Global Warming

Al Gore Breaks Silence on Global Warming Fiascos (Fiasci?)

|

Al Gore makes the whole planet sick.

If you've been wondering where former vice president and Nobel laureate Al Gore has been hiding out during the recent Climate Crackup (or as I prefer, Klimate Krackup!!!), wonder no more. Gore broke his silence yesterday in an op-ed of 1,896 words' duration in Los Tiempos de Nueva York.

And it turns out that even if you don't have global warming to kick around anymore, you'll still have to worry about shady oil sheikhs:

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century. 

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

To my untrained and never-interested eye, Gore seems to make a game effort to handle in turn each of the recent debacles in the global warming consensus. I find Al Gore so essentially repellent that I can't fairly judge his success or failure here, so hash it out among yourselves. The truth, like climate change itself, must be felt in the moist or shriveled nipples of each of us.

Advertisement

NEXT: Junior High Lives of Others

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As a proverb of the legal profession would have it:

    “Falsehood in one, falsehood in all.”

    The leopard cannot change his spots.

    1. The leopard cannot change his spots shorts.

      1. What the fuck?

        spots shorts.

  2. “But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands.”

    I suspect there will be plenty of fiscal reasons we’ll be considered criminal. Right Al?

  3. Shut the fuck up, Gore.

  4. “But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

    First, there were more than two. Second, it is not just about the IPCC. It is about the shenanigans at West Anglia. Third, I don’t know which two mistakes he is talking about, but to just name one, I would say claiming that the glaciers in Nepal will be gone by 2035 on the basis of anecdotes collected by a advocacy organization is a big mistake. It is not the mistakes themselves. It is what the existence and egregiousness of those mistakes says about the entire IPCC process that is at issue.

    Fuck you Al.

    1. Intergovernmental

      That’s all anyone needs to read to guarandamntee there were more than two.

  5. Whjen is this fucker going to be arrested, tried and jailed for lying to congress?

    1. Because close to everyone who has ever spoken to congress would have to be arrested then.

      1. Oh bullshit.

      2. Isn’t lying to congresspersons like… speaking Farsi to Persians?

        1. No.

  6. The truth, like climate change itself, must be felt in the moist or shriveled nipples of each of us.

    Oh Tim. Was that really necessary? I think not.

    1. Did you, of all people, really just say that?

      🙂

    2. I thought it was Klassic Kavanaugh.

  7. “In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere ? as if it were an open sewer.”

    Yeah, that is why you fly private jets everywhere and have a house the size of Rhode Island.

    1. Gore’s 5,000+ sq. ft. mansion, until a couple years ago, had no solar panels or other “green” energy sources.

      1. I love it when liberals talk about how he buys offsets for all of that. Couldn’t he live in a normal sized house and still buy all those offsets? I mean seriously, if CO2 is a “pollutant” would liberals accept that excuse from anyone else about any other pollutant? “Yeah, Kerr McGee is radiating the North Canadian River, but they have bought offsets for that.”

        1. As a Nashvillian, I can attest to the fact that his house is really effin’ huge.

        2. *frantically considering the comedic possibilities of radiation offsets*

        3. To liberals: $$$$$$$$ = solution.

          I agree with you. Why doesn’t Gore just buy a 1,200 sq. ft. house, take the rest of the money he’s made peddling his green scam, and buy offsets for everyone. After all, it’s only fair…

  8. We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands.

    As Kilory said, this is coming from a man who spends more time leveraging the children than anyone. Future generations will defecate on the graves of Gore and his ilk for thousands of other reasons besides the weather.

  9. Shorter Al Gore on oil: “Fear the Foreigner.”

    This is simply illustrative of Gore’s stupidity; “energy dependence” – which is what Gore is promoting here – is a patently moronic notion.

    1. If we could just get rid of this pesky thing called “international trade”, we would be self sufficient and not have to worry anymore.

      1. There is another word for self-sufficiency; it’s called “autarky” and it sucks ass.

        1. The North Koreans call it charip, part of their “juche” ideology. We all know how well it’s worked out for them.

          1. North Korea is self sufficient and everyone gets free health care. Who can argue with that?

            1. Also works great for Cuba. Why can’t american get with the program already?!11one

          2. You spelled “douche” wrong.

      2. If we could just get rid of this pesky thing called “international trade”, we would be self sufficient and not have to worry anymore.

        Indeed.

        Are you aware that we are dependent on Caribbean nations for bananas? If we can develop domestic banana resources, it would be a boon to the economy!

        1. Just think of the manganese gap! Most the world known reserves are in South Africa and the Ukraine! We could be held hostage by the Ukrainians! Horrors! 😉

    2. Yes, the Canadians (top exporter to US of crude, 4th in finished fuel) and UK are (top fuel exporter to US) are to be feared.

