When someone says we could lose all the Arctic Ice in 7 years, after 7 years pass and the ice is still there, that makes their silly prediction wrong no matter how they want to spin it. I suppose we could make predictions like "We COULD have unicorns eating all of our grain in 10 years" and as long as they put a could in there it makes it OK. I guess the point of the self proclaimed climate scientists is that if you are making claims, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it helps the cause, it is fine.
could is not would. You are presenting a conditional as if it was an unconditional statement. Yes, you were lying or rather misrepresenting a quotation. However, your premise of the presentation being to incite fear would have some merit had you been more truthful in your presentation.
As others have said, you probably should have said that Al Gore said, "could be," rather than would be, As far as I know, your misquote could have been an honest mistake, which is not the same as a lie.
You should note that Al Gore is not a scientist, and what you see in his movie, his books and his website come from scientists.
A liar. Not at all. I will agree that you could have worked on your phrasing, but this in no way makes you a liar. This is certainly one thing that I detest about how many act here. If you have misworded something, it is nearly impossible to concede a point. Not only will they call you a liar, but they will bring it up again and again. And this is true on both sides.
In your case here, I would not even concede that point. That self-satisfied condescending attitude of pegminer's is enough for me to not concede the point. Instances of overstating their case can be found in so much of what pegminer and other warmers say, that they are seriously throwing some rock in a glass house. And Gary F??? Are you kidding me. It is hard to find a better example of a climate "scientist" who so absurdly displays his own bias a to make all of his research questionable.
Trevor, as usual, displays integrity. I am not going to condescendingly say "he has hope". He has a different opinion than I do, and that is certainly OK.
Pegminer, I can tell you that you throw around the lying and liar word so much, that I can safely conclude that you meet YOUR definition of liar, even if you do not meet mine. So you completely understand what I am saying. I am saying that I would not consider you a liar, BUT by your seemingly loose definition, you decidely are. In fact, by your definiton, everyone is.
Edit:
And Hey Dook, is an interesting example. He cowardly blocks every skeptic so that he can freely spew whatever nonsense he wishes in his assinine questions. He knows he has to block, because he cannot actually debate and his points are so easily refutable as to be absurd as noted by his latest accusation of lying.
Note that Hey Dook accuses "deniers" of lying, yet blocks all skeptics from even answering his question. It is hard to find a more blatant case of absurdity.
I wouldn't call it a lie. It doesn't meet my standard for purposeful deception. I would characterize the statement as an inaccurate quote. Gore said Arctic ice could be gone, not "would be gone." BTW, he made this statement in 2007 during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He is quoting climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski who said "Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013." Then he said that might be too conservative. Another group predicted ice free by 2029.
I do make a distinction between getting a quote wrong and outright lying.
Strictly speaking, it goes to intent. And that is one of the foundations of the dispute between the proponents of AGW and the opposition view. To state the obvious, many people believe that the agendas of those who disagree with them are based on personal gain and the sources and facts that are cited to support their views are deliberately distorted or misinterpreted in their own interests.
If you did that, then yes, you were lying. However, while people may accuse you of lying, in this particular instance you are the only one who can really say whether you were or not, and the fact is you came back to ask a question specifically about the quote, said you misinterpreted it, and opened the topic (and yourself) up to criticism. This says to me that you were not lying...but I also am less critical than others because of my own level of expertise (or lack of same scientifically) and outlook on climate change, which is to continue investing in scientific study and research to improve our knowledge about weather and climate in order to make the best collective decisions we can. It seems clear that your outlook is more in opposition to the majority opinion of climate science to date and that is clearly influencing your outlook and interpretation but that can be said of many on both sides of the argument. Perhaps the Gore reference was misinterpreted as a result, but that does not make you a liar, particularly when you come back with a specific question about your interpretation accompanied by 'well, I SHOULD have said...' I can also see where others would say that was a lie and pegminer specifically addresses that, but it is also like the definition of 'is,' one of my favorite illustrations of how complex the English language is. Was what you said a lie, were you lying, are you a liar...? All interpretations of a remark that was made with different meanings, all revolving around the definition of a word with very negative implications in our society. I do not think you are a liar. But I do think you wanted Gore's remark to serve as evidence of his lack of credibility to support your point of view and interpreted it as such.
