (a double-sided paper on orange stock). Looks like Al Gore is using Extraterrestrials to help fight Global Warming!
On another matter, the Randi Foundation has not yet posted the video of Michael Mann’s talk on their YouTube channel. I suspect that Mann may not want them to.
===============================================================
Either this is a joke being perpetrated by somebody at the conference just for fun, or it’s a sign of desperation, something I can surely understand when you look at graphs like this:
Lower rank numbers are better, for example, Google is #1.
For the record, I don’t believe in Aliens/UFO’s on Earth (with millions of cell phone cameras you’d think we’d have a decent picture by now) or Al Gore’s global warming claims. – Anthony
If you will buy CAGW, as created by the magic gas.
You probably will buy Al’s other products.
Goron marketing?
Brad Rich says: @ur momisugly February 18, 2014 at 11:28 am
Humans are not rational beings. Why would aliens want to come to Earth, whatever the temperature?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here.
I do not know if this fits in or where it should be so help me out here but I just saw this posted by JW on his site (? wunderground?)
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) announced last week that the hurricane season of 2013 had one more storm that should have been named–a short-lived low that developed south of the Azores during early December, which became a subtropical storm on December 5. “Should-Have-Been-Named-Subtropical-Storm-Nestor” reached top sustained winds of 45 mph. The storm formed over unusually cool waters of 22°C (72°F), and brought sustained 10-minute winds of 37 mph with a gust to 54 mph near 00 UTC December 7 to Santa Maria in the southeastern Azores. With this addition, the 2013 Atlantic season ended with 14 tropical and subtropical storms. Two, Ingrid and Humberto, became hurricanes, but neither became a major hurricane.
I am in no way an expert. But to me a gust of 54mph (single one as I read it) and 10-minute winds of 37mph is hardly any kind of a hurricane so why is this data being FU-d? I am seeing more and more of this in the regular media, the average person is totally unaware but to me (not a scientist) and a lot of other people very depended on weather it is becoming confusing, unsettling and scary. Why? Because decisions being made on this sort of misleading information can lead to commercial disasters.(And are subtropical storms soon to be called sub- sub,- sub tropical “storms” with 5mph “sustained” winds and “gusting” winds clocked at 7MPH?). Thanks, anybody can put this on any of the threads where it may fit!
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly February 18, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Khwarizmi:
You can believe or not believe whatever you want. That is your God-given right.
But you have no right to demand that Ms Moore has to explain anything….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree Richard. I am getting rather tired of all the Christian bashing and I am an Agnostic.
Why is picking on gays and the rest not politically correct but there is an open season on Christians and Sceptics?
A bit hypocritical if you ask me.
I need to ask a serious question. Is this for real, that is, is Gore this much a fool?
What worries me is that I actually believe that Gore could be that crazy.
Khwarizmi:
In your illogical atheist sermon at February 18, 2014 at 6:29 pm you say to me
Bollocks! The only double standards on display are yours!
If Janice – or anyone else – states her care for someone in her own way then only a narrow-minded bigot would find reason to object. There is no rational, ethical and/or moral reason to be bothered by it whether that care is expressed in a theist or an atheist manner.
Atheism is as rational – n.b. not more and not less rational – as theism. Both are beliefs about existence of a deity. Agnosticism is not a faith, but that is not what you are proclaiming. You are asserting the double standard that your faith is “rational” and Janice’s faith is not.
My “big nose” is “put out of joint” by religious proselytism on WUWT whomever does it. You did that and Janice did not.
Incidentally, and for amusement, you may have noticed that my family name is Courtney. This name derives from Norman French and is an insulting reference to the family nose. The original name was “Coure De Nez” (pronounced cor de nay) and is why the name is now still often spelled as Courtenay. Literally translated it means “short of nose” so – in my case – your assertion of a “big nose” is a complement.
Richard
Aliens don’t like the cold? Who knew? Smart aliens would just go someplace warm, like the Bahamas. Come to think of it, some “humans” do that. Hmmm…..
Kevin Kilty says:
“People who believe in UFOs are probably prone to believe in other magical conspiracy theories and so forth. They present a natural audience for Gore’s bloviating.”
Richard the religious kook with his double standards didn’t complain:
“Please have more respect for the beliefs of others and promote your anti-UFO religion elsewhere”
Nor did Gail Combs try to invoke taboo.
Because some whacky beliefs are more equal than others.
Because some whacky beliefs are more equal than others.
Because some whacky beliefs are more equal than others.
Because some whacky beliefs are more equal than others.
hunter says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:24 pm
“uh oh, there is a kook getting all worked up about UFO’s posting under “David G”.
DNFTT
Richard the hypocrit didn’t complain,
“”Please have more respect for the beliefs of others and promote your anti-UFO religion elsewhere”
And hunter didn’t say:
“uh oh, there is a kook getting all worked up about his magical daddy up in the sky posting under “richardscourtney”.