      Unfortunately, despite these numbers, arab sheiks are always the image used. It truly is a “scary brown colored people” argument.

      1. Yup. And the focus of our anti-terrorism efforts of late have been Yemen and Somalia; two places that have no oil or oil money. The whole argument that oil dependence equals terrorism is just insane. I mean let me get this straight, if we would just stop buying their products and giving them billions of dollars, they would stop trying to kill us. Yeah, that makes sense.

        1. “”The whole argument that oil dependence equals terrorism is just insane.”””

          I agree. But Gore’s not making that arugment, at least not in the NYTimes piece.

          But it’s a agrument that the republicans love to use when it fits their ends.

          http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1999/RepRecord95.htm

          1. And they are full of shit to. Both sides make the same stupid argument. I am sorry but if we stopped buying oil tomorrow, we would still have the same problems with radical Islam.

            1. I agree, but hey if we stopped using oil tomorrow, it would solve many of our radical Islam problems. You can’t get the same impact by driving a horse and buggy into a building. 😉

            2. Right, cuz Iran is (supposedly) building nukes with bake sale money.

              1. And no country that doesn’t have oil money could ever build nukes. That is why Pakistan doesn’t have them, right?

        2. “I mean let me get this straight, if we would just stop buying their products and giving them billions of dollars, they would stop trying to kill us. Yeah, that makes sense.”

          Of course they would still try to kill us. But extremists without money are a lot less threatening than extremists with money.

  10. We need a law that says if you are elected to Congress, then none of your offspring are eligible for election either.

    No Al Gore Jr., no W.

    If it wasn’t for their families both of these a-holes would be living in a trailer trying to make ends meet.

    1. I agree. Idiot sons have done a lot of damage to this country. Instead we have the opposite. We have campaign finance reform which pretty much precludes all those who are not idiot sons or wildly connected from running.

    2. Not to be a pedantic asshole, but GHWB would not have been eligible for election since his father was a representative. Which means he would never have been elected and GWB would have been eligible.

      But I still like the idea.

      1. Well, then the ban needs to be unto the seventh generation. Problem solved.

    3. You’d need a constitutional amendment, as such a law would be a bill of attainder.

    4. Then who’ll create the next Billy Beer?

  11. I find Al Gore so essentially repellent that I can’t fairly judge his success or failure here, so hash it out among yourselves.

    Yes, he is a vile and loathsome human being.

    If he truly believed even half of the crap he spews, he and his wife wouldn’t live in one of the largest private residences in the western hemisphere, while he racks up God only knows how many hundreds of thousands of miles a year flying around the world by private jet.

    And please lefties, spare me the B.S. about how it’s OK because he trades money around in some cockamamie carbon market. It doesn’t change the fact that he’s one of the biggest individual “polluters” on earth.

    I have infinitely more respect for that zero carbon guy in New York City than I do for this cretin.

    1. While I think NY zero-carbon guy is a tool, I do respect that he is at least making a personal effort to follow his beliefs. Also, people like Ed Begley, or a friend in college who sold his car because of similar beliefs.

      That is far better than being a pompous, hypocritical blowhard who wants everyone else to obey his diktats while he enjoys a life of luxury. What a worthless piece of crap.

      I will admit that his daughters are hot, however.

      1. While I think NY zero-carbon guy is a tool, I do respect that he is at least making a personal effort to follow his beliefs. Also, people like Ed Begley, or a friend in college who sold his car because of similar beliefs.

        Even so, they are still moralistic scolds and intolerable ones at that.

  12. The WWF had essentially the same response in a letter in the WSJ last week: “Our research is totally not biased or unrefereed, but even if it were, it doesn’t matter, because foreign dependence on oil and green jobs!”

    1. The WWF had essentially the same response in a letter in the WSJ last week: “Our research is totally not biased or unrefereed, but even if it were, it doesn’t matter, because foreign dependence on oil and green jobs!”

      Since when was that a scientific argument?

      1. Since around 2003 i think.

      2. And the “green jobs” notion is every bit as phony economics as the AGW is phony science.

  13. HOLY FUCKING SHIT, it is a beautiful day!!

    Fuck off and die, Tony (wherever you are); I’m going skiing.

  14. Ya’ll Gore haters seem like you enjoy swimming in the toxic soup. It explains your lack of critical thinking skills.

    At the very least, normal humans can agree that pollution is bad.

    1. Normal human beings agree that pollution is bad. But thinking human beings agree that CO2, a natural substance that is necessary for life on earth, should not be considered a pollutant in the same sense dioxin is.

