Gore says global warming skeptics

[TennTradition]

Also, I have never contested as fact that all warming that has been seen is caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. No way. It is not my view that this is fact. I do support as fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I also accept the theory that this effect is significant enough that it can influence global temperatures. So, I reject the notion, completely, that I have fact vs. theory somehow confused in this debate.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

Wait for it....wait for it.......neophyte is coming from someone
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I didn't know you like flyfishing.

I love it.

My favorite lure is a floating neophyte over a deep
pool near the bank on a hot summer day when the
fish are hungry.

TennTradition

GS - I thought my replies to you over the last week in this discussion have been fairly even-handed. Maybe I am forgetting something - could you please quote my vitriolic comments? There have surely been times I have called your understanding of the science into question, and in this instances I believe there was a legitimate reason to do so, but I don't remember vitriol cast in anyone's direction about their AGW thoughts in this discussion. Could have...just show me.

Over the last week or even the last six months you
have been on the up and up but back when it was
considered heresy (at least by the alarmists and the
brain washed) to say that AGW theory is merely a
hoax, you weren't so kind at all.

No doubt you should remember that.

Furthermore your own understanding of science isn't
in this specific area anyway.

TennTradition

Also, I have never contested as fact that all warming that has been seen is caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. No way. It is not my view that this is fact. I do support as fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I also accept the theory that this effect is significant enough that it can influence global temperatures. So, I reject the notion, completely, that I have fact vs. theory somehow confused in this debate.

Obviously greenhouse gases aren't the controling factor.

That is so glaringly obvious as to be undeniable.

I DO NOT accept the theory that this effect is significant
enough to influence global temperatures to any degree
nearly enough to support the current energy policies
of the USA, or any other country for that matter.

I submit you have fact vs theory confused in this debate
when you say that human activity caused CO2 emissions
affect global temperatures enough for radical action by
human society.

Furthermore you have the hypcocrisy if not outright
deceit of actions such as closing down coal fired plants
in this country while exporting millions (if not billions) of
tons of coal to China, and funding new coal fired plants
in India.

Either you are concerned about global warming and
support the same policy world wide and not just here
or not. Obviously not.

Sme goes for preventing our own oil reserves being
tapped while supporting drilling in Brazil and elsewhere.

Either you are really concerned about global warming
globally or you are just trying to put America and Americans
at a disadvantage.

It seems to me that anyone with an IQ above room
temperature would come to the conslusion that there
is a huge disconnect in the whole body of rhetoric.

 

[TennTradition]

First, I feel I have always approached this subject rationally with very little vitriol. Again, I am sure I have become frustrated at your or others incorrect description of certain scientific principles, such as positive feedback mechanisms in climate. I have almost certainly expressed this frustration, but I can't imagine that it has taken the form of vitriol many times at all, whether in the past 6 months or the last 5 years. Finally, your statements about vitriolic comments seemed to suggest they were made in the context of tge current discussion, not some other conversation on the matter.

Next, when have I advocated for radical social change? I think you are creating thought of what I have posted based on your image of me rather than what I have actually called for. I have always expressed uncertainty about the best course of action.

I assure you I do not have fact vs. theory confused. The very fact that you cite one clearly leading to radical change means you have something confused. Neither the fact nor the theory fall under the definition of policy options. What you are speaking of are policy options to address observed facts and the theory connecting them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

Your post sounds quite a bit like Orwelian double plus-good
duck speak.

I don't have anything confused.

The problem arrises when theory is substituted for rational
conclusions drawn from obserable facts and those theories
used to enact irrational governmental policy.

For instance closing down piecemeal about 50% of our
energy production without a viable replacement.

And just to compound that error, we support just the
opposite in India and China among other places.

 

[gsvol]

Freedom Line Blog What Al Gore and Karl Marx Have in Common

It’s a little something called “false consciousness.” An essential aspect
of Marxist thinking (though it was actually propagated by his partner,
Friedrich Engels), false consciousness is a term that one uses to tell an
ideological adversary, in essence, “You disagree with me not because
of your reasoned conclusion, but because your ability to understand
reality is so polluted as to prevent you from even discovering truth
without the enlightened guidance of your betters.”
----------------------------------

Gore and his ilk are accustomed to referring to their critics as
“anti-science”. Yet they’re the ones engaged in something that
sounds a lot more like televangelism than a climatology symposium.

