Comments on: Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:42:02 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: The Political Value of Pushing McCain on Climate Change - The Seminal :: Independent Media and Politics http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-4448208 The Political Value of Pushing McCain on Climate Change - The Seminal :: Independent Media and Politics Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:28:47 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-4448208 [...] gas emissions. Pressure from The Chamber of Commerce, Detroit, Big Oil and their anti-regulation front groups on the right will squeeze him into a barely existent political space: A free market economic conservative [...] [...] gas emissions. Pressure from The Chamber of Commerce, Detroit, Big Oil and their anti-regulation front groups on the right will squeeze him into a barely existent political space: A free market economic conservative [...]

]]> By: Think Progress » Kerry Forces Gingrich To Admit Inhofe Is Off-Base On Global Warming Science http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-3627254 Think Progress » Kerry Forces Gingrich To Admit Inhofe Is Off-Base On Global Warming Science Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:47:20 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-3627254 [...] Gingrich went on to say that acknowledging the scientific consensus around climate change “is a very challenging thing to do if you’re a conservative” because they associate environmentalism with “bigger government and higher taxes.” Another possible explanation? Global warming skeptics find it lucrative and rewarding to side with the deep pockets of the oil lobby. [...] [...] Gingrich went on to say that acknowledging the scientific consensus around climate change “is a very challenging thing to do if you’re a conservative” because they associate environmentalism with “bigger government and higher taxes.” Another possible explanation? Global warming skeptics find it lucrative and rewarding to side with the deep pockets of the oil lobby. [...]

]]> By: major http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1881012 major Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:15:10 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1881012 Its clear from even a casual reading of the climatology studies, that warming and cooling of the Earths climate throughout geologic time is the norm….and like any large scale effect it varies in its severity in any given epoch….not attributable to man. Mans industrialization and domination of the Earth has only been pre-eminent during a tiny, tiny fraction of the geologic time scale… The warming and cooling of the earths climate has been correlated with numerous factors including Sun Spot cycles, variance in the Earths orbit relative to the Sun, levels of various atmospheric IR absorbing gases, extent of cloud and snow/ice cover above and on the earths surface, major ocean current patterns, obscuring of the earths atmosphere by increased suspension of particulates and sulfur based chemicals (primarily due to increased volcanic activity), etc The correlation of all these factors and which ones may be dominant during a given epoch is still the subject of intense research and is more of a guesstimate than firmly established scientific fact….. With this in mind, it's highly irresponsible to present, as fact, that Man IS the primary culprit behind any current warming trend and to claim to predict with certainty the extremity or severity of any on-going warming trend…certainly the 2006 climate performance doesn’t mesh with Global Warming dire predictions; one of the most benign hurricane seasons and one of the coldest/snowiest winters in many parts of North America….. The current contribution of industrialization to the overall global emissions of C02 is still a relatively small fraction of those emissions that occur from natural phenomena…. The politicizing of Global Warming by the Gore Brown Shirts is a dangerous thing for any scientific body, such AAAS, to support. There can be one and only one standard for scientific fact and when a hypothesis outcome is still inconclusive, the only responsible behavior is to present it as inconclusive; the jury is out, in other words. Finally, human society has been pursuing control of emissions for over 30 years and has made tremendous strides in vehicle emissions, recycling and other environmental pollution control………..why do we need some extreme effort NOW?? <em> In all likelihood any massive effort to reverse a global climate trend, whether caused by Man or not, would be completely futile and tragic waste of economic capital... If the eco-Nazis want clean power, why have they opposed the use of nuclear power for over 30 years..if they had worked with industry back in the 60's instead of blindly opposing nuclear power..…we would have far fewer coal-fired and oil-fired generation plants today…. The agenda of the Gore-nics is clear… and its not concern for the climate. In other words you and your ilk are, at best, brain damaged and cant tell truth from reality, or you are bunch stinking communist liars...get out of my country and off my planet</em> Its clear from even a casual reading of the climatology studies, that warming and cooling of the Earths climate throughout geologic time is the norm….and like any large scale effect it varies in its severity in any given epoch….not attributable to man. Mans industrialization and domination of the Earth has only been pre-eminent during a tiny, tiny fraction of the geologic time scale…