      1. John you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

        1. No, he does. You, however, are dumber than me.

          1. At the rate we chop down forests, why isn’t increased CO2 an issue? With fewer of you to convert CO2 into O2, isn’t the issue imbalance rather than straight toxicity?

            1. Ignore the funny man behind the curtains, and pay attention to the carbon smoke and lights please.

            2. If the developing world had anywhere near the agricultural productivity that we do, they wouldn’t need to chop down all those trees. Unfortunately the environmentalists are too fucking stupid to understand why that would be a good thing.

        2. Yeah, that is a hell of a response there Tony. You moron. At least try to engage.

          1. Just because plants absorb CO2 doesn’t meant that any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is OK. “CO2 isn’t a pollutant” is one of the lamest of a long list of really lame anti-GW talking points. It’s also a flat-out lie, which you’d know if you ever consulted a reliable source on this subject, not to mention a dictionary.

            1. Again Tony, you are just begging the question. To say CO2 is a “pollutant” is just to say you are right. Big fucking deal. The point is that the “science” about that is now in big question.

              1. No it’s not. You just want it to be.

                You’re essentially arguing that it doesn’t matter how much CO2–a known heat-trapping gas–is dumped into the atmosphere; it won’t change anything. How do you reconcile this position with the laws of physics?

                1. Water vapor is a “known heat trapping gas”. Plan to have a war on clouds?

                  1. Evaporation is just a right-wing myth, John. Like The Constitution and Micheal Moore.

                  2. Yeah it is, and as more heating is cause by more CO2, more water vapor builds up, causing more heating.

                    It’s not about whether this or that chemical is “bad” or “good,” it’s about what the correct balance is. Water is necessary for humans to live. Drink too much and you die, though. This is pretty simple stuff.

                2. An understanding of the laws of physics might help. Why don’t you go acquire one and get back to us.

                3. You’re essentially arguing that it doesn’t matter how much CO2–a known heat-trapping gas–is dumped into the atmosphere; it won’t change anything. How do you reconcile this position with the laws of physics?

                  Who cares if it changes anything or not?

                  1. Who cares if it changes anything or not?

                    People who have an interest in not radically altering the climate, maybe? People who aren’t nihilist douchebags?

            2. So C02 is just like Dioxin. Everyone owes Union Carbide an apology then. They weren’t doing any more harm than the rest of us. In fact, lets turn that ghost town in Northern Missouri into an amusement park.

            3. CO2 is not a pollutant, unless you are redefining the word. It is necessary for life. However, too much CO2 will kill you. Some people ignore that.

              Too much water will kill you, but who would argue that water is a pollutant?

              1. pollutant (p?-lt’nt)

                A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

                From “The Science Dictionary.”

                There, are we done with this pointless semantic debate?

                1. Assault weapons include semi-autos now too. Congress said so and they outrank even the people at “The Science dictionary”.

                2. Yes Tony because appealing to authority is so effective. Jesus you are stupid.

                  1. I’m appealing to a dictionary when the debate is the definition of a word. Maybe you need to appeal to more authorities, and less right-wing propaganda sources?

                3. Fuck that academian’s definition. Pollution is more relevant in the context of property damage. Carbon Dioxide~=0.

                  Who are you going to hold responsible for naturally occurring oil contamination?

      2. It’s The Gas of Life.

        1. And of death.

          Too much CO2 will kill plants.

          Anyone else remember the biosphere projects? They had to install CO2 scrubbers in the biosphere 2(?) because the build up of CO2 was killing the plants. Not that the projects were actually as representive to the planet as they claimed.

          1. What was the c02 concentration? 200K ppm?

    2. Chris|3.1.10 @ 10:58AM|#
      “At the very least, normal humans can agree that pollution is bad.”

      And purple is and UGLY color, too! And, and, and………
      Did I miss a comment worth reading in there?

    3. What John said.

    4. At the very least, normal humans can agree that pollution is bad.

      Intelligent people know that energy generation without environmental impact is fantasy.

      Intelligent people know that economic growth to first world levels actually results in a cleaner environment.

      But you knew all that before you trolled, right? Come back if you’d like to discuss environmental and economic tradeoffs of government energy policies (synfuel corporation! ethanol subsidie!) or the three billion energy deprived people on the planet who are justifiably getting pretty damned tired of it.

      1. Gosh JsubD, you can’t think that if 3d world farmers had chemical fertilizers, that would be better than if they clear cut and burned forests to get fertilized farmland? You’re obviously just a shill for big chem!

    5. Bread GOOD! Pollution BAD!!

      ARRRRRRGGHHH!!

      1. See, even ABnormal human beings know pollution is “bad”. Now, when does Sesame Street come on so Chris can learn his “letter of the day”?! C’mon, Chris, Sesame Street’s on soon! C’mon!

