Remember-Al Gore Lies
by Blake on Sep 14, 2009 at 09:48 Political
In his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al spews so much misinformation about the climate and man’s alleged part in the heating of the planet, that I have never been able to look at him as more than a cheap and talentless comedian, like a poor man’s Steven Wright, without the good delivery on a punchline. There is just so much BS a man can take before he feels compelled to call Al out on it.
First, these people said the Globe was cooling, in the 70s and 80s- we were going to have a new ice age– when all that did was cause people to stock up on firewood, they felt that they had to rethink their method of propaganda, and indeed the message itself- after all, there were no glaciers sliding down to swallow up Minneapolis- St. Paul, or Fargo. Too bad- that sure would have sealed the deal- but no- so they then said it was global warming, which seemed to work, especially after the summer of ’98- where we in Texas suffered through the hottest May on record, and the rest of the summer was fairly warm also.
But then we had the Hurricanes- now, we have always had hurricanes, and as someone who has grown up on the Gulf Coast, I have gone through many- and I know there will always be hurricanes. Cooling, warming, it doesn’t matter- there will always be some. That is a part of the climate on the Gulf Coast- Deal with it.
But after the year of Katrina and Rita, Al and his posse ramped up their Warming rhetoric- then it was the next year, and as luck would have it it was one of the quietest hurricane seasons on record. Al & Co. were floored– the devastation did not occur- even worse, the climate was cooling- bad news when your message is Global Warming, so in a flash, they changed their brand yet again, this time to one that was ambiguous enough to be valid, no matter what the climate did.
And climate does what it wants, indeed it can be argued that Co2, a trace gas, is not responsible for global anything- but a needed and vital part of the cycle of life, as plants use this gas to breathe. We need Co2– if there are any culprits, it is not this gas.
The Washington Post’s own Meteorologist Matt Rogers had this to say about “settled science” and human intervention:
My belief is that they are over-estimating anthropogenic (human) forcing influences and under-estimating natural variability (like the current cold-phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation; To be blunt, the computer models that policy-makers are using to make key decisions failed to collectively inform us of the flat global land-sea temperatures seen in the 2000s. The argument that the air we currently exhale is a bona fide pollutant due to potential impacts on climate change flummoxes me. CO2 is also plant food. As a meteorologist, verification is very important for guiding my work and improving future forecasts. The verification for global warming is struggling. Three of four major datasets that track global estimates show 1998 as the warmest year on record with temperatures flat or falling since then. Even climate change researchers now admit that global temperature has been flat since that peak. The coincident timing of major solar minimums with cooler global temperatures (such as during the Little Ice Age) suggests that maybe the sun is underestimated as a component for influencing climate. Indeed, recent research has suggested the solar factor is underestimated. Perhaps one day, we’ll have a different version of James Carville’s famous political quote…something like “It’s the sun, stupid!” Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes.
climatedepot.com
Whether the climate is cooling, or warming is an argument one can go round and round about- each side can present figures and graphs that show what they want- the fact that so many scientists have now questioned the validity of this incomplete study, and alarmist BS, should cause every Senator to say, “Whoa”, when thinking about passing the enormously wasteful and unnecessary Waxman- Markey Bill on” Climate Change”- the costs are huge, and the benefits almost non- existent except as a means of controlling and taxing people. With the progressives, it’s all about the taxes. It’s never about the truth- that really would be inconvenient, wouldn’t it?
Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist at Accuweather, has held views that man might not be the primary causal agent in any climate change-
In addressing the case of Arctic ice, Bastardi displayed a photograph of a U.S. Navy submarine surfaced at the North Pole on March 17, 1954. The vessel is not surrounded by ice but by open water. Bastardi said, “Because earth was warmer before man, it can certainly be warmer with man.”
Bastardi pressed for a more open and honest debate on the climate change theory. He explained that he did not dismiss arguments contrary to his and he in fact welcomed them. He said however, “I don’t want to drive all this off the table. I just don’t want all this nonsense going on that every single weather event is because of global warming. This is preposterous.”