The warming and cooling of the earths climate has been correlated with numerous factors including Sun Spot cycles, variance in the Earths orbit relative to the Sun, levels of various atmospheric IR absorbing gases, extent of cloud and snow/ice cover above and on the earths surface, major ocean current patterns, obscuring of the earths atmosphere by increased suspension of particulates and sulfur based chemicals (primarily due to increased volcanic activity), etc

The correlation of all these factors and which ones may be dominant during a given epoch is still the subject of intense research and is more of a guesstimate than firmly established scientific fact…..

With this in mind, it’s highly irresponsible to present, as fact, that Man IS the primary culprit behind any current warming trend and to claim to predict with certainty the extremity or severity of any on-going warming trend…certainly the 2006 climate performance doesn’t mesh with Global Warming dire predictions; one of the most benign hurricane seasons and one of the coldest/snowiest winters in many parts of North America…..

The current contribution of industrialization to the overall global emissions of C02 is still a relatively small fraction of those emissions that occur from natural phenomena….

The politicizing of Global Warming by the Gore Brown Shirts is a dangerous thing for any scientific body, such AAAS, to support. There can be one and only one standard for scientific fact and when a hypothesis outcome is still inconclusive, the only responsible behavior is to present it as inconclusive; the jury is out, in other words.

Finally, human society has been pursuing control of emissions for over 30 years and has made tremendous strides in vehicle emissions, recycling and other environmental pollution control………..why do we need some extreme effort NOW??

In all likelihood any massive effort to reverse a global climate trend, whether caused by Man or not, would be completely futile and tragic waste of economic capital…

If the eco-Nazis want clean power, why have they opposed the use of nuclear power for over 30 years..if they had worked with industry back in the 60’s instead of blindly opposing nuclear power..…we would have far fewer coal-fired and oil-fired generation plants today….
The agenda of the Gore-nics is clear… and its not concern for the climate.

In other words you and your ilk are, at best, brain damaged and cant tell truth from reality, or you are bunch stinking communist liars…get out of my country and off my planet

]]> By: Scott M http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1778833 Scott M Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:39:42 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1778833 Wow, the more I read here, there were a lot of nutcases in here. The hysteria and big-oil is the boogie man paranoia is hilarious. Who comes up with this stuff. Oil companies sell us the oil we use every day in our cars, homes, clothes. Petroleum is all around us and we DEMAND it in our purchases of everything made from oil. Vilifying companies who sell us what we want is silly and you moonbats on here are great for laughs. Boo, there's an oilman behind you. Scared you out of your wits, eh? Wow, the more I read here, there were a lot of nutcases in here. The hysteria and big-oil is the boogie man paranoia is hilarious. Who comes up with this stuff. Oil companies sell us the oil we use every day in our cars, homes, clothes. Petroleum is all around us and we DEMAND it in our purchases of everything made from oil. Vilifying companies who sell us what we want is silly and you moonbats on here are great for laughs.

Boo, there’s an oilman behind you. Scared you out of your wits, eh?

]]> By: Scott M http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1778425 Scott M Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:30:29 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1778425 Hilarious stuff on here. So Exxon has no right to state it's opinion, backed by MANY climate scientists who say AGW is bunk? And we have no right to confront the views that the only results from GW are cataclysmic scenarios, requiring governments to dismantle our economies now for possible disasters that may occur decades in the future? We’re supposed to ignore the fact that the globe has been much warmer in the past than it is now, but now, it’s a bad scenario? Who knows what the globe’s average temperature is supposed to be? What is the optimal temperature? You don’t know, the “scientists” who support the hysteria, many who are not climate scientists, don’t know, and we may never know. The hyperbole peddled by you alarmists is frightening. Science does not quell a debate by declaring consensus. Science does not silence it’s critics because they dissent from the status quo. If “science” is so confident of it’s conclusions, it allows unlimited debate and stands back to watch it’s conclusions stand. Only dogmatists like you people try to silence critics through spurious claims that “The science is not questioned because the science behind global warming is indisputable. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions. And the EPA has said that the recent warming trend “is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years…due mostly to human activities.” The organizations cited in the quote above are agenda-driven and to be taken as seriously as anything Exxon and CEI have to say. If you don’t believe there is a wealth of climate scientists who dispute global warming, then you’re burying your heads in the sand, and a good place to start finding them and what they have to say about this hysterical, anti-industrialilzation-led drive to tank our economies and send us back to the mud-hut age, is at www.junkscience.com. Hilarious stuff on here. So Exxon has no right to state it’s opinion, backed by MANY climate scientists who say AGW is bunk? And we have no right to confront the views that the only results from GW are cataclysmic scenarios, requiring governments to dismantle our economies now for possible disasters that may occur decades in the future?