  15. “Memorandum submitted by Professor Darrel Ince (CRU 34):
    I am Professor of Computing at the Open University and the author of 18 books and over a hundred papers on software topics. My submission to the committee is an expanded version of an article that I wrote for the Guardian and was published on 5th February 2010.
    [….]
    11. I believe that, if you are publishing research articles that use computer programs, if you want to claim that you are engaging in science, the programs are in your possession and you will not release then you are not a scientist; I would also regard any papers based on the software as null and void.”
    http://www.publications.parlia…..uc3402.htm

    And:
    “The Institute [of Physics] is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons…
    [….]
    2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.”
    http://www.publications.parlia…..uc3902.htm

  16. Third linky
    There’s probably more:
    http://www.publications.parlia…..ntents.htm

  17. We don’t need family based term limits, we just need to feed the children of anyone elected to office to hungry wolves.

    1. To that end, I’m forming the “Feed their kids to hungry wolves” party. Because we aim for a big tent, we accept those who, instead of wanting to feed them to wolves, wish to feed them to any large carnivore.

      1. I’m in.

        When do we have our convention? I want to get drunk and chase young, nubile, college-aged female true believers.

        We have those in our party, right?

        1. Yes, but you have to wear nothing but a wolf-skin loincloth.

        2. girls are so into 49 year olds. As if!

  18. I tried to read that op-ed. Really, I honestly did. Unfortunately it caused me to suffer some AGW of my own (rising blood pressure and core temp) and I could only make it about halfway through.

  19. Because we aim for a big tent, we accept those who, instead of wanting to feed them to wolves, wish to feed them to any large carnivore.

    Thank goodness! For a moment, I feared you harbored some weird, unjustified prejudice against polar bears.

    1. Bears are the way to go. The problem with leaving them to the wolves is that sometimes the wolves will raise the child as their own and the idiot son will return to do even more damage. I think that is what happened with some of the Kennedy kids.

      1. No, no – they were raised by gerbils

  20. Remember Al Gore’s Dads ties to Armand Hammer who was called the “Capitalist Prince” by the KGB. He dutifully served the Soviets for seven decades and became the first — and only — “American capitalist” to be awarded the Order of Lenin. This is the guy who influenced Al Gore. Al needs to be tried and jailed for the biggest scam on the United States and the World. Al makes Bernie Maddoff look like an amature.
    http://www.suckitupcrybaby.com

  21. Most climate change data is wrong because of a couple of bad scientists and Al Gore’s mansion. Does that about sum it up? Or do I need to include Al Gore’s travel itinerary? Don’t mess with me, because when it comes to climate change I will include claims of inventing the internet.

    1. No most climate data is wrong because the IPCC has been caught in numerous lies and is “peer review” process has been revealed to have been compromised. Moreover, the West Anglia e-mails indicate that the entire peer review process in the whole field has been politicized. And further, Phil Jones himself admits there has been no significant warming for 15 years and that the medieval warming period was probably warmer than today. That has nothing to do with Al Gore’s mansion.

      Al Gore’s lifestyle and mansion just mean that he is a lying hypocrite con artist who doesn’t believe a word of what he says. And thus, nothing Al Gore says should be considered important.

      And one last thing, Stop Trolling MNG. At least have the balls to post under your name.

      1. Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You were a science denier before the email scandal, and even with the scandal you have no cause to deny science.

        Al Gore’s wealth has nothing to do with anything. Actually, Al Gore is pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand, except as a pinata for the anti-science right.

        1. Again, when the science if revealed to be fraudulent, it can’t be trusted. The fact that I or anyone else correctly suspected that it was, even if some people did so for the wrong reasons, is irrelevant. All that matters is the truth. And the truth is that the world stopped warming over the last 15 years even though CO2 concentrations have increased. The the tree ring method of reconstructing past temperatures has been revealed to have huge flaws. And even the advocates admit that the medieval warming period was probably warmer than now and no one can explain why. And lastly, the purveyors of this theory have been caught in so many lies and distortions that the credibility of their entire body of work is now in question.

          No amount of screaming science changes those facts.

          1. The fact that you think that what Phil Jones said is “the world stopped warming over the last 15 years” indicates that you’re not going to reliable sources for your information: this has been proven to be a distortion of Jones’s comments, and he’s said so himself.

            What he actually said is that the warming measured over the last 15 years doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. This is because 15 years is too short a time to do so. He never denied the overall warming trend.

            1. No statistically significant warming in 15 years. This despite increases in CO2 concentrations. Spin it all you like Tony, but that is enormously problematic. And Jones knows it. That is why he only admitted as much after the e-mail scandal forced him to.

        2. Al Gore is pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand, except as a pinata for the anti-science right.

          Mad props Chony, You just gave me my next business idea. Anyone wanna pre-order a Gorniata?