Acknowledging that the views he expressed have become controversial, Bastardi said, “I am not, nor do I seek, to be a spokesman on the AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] issue.” Rather he said he simply wanted people to “be informed and not simply throw stones.”
Bastardi joined a growing line of meteorologists and scientists that are questioning the manmade climate change theory. Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University who is best known for his hurricane forecasts, has long railed against the manmade climate change theory and specifically against the outrageous claims of its advocates like James Hansen. John Coleman, one of the founders of the Weather Channel, has long said that he believed global warming was “the greatest scam in history.”
climatechangefraud.com
He posts more on his thoughts, but the upshot is that this Waxman- Markey bill should not be passed- not until we have objectively looked at ALL of the evidence, not just the “evidence” presented by those paid to deliver said opinions.
Everyone is familiar with the fact that in a courtroom, each side can and do present their side, with so- called “experts” that produce divergent points of view. So why would our government just listen to one side before crafting a bill that will destroy jobs, and communities, and make us less secure?
Our future deserves a better hearing, a fairer hearing.
Stop this very bad bill now.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: change, cooling, global warming, lies
As I informed you July 2:
***
The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
“A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm?csp=34
DAR
And that was 35+ years ago. We’ve learned quite a bit since then. So please update your (dis)information.
D.
——————-
See also this FAQ, for more debunk.
I just repeated the standard belief among the science people back then- there were all those “inconvenient” stories.
Just as now- I do not believe there is enough credibility on either side to risk the kind of money we are talking about on what might be a myth.
That is just stupid.
Pay particular attention to this section that Darrel posted on climate change concensus.
Science doesn’t really work in the way that climate change deniers and even evolution deniers want it to. You have to go with a model or a theory that best fits all the available data. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect and that doesn’t mean it answers every question. It sure doesn’t mean every scientist is going to agree.
But the truth is most, if not all major scientific bodies in the world agree that the climate is changing and humans are contributing. That is a fact. Individual smaller groups and people that don’t represent the whole of the scientific community may disagree but at this point in time the majority of the data and climate models and scientific opinion support climate change.
In other words, stop citing minority opinions based on questionable outlier data to debunk what the majority of scientists believe based on the best data available right now. That’s not science. That’s garbage.
And also stop attacking the credibility of Al Gore in order to somehow debunk global climate change. Al Gore is not perfect and he doesn’t always get it right. He never pretended to be. He’s not a scientist. You can’t strongly refute the science so you just attack a spokesperson? That’s weak.
The troble with climate, Adam, is that it will always do what climate wants to do.
Just like Chaos Theory, there are too many variables to work up a model I would feel comfortable with. Just because it happened in the past doesn’t mean it will happen again, or when the timetable would be.
Consistency is not the hobgoblin of climate.
Nothing you just said makes any sense whatsoever.
That’s OK- take it a word at a time,if you are more comfortable with that.
Be sure and sound out the vowels, and enunciate clearly,
You’ll get it.
Still not making sense.
Oh that’s right you are a Democrat, (or liberal)- so common sense is a foreign language.
I am so sorry, bless your little heart.
I’m all for common sense. I just laugh at your view that goes something like: “Contrary to your facts, reality and logic, common sense tells me you are wrong.” Right.
The point which you seem determined to miss, is that you cannot put Climate, or weather into a neat box and make it behave.
It has a life outside of statistical models, and you have to be arrogant or stupid (and Al Gore is BOTH) to think otherwise.
This is a scam for Al to make money since he failed at politics and doesn’t have a personality to speak of.
But Darrel said people with a Nobel are credible and we should listen to them. Gore is not a scientist so why did he win the Nobel? It is a peace prize but he won it for science (go figure).
There are plenty of people who dispute the models. I have said all along that it needs to be investigated but we should not spend billions on something that is speculative and would have a negligible effect.
The ROI is just not there.
Gore isn’t a scientist and he didn’t win the Nobel Peace prize for science. Otherwise he would have won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry or Physics.
See more here:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/
Right- Gore isn’t much of anything except a failed politician- if there’s a prize for that, a LOT of people qualify.