We’re supposed to ignore the fact that the globe has been much warmer in the past than it is now, but now, it’s a bad scenario? Who knows what the globe’s average temperature is supposed to be? What is the optimal temperature? You don’t know, the “scientists” who support the hysteria, many who are not climate scientists, don’t know, and we may never know.

The hyperbole peddled by you alarmists is frightening. Science does not quell a debate by declaring consensus. Science does not silence it’s critics because they dissent from the status quo. If “science” is so confident of it’s conclusions, it allows unlimited debate and stands back to watch it’s conclusions stand.
Only dogmatists like you people try to silence critics through spurious claims that “The science is not questioned because the science behind global warming is indisputable. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions. And the EPA has said that the recent warming trend “is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years…due mostly to human activities.”
The organizations cited in the quote above are agenda-driven and to be taken as seriously as anything Exxon and CEI have to say.
If you don’t believe there is a wealth of climate scientists who dispute global warming, then you’re burying your heads in the sand, and a good place to start finding them and what they have to say about this hysterical, anti-industrialilzation-led drive to tank our economies and send us back to the mud-hut age, is at http://www.junkscience.com.

]]> By: TC http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1495172 TC Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:19:00 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1495172 Loved Inconvenient Truth. I wondered why there was no mention of the cattle ranching industry's effect on CO2? Loved Inconvenient Truth. I wondered why there was no mention of the cattle ranching industry’s effect on CO2?

]]> By: Jim http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1470383 Jim Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:26:21 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1470383 Let's just stipulate that ExxonMobil will say whatever it thinks will make it the most money. But dont' imagine that everyone in a debate doesn't have an interest, such as, say, running for President. The basic greenhouse effect is driven by the fact that CO2 absorbs and scatters infrared radiation, but not shorter wavelength radiation. All else equal, the more CO2 I have in the atmoshpehere, the hotter it gets. Be skeptical of that and you are skeptical of the last 120 years of particle physics. But here's the trick: all else is not close to equal. Any climate forcing (like more CO2) creates an incredibly complicated set of feedback effects (polar ice caps melt, accelerating warming, plants grow faster, decelerating warming, etc.). These feed back effects are not well-understood and assumptions about them, embedded in non-validated Gloal Climate Models, are the basis for rpediction fo future warming. So before you start shouting "science says", you should be aware that there are credible arguments that a business-as-usual carbon emissions scenario could result in less than a 0.5C warming or more than 5C warming over the next century. 0.5C would be no big deal, but 5C would be pretty scary. In other words, in spite of all the table-pounding, nobody knows how serious this risk is. Jim Let’s just stipulate that ExxonMobil will say whatever it thinks will make it the most money. But dont’ imagine that everyone in a debate doesn’t have an interest, such as, say, running for President.

The basic greenhouse effect is driven by the fact that CO2 absorbs and scatters infrared radiation, but not shorter wavelength radiation. All else equal, the more CO2 I have in the atmoshpehere, the hotter it gets. Be skeptical of that and you are skeptical of the last 120 years of particle physics. But here’s the trick: all else is not close to equal. Any climate forcing (like more CO2) creates an incredibly complicated set of feedback effects (polar ice caps melt, accelerating warming, plants grow faster, decelerating warming, etc.). These feed back effects are not well-understood and assumptions about them, embedded in non-validated Gloal Climate Models, are the basis for rpediction fo future warming.