          (who am i kidding, i’d break them all before i could get them out the door)

          1. Very few people will want to buy a pinata full of hot air and rich, chocolaty Tennessee lard.

        3. Nothing is “science” on your say so, Tony.

          1. It’s not my say-so, it’s the say-so of every major scientific body on earth.

            1. It’s not my say-so, it’s the say-so of every major pseudo-scientific body totalitarian propaganda-spewing indoctrination center on earth that I listen to rather than to actual scientists.

              1. “Actual scientists” being the tiny minority you agree with?

    2. Al Gore is just shorthand for what climate change skeptics see as a left wing ideological bias in science. If the recent “scandals” tell us anything it is that there is some truth to that concept. Of course, it is unreasonable to assume that the left wing scientists are creating a vast conspiracy while the rest of the scientists are center-of-the-spectrum and non-ideological.

      1. It is reasonable to assume that the money pumped into the field by the UN and other sources created an incentive structure that biased the scientific inquiry. If I get a grant from the US government to create the East Postsyvanian Center for the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate and appoint you head, you are by human nature going to be pre-disposed to find such an impact. And further, once the group think sets in and people who dispute the theory stop getting published, then every grad student and non-tenured professor is going to be looking to confirm the theory in order to have a career. It is a huge case of confirmation bias.

        Lastly, the gravy train that is global warming, has created incentives to link anything and everything to it. If I am studying declining populations of squirrels in the great North Woods, I am probably going to have a hard time getting a grant. But if I am studying the effects of global warming on squirrel populations in the Great North Woods, I am golden. All of this has combined to create a whole lot of lousy science and really obscure the truth.

    3. Most climate change data is wrong because of a couple of bad scientists and Al Gore’s mansion.

      Most of the climate change data, and the models, are hopelessly compromised because:

      (1) The original data has been destroyed.

      (2) The alterations to the data were not documented well enough to be evaluated.

      (3) The datasets and computer models were not released for scientific review.

      Clear enough?

      1. You sound like Michael Behe.

        1. Meaning that you are fairly certain that “cracks” in the climate change data or science mean that it doesn’t exist.

          1. No. It just means we don’t know and that Al Gore needs to shut the fuck up.

          2. So, Lamar, the way we do science now is hide our data and obfuscate our methods, and dare other scientists to prove us wrong?

            1. Some apparently do, but I think you’re lumping in a vast field with a few bad apples, even if those bad apples are getting more numerous every day.

        2. You sound like Carl Sagan.

          1. Meaning you sound like an arrogant, overrated, imbecilic gasbag with an astronomically huge ego and little to no actual understanding of science or the scientific method.

            1. Thank you for your input.

  22. “repellent”
    excellent

  23. Remember Al Gore’s Dads ties to Armand Hammer

    That statement marks you as a nutjob conspiracy theorist. You should limit yourself to discussing Bush’s family ties to the Walkers, who owned Dresser, which was bought by Haliburton under Cheney for too much money as it was going under due to the asbestos legal thing. That is an acceptable conspiracy theory.

    Otherwise, carry on.

  24. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy ? the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

    Is there some sort of rule that says only one country can have fast trains and smart grids at a time?

    1. If not, we should make one. That rule would RULE!

    2. I sure hope the Chinese don’t steal all our geothermal power, because that’s SO totally portable and not in any way, shape, or form tied to anything like geology.

    3. Well, of course. If the Chinese build the Fast Trains Wonder, nobody else can build it. Fortunately, we can switch all the effort that we already put into Fast Trains to something else with no cost.

      1. Unicorn husbandry? I think that’s the next big thing.

      2. We’d better hurry the Smart Grid wonder so they won’t have it, then.

  25. Can we all at least hope that manbearpig is finally gone?

  26. I find Al Gore so essentially repellent

    Why?

    1. Because he tried justifying himself as a Frank Zappa fan at a Congressional hearing for music censorship promoted by his wife, then head of the Parent Music Resource Center.

    2. I think, mainly, because he is a repulsive excuse for a human being.

    3. Because just like you, he is a shit Facktory.

    4. “Got to the mirror, Boy”

    5. Because even if you accept Global Warming at face value, Al Gore set the cause of global warming back 20 years. His use of lies, dubious stastics and hyperbole didn’t do his cause any favors. The advocates of global warming should have purged him as a luminary years ago.

      It’s like having a known pathalogical liar take your side in an argument.

      1. If using lies, dubious statistics, and hyperbole tends to set causes back, then the anti-GW propaganda machine should be dead by now.