Climate change is still very UNSETTLED science, and there should be no huge amount of money spent on what is still mainly guesswork.
Gore was just VP and won the most votes in a presidential election. What a failure. Just because you disagree with Gore’s politics doesn’t take away from his work as a business leader, innovator, and a spokesperson for a cause he’s worked on for a long time. But don’t let reality get in the way of your common sense…
Gore lost because he wasn’t competent enough to CARRY HIS OWN STATE- I think that says it all.
Gore being VP just means he was along for the ride- no biggie, but no brains needed, which WAS convenient- the vote thing is still being hashed over- bottom line, he couldn’t even carry his home state, or the point would be moot.
Like the communist Jones, Gore wants to make money off of fear- witness the sci- fi movie he came out with- please!
He hasn’t innovated squat- and business leader?
Yeah- like Bernie Madoff, he is.
There are plenty of people who dispute evolution as well. They’re called kooks. Or maybe evangelical conservatives if you think kook is too harsh.
Well, kook is SO generic, as it can apply to liberals also. I would be OK with harsh, but lets be a bit more specific here.
Al Gore’s only a half winner anyway. That means he’s only got half the credibility it would normally bring, I think…
I guess his credibility would be determined by how much you liked or trusted him. Those prizes are not that exclusive anymore.
I mean, look- they gave a Pulitzer to Maureen Dowd, the eternal “woman scorned”- my dog can write better than her.
Kanye West won for who the hell knows why- good cornrows? It surely couldn’t have been fore talent- he has none.
So prizes, and this includes the Nobel (they gave one to Carter, for God’s sake), are cheap.
BLK: “they gave one to Carter, for God’s sake”>>
***
“The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter’s mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.
Through his Carter Center, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2002, Carter has since his presidency undertaken very extensive and persevering conflict resolution on several continents. He has shown outstanding commitment to human rights, and has served as an observer at countless elections all over the world. He has worked hard on many fronts to fight tropical diseases and to bring about growth and progress in developing countries. Carter has thus been active in several of the problem areas that have figured prominently in the over one hundred years of Peace Prize history.
In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development.”
Oslo, 11 October 2002
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press.html
Oh Please! Carters efforts did absolutely nothing for the Middle East- The Camp David accords just changed Egypt from an overt enemy to a covert one. Whoop-de-do.
His Carter Center is a hotbed of Socialist activity.
The disease thing I get, but other than that, nada.
The kind of Nobel Prize awards Blake would respect more:
* Physics: This one goes to Sarah Palin for bending so many natural laws to let her see Russia from a spot no normal human could see it from.
* Chemistry: This one goes to Rep. Michele Bachmann for all that crack she’s smoking. She doesn’t make enough money to buy what she smokes, she has to be making it at home.
* Medicine: This one goes to Bill Frist for his excellent work in the Terri Schiavo case.
* Literature: This one goes to Glenn Beck for his bastardization of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, dumbing it down for modern conservative rubes.
* Peace: This one goes to John Bolton for his work to pacify the Middle-East by killing them all and letting God sort them out.
* Economics: This one goes to Joe The Plumber his work blowing the lid off Obama’s attempt to spread the wealth.
Did I leave off anybody that deserved to win it more?
What did Kanye West win? He’s got plenty of talent, even if you don’t think so. Let’s just say that Kanye West’s talent level almost rivals his level of ego.
Bolton would have a good idea, if that was true, but it is not- have you read Beck’s “Common Sense”? Or do you think it will burn your liberal eyes out?
How do you know you can’t see Russia from Sarah’s Porch?
You been there? Or are you just good at ridiculing that which you do not like or understand?
And, crack is the liberal drug of choice- we conservatives tend to have our troubles with liquor- you know, old school drugs.
Kanye West has no talent whatsoever- period. I have eggplants in my garden that have more talent.
I knew you’d like the list.
Oh, Blake just compared a black man to an eggplant. Racist!
once again, the liberal screams “racist”
Kanyo is as intelligent as an eggplant- apparently YOU have a ways to go.
Racist…
And the liberal frog’s leg jerks yet again.