So before you start shouting “science says”, you should be aware that there are credible arguments that a business-as-usual carbon emissions scenario could result in less than a 0.5C warming or more than 5C warming over the next century. 0.5C would be no big deal, but 5C would be pretty scary. In other words, in spite of all the table-pounding, nobody knows how serious this risk is.

Jim

]]> By: monsterfarmer http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1437299 monsterfarmer Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:08:19 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1437299 Group: ExxonMobil Paid to Mislead Public http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1000... http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvestin... Group: ExxonMobil Paid to Mislead Public

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1000...

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvestin…

]]> By: Think Progress » Exxon’s New Position On Global Warming, Same As Its Old Position On Global Warming http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1415522 Think Progress » Exxon’s New Position On Global Warming, Same As Its Old Position On Global Warming Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:04:28 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1415522 [...] Exxon can attempt to soften its language as much as it wants, but its record remains clear. According to a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Exxon has “funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.” The big-oil front group the Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $1.6 million from Exxon since 1998, using the funding to distort global warming research and attack any meaningful action to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. [...] [...] Exxon can attempt to soften its language as much as it wants, but its record remains clear. According to a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Exxon has “funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.” The big-oil front group the Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $1.6 million from Exxon since 1998, using the funding to distort global warming research and attack any meaningful action to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. [...]

]]> By: the man http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1361406 the man Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:03:18 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1361406 To all those all gore fans that want to lower co2 emissions i have one little plan and a very easy one to help stop poluting...... Just hold your breath... How much co2 could we stop emitting if we just hold our breath for a bit every day. Or for some just hold it for good. Maybee if al gore would stop his ranting he could save a ton. I mean i had to watch the movie just for fun and i dint pay for it and would never have paid for his movie. But watching it i could just imagine all the co2 he was spewing all over everyone in the audience. And in the one ad here i agree They dont talk about it much nor will they talk about humans and animals breathing it out and green plants taking it in. And how its just a normal part of life. And the last thing i saw in his movie telling me its bs is how he said the ozone issue was fixed because of bla bla bla but hmmm funny that the issue just went away when they found out it was not a problem like they made out in the 80s. But nobody mentioned that and the fact that cfc's were baned not because it ate ozone how could it its heavier than air so we must be swimming in the crap to be making a hole . But it was baned only simply because big company Dupont had lobiests that got treehuggers to complain but all it was over was the fact that there patent had run out and they wanted to corner the market with new stuff. And keep the money flowin into there pocket. No i agree with the cei ads and you should too. To all those all gore fans that want to lower co2 emissions i have one little plan and a very easy one to help stop poluting…… Just hold your breath… How much co2 could we stop emitting if we just hold our breath for a bit every day. Or for some just hold it for good. Maybee if al gore would stop his ranting he could save a ton. I mean i had to watch the movie just for fun and i dint pay for it and would never have paid for his movie. But watching it i could just imagine all the co2 he was spewing all over everyone in the audience. And in the one ad here i agree They dont talk about it much nor will they talk about humans and animals breathing it out and green plants taking it in. And how its just a normal part of life. And the last thing i saw in his movie telling me its bs is how he said the ozone issue was fixed because of bla bla bla but hmmm funny that the issue just went away when they found out it was not a problem like they made out in the 80s. But nobody mentioned that and the fact that cfc’s were baned not because it ate ozone how could it its heavier than air so we must be swimming in the crap to be making a hole . But it was baned only simply because big company Dupont had lobiests that got treehuggers to complain but all it was over was the fact that there patent had run out and they wanted to corner the market with new stuff. And keep the money flowin into there pocket. No i agree with the cei ads and you should too.