  27. It won’t make any difference, every one here already has their mind made up (including myself), but here goes:

    The world is warming and humans are partly to blame (as is this ‘God’ person, who thought we could be trusted). We’ve know this for nearly 20 years and all we’ve done is point fingers and play the “ain’t it shame” game. I’m past the point where I can get worked up over it.
    Joe Smith will continue to drive his huge truck.
    Raul Santiago will continue to burn down the rain forest.
    Li Ping will continue to heat with coal.
    Each will point at the other two and say, “He’s the real problem.”
    The ice will melt; the seas will rise; people will die.

    You may all begin to say horrible things about me personally because of my views, I honstly don’t mind.

    But I would like to know: If the earth is not warming, why is the Arctic ice melting? Are the polar bears in on the game?

    1. “The ice will melt; the seas will rise; people will die.”

      that is really the question isn’t it? Your post is called assertion or question begging. You think it will. Others think it won’t. There is no reason to believe you over them much less spend a few trillion dollars betting on your opinion.

      1. That was the worst childrens’ book I ever read.

    2. You and I will both continue to leave our computers on for hours just in case we might want to use it for something real quick. We’ll both drive to the liquor store that is 1/4 mile away, and I suspect when the impulse grabs us, we’ll hop on a 747 to get away from it all for a week or two. Right?

      My thermostat is set at 72 right now. Your better be set at 68 if you really care.

      If the earth is not warming, why is the Arctic ice melting?

      Localized and short term weather changes are not an indicator of climate change. You anti-science types amaze me.

      1. Mine is set at 77, but when I feel cold, I jack it up to 81.

        I do love me some resources!

      2. Laptop – Guilty

        Liquor Store – Guilty as well, but I do all my trips at once in my small car (Mazda 3, if you care).

        747 – I fly too often for business to do it for pleasure, but I guess that is still guilty.

        My house runs 62-70 and is heated by a wood pellet stove.

        I do what I can to minimize my footprint, knowing that no one cares and that it won’t really matter.

        I can easily see us fighting hard for the right to burn that last drop of oil.

        I actually thought I was pro-science, but that also doesn’t matter.

        It was kinda funny how GW Bush had to invade Iraq because the final proof of WMD might be a mushroom cloud, but we shouldn’t anything about greenhouse gasses until “all the science is in”.

        1. If George Bush wanted to tell me what kind of car I can drive and where I could set my thermostat and pretty much take over the entire economy to stop Saddam Husain, we would have waited for the mushroom cloud. Nice try dumbass.

        2. It was kinda funny how GW Bush had to invade Iraq because the final proof of WMD might be a mushroom cloud, but we shouldn’t anything about greenhouse gasses until “all the science is in”.

          The former was not a scientific issue, the latter is.

        3. Congress gave George W. Bush the rather vaguely-defined bi-partisan “authorization” to invade Iraq because they (and he) didn’t want to wait for Saddam to build up (and rebuild) his arsenal to that kind of level. The actual level to which he’d already rebuilt his arsenal turns out to have been overestimated, but the original justification stands up quite well to all skepticism as it was originally given: Saddam was not about to give up his ambitions to make trouble for a lot of countries–especially ours–any time soon. Captured documents also reveal he was indeed in bed with a great many of our other enemies and working on getting in bed with many more, including none other than Osama bin Laden.

          The Global Warmists are demanding that we turn over massive amounts of our liberty to them and undergo a gargantuan financial catastrophe even as we are already in the midst of a huge financial crisis on the grounds that this sacrifice will–somehow–ward off some supposed environmental crisis that they can’t even prove is a crisis, let alone that it’s actually going to happen or that humanity’s activities actually have anything to do with it.

          We know from the Medieval Warming Period that natural, non-anthropogenic warming has its precedents. We also know that while correlation does not prove causation, failure of events to correlate with predictions does discredit those predictions and any models based on them. We know that the Global Warmists predicted more violent hurricane seasons and instead we have had much quieter hurricane seasons. We also know that they predicted we would have a lot less snow, and that we have instead received a lot more snow. We also know that one important measure of any scientific theory is its falsifiability; that no Global Warmist is willing to admit that these outcomes have falsified their theories demonstrates that their theories are untestable and therefore unscientific.

          Above all, we know from some of these environmentalists’ own public writings (in addition to the leaked correspondence they did not wish for us to see) that they have both the motive and the malice to be trying to con us into giving them thoroughly unmerited authority over us so that they may oppress us. We also have far too many examples of their hypocrisy in flying on so many expensive trips to distant conferences in jets that spew massive amounts of the C02 they pretend is a pollutant even as they claim the rest of us must stop emitting so much of it. We can only conclude from this that they do not believe a word of their own propaganda, that they are lying, and that they are with malice aforethought attempting to usurp authority in order to oppress and exploit us all.