DNFTT
HYPOCRITES
Khwarizmi:
OK. So you have outed yourself with your post at February 19, 2014 at 12:28 pm.
You are not some fundamentalist crank trying to sell your atheist religion.
You are merely a bog standard troll trying to deflect the thread from its subject by attempting to equate people who post here as being akin to UFOologists.
The only hypocrite among those you list is you. All the others are honest in their statements whereas you are merely another anonymous troll to be ignored and/or ridiculed.
Richard
14 years ago on a science forum….
Confabulator (me)
There is a good argument against the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life, and it goes along the lines that if there was – they would already be here.
Or at least their Von-Neumanesque space probes would
==============
Frogman
Confabulator – The argument you put forward is of course invalid because it assumes that all intelligent life is more advanced that we are. We can’t reach other solar systems, maybe they can’t either. Maybe there are thousands of civilisations out there on a middle ages level of development.
The fact that they have not ‘contacted’ us does not mean they’re not there, it means that; a) They’re not interested in us, b) They don’t know we’re here (highly unlikely regerding the junk we’ve collected orbiting our planet, they’re bound to notice) or c) They are, at present, unable to ‘contact’ us.
==============
Falderal
I offer as examples d)Shy. e)Waiting for us to return their call. f) Afraid of us. g)Here, running the McDonalds chain. h)None of the above.
==============
Frogman
d) Possible
e) Unlikely, if they’re intelligent enough to know we’re here AND send us a message, they’re also intelligent enough to understand we didn’t notice their message and they’ll send another one.
f) Why would they be? If they can know for sure we’re here, their technology is probably superior to ours.
g) Very well possible! *LOL*
I think we basically agree that Confabulator’s argument “they’re not here, so they’re not there either” is invalid.
==============
Sir Rod
I figure universes could come and go a trillion times over with no life at all, so I figure in this universe, we’re it.
==============
Parity Boy
Wow, Rod, you really jerked that one out of your as*.
Plain and simple, it’s naive to think that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.
==============
Confabulator
Frogman: The argument you put forward is of course invalid because it assumes that all intelligent life is more advanced that we are.
Until we find evidence or detect some kind of definitive signal, we can only engage in statistical speculation. At present, SETI searches for a signal on the grounds that an intelligent form of life may exist that is also prepared to broadcast it’s whereabouts to the cosmos. This in itself might not be an intelligent thing to do. For argument’s sake, we can assume that they don’t intentionally broadcast, but they would face the same problems we do – upper bounds to the lifetime of a marginally stable biosphere suspended between runaway glaciation and greenhouse. We can also limit the argument to our own galaxy because of the time scales involved.
If we are talking about the kind of seriously intelligent beings that re-cognise a threat when they see one, they will develop von-Neumann machines (a self-reproducing universal constructor with intelligence comparable to the human level) and send them into space. “Such a machine combined with present-day rocket technology would make it possible to explore the Galaxy in less that 300 million years, for an initial investment less than the cost of operating a 10MW microwave beacon for several hundred years, as proposed in SETI. It is a deficiency in computer technology, not rocket technology, which prevents us from beginning the exploration of the Galaxy tomorrow.”
There is also the argument that silicon-based life must begin with carbon based life, but that’s for another thread.
Spitz: – The Drake equation calculates probability of intelligent life based on a) the probability that a given star system will have planets, b) the number of habitable planets in a solar system that has planets, c) the probability that life evolves on a habitable planet, d) the probability that intelligence evolves on a habitable planet, and e) the probability that an intelligent species will attempt interstellar communication within ~5 billion years after the formation of the planet on which it evolved.
To calculate a probability with a degree of confidence, we need a fairly large sample, but for c, d & e we have only one sample point – the Earth. If we do apply the principle of mediocrity to the equation, we come up the sort of figures you mention, and that’s only for the civilizations that exist at the moment – there would be countless more that were extinguished in the history of our galaxy.
Yet none of them recognised the threat to survival and did anything about it. If you accept that we can assume the intentions of an intelligent species, then the absence of von-Neumann machines should be reasonable evidence that their existence is extremely unlikely.
[ref: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow & Tiippler, 1986]
=============
Inthe current faith-based NeoCon era, one no longer is required to engage in reasoning.
Just call them “kooks” and everyone will understand.
Khwarizmi says: @ur momisugly February 19, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Nor did Gail Combs try to invoke taboo.
Because some whacky beliefs are more equal than others.
Because some whacky beliefs are more equal than others.
Because some whacky beliefs are more equal than others.
Because some whacky beliefs are more equal than others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
?
I guess the word whacky must be applied to Khwarizmi.
He also displays the inability to read or reason.
Richard Courtney a NeoCon?
ROTFLMAO!