Blake trashes the French with his frog joke. What a bigot…
Gore may be half a winner, but he’s ALL whiner.
Flashback, June 8th, on this forum:
***
BIGD: “Al Gore got a peace prize for something that had nothing to do with peace.”>>
DAR
Tell that to the Pentagon:
“Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us”
Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
***
Al Gore shared the peace prize because hundreds of millions of people being displaced around the world has *profound* consequences for “peace.”
D.
—————–
Or as the Nobel Prize page says:
“for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”
“hundreds of millions of people being displaced around the world”…. by WEATHER is what I call life- its too bad, but stuff happens, and all the money we throw at something like climate is not going to have any effect, except on our ego. Because if you have ever peed into the ocean, then you know the effect we will have on climate- none at all.
It’s just like that.
Why waste money?
If one person created extra carbon emissions once and then stopped then maybe Blake’s analogy of the urine in the ocean would stand up. But this is the kind of illogical conclusions that makes it so fun to watch you global warming deniers run around saying everything is fine while actual experts disagree completely.
Some experts disagree with the first experts- its just SO inconvenient, isn’t it? Too bad, so sad.
BLK: “WEATHER is what I call life”
DAR
“Weather” doesn’t change the level and temperature of the ocean.
Climate change does.
Learn the difference.
I could provide you the resources to do this but I’ve done this before you and show no signs of interest in correcting your errors.
D.
They are not errors- both the Atlantic AND pacific oscillations have more to do with solar activity than little niggling climate fluctuations.
Anybody knows that.
Get educated.
Your vaunted “climate change” will not cause the oceans to rise- that’s just a hack talking there.
BLK: “John Coleman, one of the founders of the Weather Channel, has long said…”>>
DAR
John Coleman earned a degree in Journalism in 1957 and he used that to work up to being a “weather anchor” on TV. He has no training in the field of climatology and what he says about the issue of climatology should be considered in this context.
If you would like to defend any of his claims, please do (few of them are even scientific, mostly emotion, conspiracy and innuendo). It’s all very bottom of the barrel.
D.
—————-
“Coleman’s only obvious connection to weather and climate is as a TV weather reporter and simply being the “founder of the Weather Channel” and when it comes to climate science being a reporter of weather really means nothing.”
So, yet ANOTHER expert you dismiss- Someone who has been observing weather for 52 years has no credibility?
Climatology is still in its infancy, and I would bet that the study of climatology was built on his shoulders. I would certainly trust him and Dr. Gray over James (hear me do my chicken Little impression) Hansen- that’s for sure.
And now for the latest debunking of Global Warming, here is Brick Tamland with the weather.
BLK: “yet ANOTHER expert you dismiss”>>
DAR
He’s not an expert. His training is in journalism. His comments about climatology show his understanding to be at the high school level, his errors are obvious, laughable and indefensible.
Try defending *one* (or more) and see.
BLK: “Someone who has been observing weather for 52 years has no credibility?”>>
DAR
Correct. None whatsoever.
BLK: “Climatology is still in its infancy”>>
DAR
Not really:
“Perhaps the earliest person to hypothesize the concept of climate change was the medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD).”
Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686…”
etc.
BLK: “I would certainly trust [Coleman]… over James Hansen>>
DAR
Of course. James Hansen is a world renowned expert in this field and actually knows what he is talking about.
D.
—————–
“In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[65] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his “outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena.”[66]
“Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996…”
“…2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an “outspoken authority on climate change”
Etc.
I could do better than Hansen- he panders to the cause du jour, and likes his payola.
I’ve seen prostitutes with more morals.
Why do you find it necessary to see prostitutes? You have to pay women to be with you?
Maybe you should just be nicer.
Careful D- my wife could take you, and your little goats too.
BLK: “I would bet that the study of climatology was built on his [Coleman’s] shoulders.”>>
DAR
Aside from the absurdity that a meteorologist would be an expert in climatology… your Coleman isn’t even a meteorologist, he just plays one on Tee Vee. He’s a journalist who got grandfathered in because he was on TV in the early days.