          You, Mr. Carbon Sink, and all other Global Warmists are traitors to humanity, and should tried as such, found guilty, and executed for your crimes against us. You are evil. Damn you to Hell.

          1. Traitor? Me?

            I assure you not.

            I wouldn’t think of standing between you and all the fossil fuel you want to burn. I’ll even join you. I’ve got a killer 46″ HDTV that I love to watch.

            I’ve got a pop-up camper that I tow behind my mini van, I can’t get enough of the stuff.

            I just bought a sail boat and I hear there is going to be more ocean to sail on.

            It will really start to go to hell just about the time I’m ready to punch out anyway.

            See you on the water.

      3. Mine is set at 68 because I’m a cheap bastard. Make all those earth-saving energy sources cheaper and I’m on board as is everyone else on the planet. Until then, shut your pie hole.

    3. The ice will melt; the seas will rise; people will die.

      But while it does that a larger percentage of the world will become arable and fewer people need starve. Oh and fewer people will die due to exposure to cold.

      Setting aside the debate as to whether climate change is either anthropogenic or manageable, the fatalists argument still fails to look at both sides of the balance sheet.

    4. But I would like to know: If the earth is not warming, why is the Arctic ice melting? Are the polar bears in on the game?

      What do we need polar bears for?

      1. What do we need polar bears for?

        I, personally, would kill for a polar bear rug. Literally. If I could, I would kill a polar bear to make a rug out of it.

  28. Fiascists?

    1. Fiasocialists?

  29. Hey Al, I’ll take my excessive hyperbole on the side please…thanks.

  30. a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings

    And I’m supposed to resent that description why?

  31. Waterworld was a movie, not a documentary sent back from the future.

    Fucking Costner.

    1. Back to the Future 2 WAS real though, right? Please don’t crush my dreams of owning a hoverboard. They’re totally carbon neutral too. (attempting to stay on topic)

  32. Not sure how it fits, but every enviro thread makes me think of Green Machine.

    1. Kyuss always fits in somewhere.

    2. Don’t you mean a Big Bright Green Pleasure Machine?

      Of course, everybody knows Simon and Garfunkel were probably singing about the wacky weed–which would probably grow a lot better in a world with more C02 in it…

  33. “We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands.”

    Either Al Gore isn’t aware that the peak demand for oil in the United States hit its zenith in 2005, and demand has been dropping ever since…

    “Demand for oil in developed nations peaked in 2005, and changing demographics and improved motor-vehicle efficiency guarantee that it won’t hit those heights again, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates says in a new report.

    http://www.scientificamerican……ative-fuel

    …or he’s being willfully ignorant.

    The demand for petroleum in the developed world, especially the United States, has already peaked, Al. It peaked in 2005 and it will probably never see those levels again. And it has nothing to do with government programs, really, it’s about people making conscious choices for themselves–going with more efficient cars, moving from heating oil to natural gas, moving from the Northeast to the West…

    The choices people are already making, in other words, are already having the desired effect in terms of oil consumption. And if future generations have anything to say, they’ll be thanking us for ignoring buffoons like Al Gore on public policy.

    1. “”Demand for oil in developed nations peaked in 2005,””

      Developed nations is a key phrase here.

      While that could be true, demand for oil in developing nations is growing rapidly and increasing the global demand for oil.

      1. “Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil.”

        So when Al Gore was telling us to move away from oil because of the security risks, was he talking to the undeveloped world or was he talking to us?

  34. What would be the most ironic way for Al Gore to die? Discuss.

    1. Eaten by a polar bear?

      1. Why do you want some poor polar bear to die of food poisoning?

        What have they ever done to you to derserve such a fate?

    2. Freezing to death in April in Tennessee.

      1. Actually of Hypothermia in Miami in March….Have you seen the headlines? It will be in the 30s here in the morning

    3. An Earth First! activist mistakes him for a tree, and plants a spike in his head.

    4. Driving off the Information Superhighway.

    5. Forced to flee his native habitat due to the coming Ice Age, Steve Smith happens upon a tony home in the Nashville suburbs…

    6. Of leukemia, with Tipper at his death bed, telling the press afterward that “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”

    7. Killed in a house fire, started by a collapsed pile of carbon offset certificates, which fell onto a Klieg light used to light his living room..

    8. Eaten by the citizens of Tuvalu.

    9. A heart attack after losing a national referendum on carbon rationing by 600 votes in Florida.

  35. IED in Iraq.

  36. Al Gore admitted to a journalist that the claims in “an inconvenient truth” were exaggerated but it was important to scare the population into taking the right actions because AGW was just that important.

    So he is on the record as being an admitted lying sack of shit.