]]> By: flyingpenguin » Blog Archives » Exxon Valdez fines significantly reduced http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-6/#comment-1324361 flyingpenguin » Blog Archives » Exxon Valdez fines significantly reduced Mon, 25 Dec 2006 08:28:13 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-1324361 [...] The settlement with the tobacco industry has centered around educating people about the harms of smoking. Will Exxon ever be forced to teach people about the harm of oil consumption? Ha. If they can keep reducing the fine for the Valdez spill, then what are the chances they will be accountable for anything else? Between their strong ties to the current President and Vice President, and their success from outspending their critics, something tells me that they will be allowed to continue having their way with the natural resources of the US without fear of accountability. Perhaps the most memorable brief from this first round was the one in which Exxon claimed that crude oil was not a pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act, which it had violated. [...] [...] The settlement with the tobacco industry has centered around educating people about the harms of smoking. Will Exxon ever be forced to teach people about the harm of oil consumption? Ha. If they can keep reducing the fine for the Valdez spill, then what are the chances they will be accountable for anything else? Between their strong ties to the current President and Vice President, and their success from outspending their critics, something tells me that they will be allowed to continue having their way with the natural resources of the US without fear of accountability. Perhaps the most memorable brief from this first round was the one in which Exxon claimed that crude oil was not a pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act, which it had violated. [...]

]]> By: Chaespot on Global Warming » Blog Archives » Factory Regulations - M.G.L. - Chapter 111, Section 142n http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-994534 Chaespot on Global Warming » Blog Archives » Factory Regulations - M.G.L. - Chapter 111, Section 142n Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:43:58 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-994534 [...] Think Progress Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore global warming alarmism and the call by some environmental groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel into Congress, and the Republicans and occasional Democrats who allow those pro-pollution laws [...] [...] Think Progress Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore global warming alarmism and the call by some environmental groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel into Congress, and the Republicans and occasional Democrats who allow those pro-pollution laws [...]

]]> By: Edmund LeGrand http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-709523 Edmund LeGrand Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:12:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-709523 Those who deliberately lie and spread disinformation about global warming, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and their financial backers, are immoral sinners! PEOPLE WILL DIE as a direct result of their actions! They are unpatriotic traitors who will cause great harm to this nation. And to think their friends run this country (into the ground). I'm DISGUSTED! Those who deliberately lie and spread disinformation about global warming, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and their financial backers, are immoral sinners! PEOPLE WILL DIE as a direct result of their actions! They are unpatriotic traitors who will cause great harm to this nation. And to think their friends run this country (into the ground). I’m DISGUSTED!

]]> By: IntoxiNation » Blog Archive » An Inconvenient Truth http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-665474 IntoxiNation » Blog Archive » An Inconvenient Truth Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:03:51 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-665474 [...] An Inconvenient Truth is already being coined as "alarming" and "frightning". Perhaps that is why the big oil companies are running scared and getting ready to spend their money (or should I say our money) to launch counter ads, as Think Progress points out: Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) will unveil two 60-second TV ads focusing on what it calls “global warming alarmism and the call by some environmental groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel and carbon dioxide emissions.” The ad, which will be aired in more than a dozen cities across the country, is being released just a week before the May 24th opening (in LA and NYC) of Al Gore’s new movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. [...] [...] An Inconvenient Truth is already being coined as "alarming" and "frightning". Perhaps that is why the big oil companies are running scared and getting ready to spend their money (or should I say our money) to launch counter ads, as Think Progress points out: Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) will unveil two 60-second TV ads focusing on what it calls “global warming alarmism and the call by some environmental groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel and carbon dioxide emissions.” The ad, which will be aired in more than a dozen cities across the country, is being released just a week before the May 24th opening (in LA and NYC) of Al Gore’s new movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. [...]

]]> By: The LoperCo. Post http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-618684 The LoperCo. Post Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:08:11 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-618684 [...] Meanwhile, a pro-emissions, anti-regulation propaganda war against citizens and the former Vice President, timed to coincide with the Gore film, calls into question the message of the film.   [...] [...] Meanwhile, a pro-emissions, anti-regulation propaganda war against citizens and the former Vice President, timed to coincide with the Gore film, calls into question the message of the film.   [...]

]]> By: Stan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-598373 Stan Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:09:13 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-598373 I hear Florida Gov. Jeb Bush refused to watch the movie....Wonder why? I hear Florida Gov. Jeb Bush refused to watch
the movie….Wonder why?