Here’s an idea: if Gore really wants to be seen as a paragon of
sweet reason — and really intends to convert the skeptics —
why not have that hour of programming feature a debate between
himself and one of the leading critics of his theories? Someone,
perhaps, like Christopher Monckton of the British House of Lords,
the former Thatcher advisor who has been challenging Gore to a
scrimmage on global warming for years.

Of course, this format would put Gore on the spot.

But when the science is ‘undeniable’ that should be an easy
fight to win, no?

 

[gsvol]

Algore, the Democrats? Little Lord Fauntleroy has jumped the shark Coach is Right

So the GWKA Church had to change its name to
the “Climate Change Will Kill us All” Church (CCWKA).

That way the media could help him with his scam
without sacrificing too much of what is left of its
credibility. ANYTHING can be blamed on Climate
Change, after all. If it rains too much – climate
change – not enough rain? – blame climate change.
You name it; Algore has a way to blame climate
change for it.

Scam meets reality

This past weekend Algore’s CCWKA Church Gore-a-thon
(a 24 hour reality show he hosted) met its “jumping
the shark” moment. “Jumping the shark” is a phrase
used to describe the moment an act whether on TV,
stage, screen or in popular culture flops.

The reviews of Algore’s failed attempt at a “Climate
Change” reality show, even from his fellow Climate
Change hoaxers, certainly support the “jumped the
shark” charge.

From Europe he was mocked for his “apocalyptic
tone.”

From Georgia we got, “….I anticipate that this effort
will backfire and energize the opposition to such
[Green] policies. As a scientist I find the mantra
‘remove the doubt, reveal the deniers’ to be
objectionable and antithetical to the scientific process.

Gore’s effort will further polarize an already inflamed
and politicized debate surrounding the science and
policy response to climate change.”

A Canadian Lefty likened Algore to Jimmy Swaggart
for his “dangerous cult of personality.”
----------------------------

Like “The Fonz” before him, Little Lord Algore, the
boy from the Faifax Hotel has jumped the shark.
Algore’s Global Warming/Climate Change hoaxing
days are numbered.

 

[OrangeYankee]

The problem I have in this whole debate is if any skeptic of man made global warming states that they have seen reports stating otherwise, it is almost unilaterally shot down with "those are shills for the oil companies," and I have to be blunt here, I feel the same way about the ones who put their stamp of approval on the man made side.

Look lets be honest here: the vast majority of these scientists get a large part of their funding (AKA their living and comfortable lives) from the governments and bureaucracies that are chomping at the bit to find an excuse to tighten their grip of control on us even further with more restrictions and stupid laws that ban us from using things that we otherwise would. For exhibit A: I'd like to present the case of them banning the incandescent light bulb in favor of those stupid, mercury filled swirly things that i detest.

I am absolutely not going to pretend that I have any working knowledge on Climate outside of seeing that it's cloudy out and wet, that it is raining. And most of my skepticism stems from the Criton book "State of Fear." However I can't help but feel when I see a report saying that they found further proof of man made global warming that I can always feel there is a part of that sentence left off: "and we are going to regulate the hell out of anything we feel is contributing."

Tenn Tradition: I know you have stated that you aren't pushing for major social change or anything. However, to me, most people on your side of the argument are usually indicating that is the way they want to go, if not flat out just saying it. IE: I had a "greenie" at my work saying it's a good thing gas is so high as it creates a barrier to high energy usage. In the end, even if these scientists are as pure as the driven snow, the company they keep, I would not trust with my dog's sack of poop and THAT is who scares me.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The problem I have in this whole debate is if any skeptic of man made global warming states that they have seen reports stating otherwise, it is almost unilaterally shot down with "those are shills for the oil companies," and I have to be blunt here, I feel the same way about the ones who put their stamp of approval on the man made side.

Look lets be honest here: the vast majority of these scientists get a large part of their funding (AKA their living and comfortable lives) from the governments and bureaucracies that are chomping at the bit to find an excuse to tighten their grip of control on us even further with more restrictions and stupid laws that ban us from using things that we otherwise would. For exhibit A: I'd like to present the case of them banning the incandescent light bulb in favor of those stupid, mercury filled swirly things that i detest.

I am absolutely not going to pretend that I have any working knowledge on Climate outside of seeing that it's cloudy out and wet, that it is raining. And most of my skepticism stems from the Criton book "State of Fear." However I can't help but feel when I see a report saying that they found further proof of man made global warming that I can always feel there is a part of that sentence left off: "and we are going to regulate the hell out of anything we feel is contributing."