    1. Puffery isn’t lying, just watch any TV commercial.

      1. Actually, unsubstantiated claims aren’t puffery in advertising law. They’re actionable misrepresentation.

        1. Nitpick: A claim that is not capable of being substantiated, such as an opinion or superlative, will also be “unsubstantiated” and yet not actionable, and therefore puffery.

          1. WTF? I responded to this, but the comment is nowhere to be seen! Grrr.

            Anyway, my opinion is that if you drink this liquid, you’ll never get cancer.

            1. What is urine laced with cocaine and human growth hormone? I love Jeopardy!

      2. TV commercials aren’t attempting to put the economy under government control.
        (except those by politicians)

      3. Puffery is actually a claim that no reasonable person would believe.

        Somehow, I don’t think that really resolves the question of whether Al Gore’s exaggerations should be actionable.

        1. They aren’t, unless he’s selling something, right?

        2. “Puffery is actually a claim that no reasonable person would believe.”

          And the immanently reasonable people at this blog don’t believe Al Gore’s claims. And Pro Lib is correct, we’re talking about Al Gore’s claims being “actionable” as purely a thought exercise/analogy.

  37. It was just as painful as listening to Al Gore. Even if you concede that warming exists and it is greatly caused by man (which I certainly and personally do not concede), the religious movement of radical environmentalism always falls short to the critical mind.

    With the concession above in mind, I ask basic questions that seem above the media or zealots:

    What are the results of warming — negative AND positive?

    What man-made activities WHERE are causing it and what can legally or politically be done about it?

    What are the costs and benefits of any proposed “response”?

    What are the intended (AND unintended) consequences of any action?

    How are Americans (and others) harmed competitively by different responses and how will that affect American (and other) people and families and jobs and income and taxes?

    Those are just a few simple questions that radical, religious, environmentalists never get to.

    I’m sick of the “Oh my God catastrophe is coming! We don’t have time to answer your questions! We must act dramatically and immediately (and independently) or we’re evil and irresponsible!

    I am so frustrated that so many otherwise thinking people get swept up in this emotional nonsense, where I would guess 100 real scientists who have really looked at these questions would have 100 different opinions.

    And in America, the scientists (who would all disagree) aren’t the only factor to consider. What about economists? Lawyers? The Constitution? State sovereignty? National sovereignty? And … oh yeah … the people?

    Al Gore is a snake oil salesmen at the highest level.

    1. Fuck You!

  38. It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

    Stop right there. Fuck him. Global Warming policy is about power, not about saving the planet.

  39. Jesus, this guy’s going to be a ba-zillionaire. Look at his latest start-up: http://bit.ly/a58bZA

  40. There he go’s again,Brain spray threw asshole!

  41. Florida is in the middle of their coldest winter in three decades, and it’s not over yet. This winter has been the coldest in Florida since 1981, according to a recent report by the National Weather Service (NWS)

    http://www.accuweather.com/blo…..-in-30.asp

    Surprise! Weather service says this is coldest winter in 30 years

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/w…..05587.html

  42. Miami Beach endured its second-coldest winter ever, with an average temperature of 65.17 — 5.6 degrees below normal.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/201…..other.html

    South Florida’s winter the coldest in almost 30 years

    http://www.miamiherald.com/201…..since.html

  43. S. Florida Winter One Of The Coldest On Record

    http://cbs4.com/local/winter.record.cold.2.1528964.html

  44. Just this morning:
    Ferries freed from ice off Swedish coast

    “It has been a lot colder than normal in the southern parts of the Baltic Sea.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL…..tml?hpt=T2

  45. Is big Al going to get a Nobel Prize for Shady Oil Sheiks?

  46. The Earth’s Atmospheric Levels of Carbon Dioxide are not Impacted by Human industry and automobiles even one thousandth of a percent. What Has Put, 99.99999 percent of the Carbon in the Air, And is Still, Solely Responsible For The Global Levels of Co2, is The Earth’s Active Volcanoes. Volcanoes Spew out More Carbon in One Year Than Our industries Could produce in Ten Generations. What is Responsible For the recent General Warming Trend Is the Concentration of Sunspots on our Most Beloved Star. Sunspots increase Radioactive and Thermal Output From the Surface of The Sun, and This Trend has Warmed up the entire Solar System a Little Bit, Polar Caps on Mars Shrinking Means that They are Melting, This Can’t Have anything to do with our ‘Habits’ Regarding transportation and industry.

  47. So this Man. This Fat Banker Man, Has Duped a bunch of people into paying him and his flunkies for the air we breathe and that which courses through our very veins and arteries, carbon is the element of life, carbon is the Basis of our existence, The Basis of all life on earth, and this Fat Banker Wants us All to Pay Him For The Carbon That Gives us Life. that’s fascism. i won’t pay.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.