]]> By: Mike Berger http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-592407 Mike Berger Sat, 03 Jun 2006 04:24:04 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-592407 It seems that the reduction in albedo (the action of reflecting solar radiation back into space) has deteriorated to the point of no return. The combination of melting ice (sea ice, glacial and polar cap ice) has plunged the planet into a spiral that may be beyond human intervention. Big energy conglomerates may already know this and may have already decided to direct their energies (pun intended) into spinning propaganda to confuse the public. They will find a way to milk the public out of every nickle until, miraculously, they will unveil a new (read: invented decades ago and buried until now) energy source that will save (oops, too late) the planet. The first thing Exxon did after the Exon Valdez oil spill was to contact their attorneys and their public relations wizards, rather than mobilizing clean-up crews during the critical hours immediately after the spill, when most of the damage could have been contained. We need a regime change in this country to unseat the cowards that hide behind religous groups while they rape mother nature-God's creation. It seems that the reduction in albedo (the action of reflecting solar radiation back into space) has deteriorated to the point of no return. The combination of melting ice (sea ice, glacial and polar cap ice) has plunged the planet into a spiral that may be beyond human intervention. Big energy conglomerates may already know this and may have already decided to direct their energies (pun intended) into spinning propaganda to confuse the public. They will find a way to milk the public out of every nickle until, miraculously, they will unveil a new (read: invented decades ago and buried until now) energy source that will save (oops, too late) the planet. The first thing Exxon did after the Exon Valdez oil spill was to contact their attorneys and their public relations wizards, rather than mobilizing clean-up crews during the critical hours immediately after the spill, when most of the damage could have been contained. We need a regime change in this country to unseat the cowards that hide behind religous groups while they rape mother nature-God’s creation.

]]> By: Shala Ballew http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-591227 Shala Ballew Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:31:36 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-591227 <strong>CEI does not have a foot to stand on</strong>. Whether the climate change is in anyway caused by Oil use is beside the question! We still need to use less oil and more alternative fuels should be in our future, for the survival of all mankind especially in the U.S. I heard recently that it is not a qestion of when we run out of oil but when we run out of the cheap oil. Who do you think will be left in the cold durring this senario, the people who can not afford it, and the profits will only increase for the oil companies. Bill Hicks has left us but his anger lives on with every atrocity committed on the common man. OH Billy CEI does not have a foot to stand on. Whether the climate change is in anyway caused by Oil use is beside the question! We still need to use less oil and more alternative fuels should be in our future, for the survival of all mankind especially in the U.S. I heard recently that it is not a qestion of when we run out of oil but when we run out of the cheap oil. Who do you think will be left in the cold durring this senario, the people who can not afford it, and the profits will only increase for the oil companies. Bill Hicks has left us but his anger lives on with every atrocity committed on the common man. OH Billy

]]> By: luke keen http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-590953 luke keen Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:31:30 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-590953 terrifying!!! my God, the amount of peope who will actually suck this crap up and go "oh yeah, that's gotta be true" scares the pants off of me! Where's Bill Hicks when you need him? Bless him. I wonder if the woman doing the voiceover got paid enough? terrifying!!!

my God, the amount of peope who will actually suck this crap up and go “oh yeah, that’s gotta be true” scares the pants off of me!
Where’s Bill Hicks when you need him? Bless him.

I wonder if the woman doing the voiceover got paid enough?

]]> By: I got a blog in my throat… eh hem » “An Inconvenient Truth” opens in San Francisco this Friday http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/comment-page-5/#comment-587618 I got a blog in my throat… eh hem » “An Inconvenient Truth” opens in San Francisco this Friday Wed, 31 May 2006 19:55:19 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/#comment-587618 [...] 2. “Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore” ThinkProgress, May 17, 2006 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/ Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.3 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you’d like to support our work, you can give now at: http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=7858-6679651-LCNgi3BbxSKwt96YREuOzA&t=8 Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. [...] [...] 2. “Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore” ThinkProgress, May 17, 2006 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/ Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.3 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you’d like to support our work, you can give now at: http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=7858-6679651-LCNgi3BbxSKwt96YREuOzA&t=8 Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. [...]

]]>