Tenn Tradition: I know you have stated that you aren't pushing for major social change or anything. However, to me, most people on your side of the argument are usually indicating that is the way they want to go, if not flat out just saying it. IE: I had a "greenie" at my work saying it's a good thing gas is so high as it creates a barrier to high energy usage. In the end, even if these scientists are as pure as the driven snow, the company they keep, I would not trust with my dog's sack of poop and THAT is who


scares me.

pretty much how I feel
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

Got some undoubtedly good points there, OrangeYankee. It never hurts to be skeptical, so long as it is based on science and fact rather than what a news reporter or radio personality says.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

Al Gore’s five loaves and two fishes | James Delingpole

Not content with having invented the internet, the
great Climate Science communicator Al Gore appears
to have developed still more miraculous skills of
late: the ability to turn 17,000 into 8.6 million
– just like that.

The figures refer to the number of “views” for Gore’s
special “24 Hours Of ManBearPig” which this column
helped celebrate the other day. Gore claims that as
many as 8.6 million flocked to his thrilling festival
of climate fear; but a nasty cruel man called Charles
the Moderator at Watts Up With That? has “done the
math” and reckons the figure is probably more like
17,000. And that, he believes, is a generous estimate.
(H/T John from CA).

I realize the wheel of justice turn slowly and sometimes
turn backwards, as with the current administration, but
I see a bright future for America and hope to see something
like the following in the future:

An embittered former Senator and Vice President Al Gore is seen
here leaving the building after a federal appeals court refused to
review his 20 year sentence for GROSS HYPOCRICY, FRAUD,
UNJUST ENRICHMENT and PERJURY for his lead role as spokesman
in the “Climategate” fraud conspiracy.

They also had Gore transferred to the 'California Home for the
Perpetually Bewildered' after a panel of psychiatrists examined
him and declared him to be (and we quote their report)
“…crazier than a $hithouse rat.”

The same court recently rejected the appeals of the lengthy
sentences of the 137 alleged UN “scientists” – Gore’s
co-conspirators – for falsifying data supporting so-called
Cap and Trade legislation that trial testimony disclosed
would have virtually destroyed what remained of the U.S.
economy while unjustly enriching Gore and a cabal of insiders.

During his trial, Gore was notified by the Nobel Committee
that he would have to return the large monetary prize and
the gold metal awarded him in 2009. He told reporters that
the last of his prize money and the 100 million or so he’d
bilked from taxpayers while running his scam had gone to
the lawyers and Tipper pawned his medal when she left him
for a mentally competent achondroplastic dwarf NBA center
and filed for divorce after.

 

[gsvol]

Al Gore’s five loaves and two fishes | James Delingpole

Not content with having invented the internet, the
great Climate Science communicator Al Gore appears
to have developed still more miraculous skills of
late: the ability to turn 17,000 into 8.6 million
– just like that.

The figures refer to the number of “views” for Gore’s
special “24 Hours Of ManBearPig” which this column
helped celebrate the other day. Gore claims that as
many as 8.6 million flocked to his thrilling festival
of climate fear; but a nasty cruel man called Charles
the Moderator at Watts Up With That? has “done the
math” and reckons the figure is probably more like
17,000. And that, he believes, is a generous estimate.
(H/T John from CA).

I realize the wheel of justice turn slowly and sometimes
turn backwards, as with the current administration, but
I see a bright future for America and hope to see something
like the following in the future:

An embittered former Senator and Vice President Al Gore is seen
here leaving the building after a federal appeals court refused to
review his 20 year sentence for GROSS HYPOCRICY, FRAUD,
UNJUST ENRICHMENT and PERJURY for his lead role as spokesman
in the “Climategate” fraud conspiracy.

They also had Gore transferred to the 'California Home for the
Perpetually Bewildered' after a panel of psychiatrists examined
him and declared him to be (and we quote their report)
“…crazier than a $hithouse rat.”

The same court recently rejected the appeals of the lengthy
sentences of the 137 alleged UN “scientists” – Gore’s
co-conspirators – for falsifying data supporting so-called
Cap and Trade legislation that trial testimony disclosed
would have virtually destroyed what remained of the U.S.
economy while unjustly enriching Gore and a cabal of insiders.

During his trial, Gore was notified by the Nobel Committee
that he would have to return the large monetary prize and
the gold metal awarded him in 2009. He told reporters that
the last of his prize money and the 100 million or so he’d
bilked from taxpayers while running his scam had gone to
the lawyers and Tipper pawned his medal when she left him
for a mentally competent achondroplastic dwarf NBA center
and filed for divorce after.