What a classic example of an unthinking intolerant Gorebot.
Sorry if that appeared arrogant to you–certainty can come off that way. I’m pretty certain that UFOs are an impossibility. Also, UFO enthusiasts are very prone to conspiracy theories–the Roswell incident, Area 51, certain hangers at Wright-Patterson containing alien bodies, are among the dozens and dozens of myths that I might point to as proof. It’s easy, I imagine, to move individuals who consume conspiracies about the government, to then accept conspiracy theories about energy and the environment that involve “big oil”.
“Keep Earth Cool. Keep Aliens Out.”
Al Gore is just being Xenophobic. He wants to be the only alien on the planet.
[quote=”Khwarizmi”]
I am anti-belief, pro-knowledge, pro-understanding and pro-evidence.
…
http://nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm
[/quote]
The problem with your position and the position of the link’s essay is quite simple. Not noticing knowledge requires belief.
The essay tried to claim knowledge doesn’t require belief: example:
—
Knowledge: Knowledge comes from awareness of the world, or understanding gained through experience. Although people may believe in what they know, knowledge has no requirement for belief (beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements). Examples: I may have knowledge of a story, poem or song, but I have no need to believe it. I know the rules of many games, but I do not believe in games. I know the mathematics of calculus, but I do not believe in calculus. I have knowledge of information, but I do not believe in information. I have direct knowledge of my existence through sensations, thought, and awareness, but I do not believe I exist: I know I exist (even though I may not know how I exist).
—
What is the flaw? Simple, he didn’t show knowledge doesn’t require belief. Why?
Look at this sentence:
“Knowledge requires belief.”
It means: If a persons has a knowledge (there is something she knows), she also must have a belief (there is something she believes)
In other words: If there is something a person knows, there is something (not necessarily grammatically equivalent to what she knows) this same person believes.
Examples:
I know a story -> I believe the story is real.
I know the rules of a game -> I believe the rules of a game are real.
I know the mathematics of calculus -> I believe the mathematics of calculus are SUCH.
I know an information -> I believe an information is available to myself.
It is very intuitive idea. Knowledge requires awareness. This awareness can be analyzed in two components:
The path that such awareness is available to you.
The kind of trust you put over such path. (the belief part)
If the path doesn’t exist, you can’t be aware. If you don’t trust the path, it is just something you recognize as an sort of illusion, not awareness.
[i truly apologize to the moderators for being 100% off-topic. I felt it was necessary.]
Gail Combs,
“Neoconservatism is a political ideology with origins in the Marxist Trotskyite movement… “
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LOL! ROFL! Ridicule!
“Neoconservatism is a political ideology with origins in the Marxist Trotskyite movement”
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Have a nice day, fellow human.
DanielG,
The problem with your position and the position of the link’s essay is quite simple. Not noticing knowledge requires belief.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thanks for the metaphysical hogwash.
“Not noticing knowledge requires belief.” – say it over and over again, and it still won’t come true.
belief, .noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief
“When I use a word”, said Humpty Dumpty in rather scornful tone, “it means whatever I choose it to mean, and not what the dictionary says. Infinity?…Well, that could mean ‘deity’ or even ‘have a nice day!’ “
=======================================================================
Perhaps you should try a little “belief”. Then maybe people could tell what the hell you’re talking about.
Or are you just talking about nothing?
A line from a song I heard, “One day nothin’ added nothin’ to nothin’ and nothin’ plus nothin’ equals Everything!”
Gunga Din:
In your post at February 19, 2014 at 7:25 pm you ask the troll posting as Khwarizmi
The troll is talking about nothing but is throwing insults, defamations and misrepresentations in all directions. It is throwing these verbal nail-bombs in hope of obtaining responses from its victims and, thus, deflecting the thread from its subject.
The troll has chosen religion as its subject of choice to deflect this thread.
Another troll has chosen to use politics and is successfully deflecting another WUWT thread.
The only appropriate responses to such trolls are to ignore them or to ridicule them because any other response assists them.
Richard
One more for the “warmlist” (it’s a tragedy they don’t update the list anymore)
“CAGW keeps aliens away”
So, I was the only person to present a rational argument against ET,
but merely because I agreed with DavidG that UFOs are more plausible stories than deities,
the shameless pack-hunting animals for skydaddy got upset and tried to enforce taboo.
GungaDin projected his juvenile dependence on belief onto everyone – but it isn’t true. Many people enjoy a belief-free life.
Believers just can’t tolerate cognitive diversity, intellectual curiosity, interpretive thrillseekers or the pursuit of explanatory fitness.
Charlemagne slaughtered 4500 human beings on one day for refusing to believe.
Everyone had to believe after that.
Beliefs – leave home without ’em.
==============================================================
Of course you are free to believe that if you wish.
(Sorry, Richard. I couldn’t resist. As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon!”.8-)