Saying “the study of climatology” was built upon his shoulders is like saying our study of the geologic column, rock formation and bedrock, stand on the shoulders of Fred Flintstone.
D.
—————-
“I AM a fair minded, honest intelligent conservative.” –Blake, Wednesday Sep 16th, 2009
Well, D- if that’s the way you want to be, fine. I stand by my remarks- you keep on with the ridicule- its wearing thin.
Adam, you don’t like it when a spokesperson is attacked, but you don’t have any problem attacking people in here, so that is a pot calling a kettle black. Also, if you believed in God’s word, then you wouldn’t believe in evolution. I think you are going to be surprised when you have to stand before Him.
Oh that’s easy. I just ignore all those parts of evolution that seek to disprove God. Oh wait, there are no parts of evolution that deal with God. It’s science!
I vote Democrat and I go to church on Sundays. Deal with it. Welcome to America, Barbara, where millions of people of faith just like me consistently support progressive policies in America while rejecting the kind of garbage you believe. Boo hoo.
But go ahead and keep judging us and fantasizing about the end times when you’ll be so perfect and shining in front of God and us poseur Christians will be judged and damned to hell for voting for Nazi Pelosi. It makes for good reading.
St. Peter won’t condemn you for supporting Pelosi, he will be laughing too hard at your gullibility- she REALLY IS a cartoon, you know.
Right, and Kanye West has no talent…
Now you are getting it- I knew you’d see it my way.
Blake once again shows his expertise in stepping outside his field of knowledge to speak unintelligently about something he has absolutely no knowledge of. Like Al Gore and Paul Krugman, Kanye West supports beliefs Blake doesn’t agree with so therefore this massively successful producer and singer is just a no-talent hack. Does it hurt to live in a world so void of reality, Blake?
No, Kanye West just proves that music is dead, and people will put up with a lot of really, really talentless people who have ridiculous haircuts- does that make them any more talented. I submit that it does not- he is still talentless, and a waste of space.
Spoken like a truly old foggy.
No, actually, in order to make really good music, you DO have to have talent.
They say everyone should have a song in their heart, but from all I have heard in the last twenty years, more people should keep that song inside and try VERY HARD not to let it out.
There is bad music and good music of course and popular music that is bad music. That being said I don’t think anybody who truly knows a thing about music would question the talent of Kanye West. In just a few short years he’s won 42 different awards ranging from AMAs to the VMAs to Grammy awards. You may not like the man or you may not like the genre he’s working in but to say he has no talent is foolish.
Adam- The fact that I think that Kanye has no talent will not hurt him in the least- true, I am using a reference of a classical music background, as well as growing up when rock and roll was really beginning, but just as an art critic doesn’t have to know how to paint well in order to critique art, so can I critique music, and I say he has no talent- from my perspective.
It matters not to me how many awards he has won- nowadays people get trophies just for showing up, so unless I can see some talent, I can and will say he is a hack- he certainly showed his bad manners at the VMA awards, didn’t he?
He probably didn’t have a father around who would make him mind.
Your opinion of art is irrelevant when it comes to disagreeing with how the art community in general receives a person. It’s like saying Jackson Pollock was a lousy artist because your background is French Impressionism and abstract expressionism just doesn’t float your boat. What you’re saying just doesn’t mesh with reality in the music community.
My opinion is every bit as valid as anyone else’s- more so, since I do have a classical music background, and I know how math may be used to translate music- but the numbers do not add up for Kanye.
He just proves how mediocrity has become the new “platinum”, and people “settle” for less- less talent, less product, less everything.
And you mediocrity- lovers just eat it up.
Bon appetite!
And as far as “Art”- I am sure the crucifix in urine was a real use of “talent”, as was the Virgin Mary smeared in excrement.
Eat it up, mediocrity – lover.
Your opinion of music and art are both hilariously wrong and locked in some distorted reality, but that’s OK I guess. You’re not the first person I’ve met that thought their wrong headed beliefs were just valid opinions.
And you are certainly not the first person to think my valid opinions were wrongheaded beliefs.
They were all wrong, of course, but then you know that.