But you know, part of real debate and dialogue is allowing for not only others, but also one's own misinterpretations, errors, etc. When we look at the paralysis in the U.S. political system and consequently culture today from climate science to health care to spending to immigration, we can see how the inability to understand how debate and dialogue contribute to social advances and problem solving stalls us from moving forward to solve problems and they mount up until something sufficiently dramatic happens to break the impasse. Many people and groups are so afraid of showing any kind of weakness that might undermine their case that they will resolutely continue arguing a point that is obviously in error (to put it kindly). So we end up with people being victimized by that impasse, like the tragic example of innocent children who are sent to the U.S. by their parents and wind up in interment-or worse. Nobody wants that, but it is used as a weapon by our political leadership with each trying to point the finger of blame at the other side to maintain and gain political power rather than working on moving forward to try to solve the problem.
Oops. Sidebar into a rant about what disturbs me about politics. Thanks for the excuse. Hah.
Al Gore has said: "The entire north polar icecap may well be completely gone in five years."
Here is a clip of him saying it:
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/12/14...
Gore has made a similar claim over a period of years and the wording has not always been the same.
Surely, to prove that someone lied about what Gore has said you need to know everything that Gore said on every occasion?
It's true that you were lying. A more charitable interpretation is that you were leaving out some facts (that you weren't quoting Gore, he was quoting someone else) to get more attention by including his name to stir up the right-wing, anti-science crowd.
A good honest point (or good YA question) would find the original source of a statement or data and quote it directly. It's also what good, fair journalism does. If you get back to the original science and post the actual quote or a link, we won't waste time here on blogs, op-eds, opinions and misrepresented experts. Also, your critics have less ammunition to get at you and we get to discuss the actual issue.
You were lying – it is just a question of what you were lying about. You could have been deliberately lying about Gore; or you were just mindlessly parroting the liars you get your thoughts from – in which case you are lying when you claim to honestly research the things that you talk about.
I’m inclined to go with option #1 this time because this question is as much a lie (oh, sorry, a deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform) as the first.
As Trevor has noted – and as appears in your additional comments – Gore was repeating information from naval researchers. You follow that bit of information with, “Okay I agree I shoud have said could instead of would but does that make me a lier.”
Yes it does make you a liar - just as the preceding quote makes you a liar. Saying “could” instead of “would” is not enough. If you had explicitly noted that Gore was repeating what others said “could” happen then you may have a legitimate argument. However, in failing to acknowledge the truth – and, thanks for providing the self-incriminating evidence – you either are lying or a candidate for a “World’s Dumbest People” reality show.
Well, it was me that said you were lying. Unfortunately it's hard to see how to interpret it differently.
If you knew what he actually said (and at least now you seem to) and you claimed that he said something else, it seems like you were intentionally misrepresenting what he said.
If you were not trying to mislead people, why not actually tell people what he said? I know it's not nearly as effective for your rhetoric if you say "Al Gore cited a study that said that the arctic ice may be gone by 2014", but if you did that then I wouldn't have any reason to call you on it.
I think many people believe it is impolite to use the word "liar" and I understand that. However, I'm not sure what you'd have me say instead. Are you a misleader? A misconstruer? I think you were certainly misleading people intentionally and I don't think that's right, no matter what you want to call it.
Kano, I think you are one of the few in the "skeptic" camp that there is any hope for--but you need to raise your game--you are just falling into the easy habits of the deniers who don't seem to care whether what they say is correct or not.
Well what he actually said in dec 2007 was naval researchers say the ice could go in as little as 7 yrs, he repeated it "in as little as seven years" https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GPLD8aylRiw
Okay I agree I shoud have said could instead of would but does that make me a lier.
Gore was quoting someone else so it wasn’t him that was saying it. He stated that he was quoting from someone else, “another new study to be presented by US Navy researchers later this week, warms it [melting of Arctic ice cap] could happen in as little as seven years”.
You’ve just quoted Gore, on that basis am I now entitled to claim that you said the ice could go in as little as 7 years?
Gore’s own quote was that it would be gone in 50 to 70 years. He stated this in 2006.
I’d say you were mistaken more than lying.
In your similar question I even provided you with the exact quote, who said it and the circumstances. You can quote Professor Wieslaw Maslowski and state that he said that summer in the Arctic by 2013 would be ice-free.
Specifically he said “"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007. So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
