Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics
Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics
The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:
Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:
1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.
2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:
What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.
It’s the latest in a series of desperate attacks by Drudge to paint Gore as a hypocrite. Some other examples:
These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses — and even then they distort the truth.
When politicians make movies, it is called “Propaganda.”
February 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pmEwwwww, more of Drudge’s ugly assed web site. He really needs to move into the 21st century, with the rest of the Internets. The tubes can handle newer fonts.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pmDrudge,
Why don’t you do the WHOLE WORLD a fu*cking favor and shut your fu*cking computer off for good. We all know what eminates from your keyboard.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:59 pmThere is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:00 pmPatrick1 said something correct!!!!!!!!!!
You are right Patrick, there isn’t a debate. It is called consensus. ALl real scientists agree that global warming is real. No debate at all.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:02 pmWell after using the calculator I got an 8.25 … now to see what to do about it…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pmAnother lie.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:05 pmThere is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1
Prove it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:06 pmHere goes Patrick1 again.
/sarcasm on
He knows everything about environmental science. Trust him!
/sarcasm off
Okay, now that I typed that (even sarcastically) I have to go get a drink of water and wash the taste of vomit out of my mouth…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:07 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pmPretty interesting setup. You fund wind and farm methane projects to put clean electricity on the grid to offset your own dirty electricity use. Eventually there will be a large clean energy industry built. The more money invested the faster it will happen.
http://www.nativeenergy.com/Splash/ClimateCrisis/ClimateCrisis.html?climatecrisis
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmTrumpeting the amount of energy Gore’s household consumes might look like red meat to hungry cons, but if that energy is largely solar-generated, and the rest generated from green sources, then that slab of right-wing-outrage calories doesn’t look like such a nutritious meal anymore, does it? More like a fistful of right-wing-outrage Doritos.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1
List dont cut it. You need to explain what facts you got and HOW they undermine the rest of the worlds scientists.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmWhen politicians make movies, it is called “Propaganda.â€
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
He’s not presently in office, dipshit.
Besides, he was right about lot of things. As much as you hate that he was right, you still know it.
At least now we know where you trolls got this talking point.
Do any of you fundies have a single thought of your own that doesn’t contain the word “hate”?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pmDrudge can, of course, say whatever he likes — however, as Hubert Humphrey once said, “the right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.” People are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, but these are not equivalent to facts. The $250,000 question is…can Drudge put his money where his mouth is? On what evidence does he base this claim? There’s no question, of course, that some people will believe this claim without requiring any proof — but this is most likely because these people are already predisposed to think poorly of Gore and prefer to believe that this claim is true regardless of whether it is or not because it confirms their prejudice (otherwise known as negative halo effect). If Drudge can’t provide any hard evidence to support this claim and he knows it, then he’s deliberately lying for no other reason than malice — and last I heard, that’s called libel and that’s called a crime!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThat isn’t hard since the current “scientists” don’t have any facts, they have computer models and a faux religion headed by an idiot.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:15 pmThere would have to be 2,500 scientists from 132 countries or more.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
You have to list credible climatologists – not astrologists or Michael Crichton type Science Fiction Writers.
You find five credible climatologists and post links to prove they aren’t on board with Global Warming as of today, then we’ll discuss…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pmYou need to explain what facts you got and HOW they undermine the rest of the worlds scientists.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
patrick thinks that facts are part of the”liberal” conspiricy. He avoids them at all cost.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pmPatrick, just because you can find one or two charlatans who are accepting money from MRC to obfuscate the issue doesn’t mean that there isn’t consensus on this. And, just because Brent Bozelle says something is a lie doesn’t make it a lie. All through the 60’s and 70’s, I could have cited scientist after scientist who would claim there were no correlations between lung cancer and tobacco smoking. Those “scientists” worked for the Tobacco Instutitue. The MRC is a similar organization. If you’re getting your info from them (and you are) you are getting it from people who are paid by industry to produce industry-friendly information. I’m just not sure you realize that.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pmDidn’t the Church used to sell indulgences so the rich could offset their sins? Sounds like “Pope Al” has found a new scam.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pmLiberalism is based on feelings not facts. How else to explain this new religion they are into?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pmthat’s an insane amount of power to be going through in one year. the guy uses compact flourescent bulbs, solar pv & the house sucks down that many kWhs? something doesn’t add up there
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pmIf Drudge’s story distorts the electricity use at Algores house, than can thinkprogress tell us how much he factually used?
I don’t think that a bunch of Hollywood elites constitutes a “consensus”. There are too if’s and maybes for this to be fact. But then I guess in some circles “facts” really aren’t necessary. To some emotion makes the world go around.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pmThat little conversa-pod Tucker was on this today too with Karen Hen-ratty. Nothing is too petty for these people. I guess Tucker thinks his gated community will protect him.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pmFirst of all, facts have a liberal bias. You will find this out once you hit puberty.
Second, by and large, liberals AREN’T religious. Because religion is based on fantasy and emotion. Just like conservatives.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pmThe founding fathers of the USA were liberals pushing liberty against authoritarian rule. As they made clear in their Declaration of Independance they tried to get along with the authoritarians but they simply were not treated in kind. And so a break with them was neccessary. This struggle has been going on through out history. Look up the Athenians and the Spartans. The west has been turning away from religious dogma backed authoritarianism and the middle east is still deep into it.
And the American right wants to join the middle east in their way of life.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pmIf Drudge’s piece distorts the truth about how much electricity Algore uses, can thinkprogress tell us how much he factually does?
I question wether a bunch of Hollywood elites contitutes a “consensus”.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pmreligion is based on fantasy and emotion
Excellent definition of global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pmWow. What is it gonna take to convince these righties that climate change is serious? The evidence is so overwhelming. These deniers just blow my mind.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:27 pmOy. Another thread tailor-made for the whiney-assed trolls.
See ya.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:27 pmI like how the right wing sheep are able to accept every statement this administration feeds them as the god given truth even though there is not one ounce of fact or truth behind it. Yet, once liberal start making statements and supporting them with facts and studies they are lying.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:28 pmFACT: Matt Drudge does not believe in global warming, yep, he stated on his radio show a couple of weeks ago that he doesn’t believe it is happening, not man made, nor by the cycle of the planet, he just doesn’t ‘buy it’.
The guy is a Fraud on so many levels it’s pathetic. – He is not a reporter, he is a smear merchant.
His website traffic is another FRAUD – His refresher goes off quickly, numerous times to the same visitor, counting a unique visitors ‘visit’ many times over. He claims 10 million visitors a day, I say its around 800,000 unique vistors a day – tops!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmPatrick1 would have made a good thug for the NSDAP.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmIf anyone still doubts all the science presented in Gore’s movie, it must be because of the couple jabs at Bush in the movie. So a brainwashed rightie will automatically dismiss THE ENTIRE THING just because they think it is actually a hit job on Bush. Maybe that explains part of it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pmHow the hell do you relate religion and global warming you crazy fu*k?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:31 pmExcellent definition of global warming.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I’m waiting for your lengthy list of credible climatologists who deny Global Warming… Get to it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:32 pmPatrick: “Liberalism is based on feelings not facts.”
That’s pretty funny coming from someone who thinks we were conjured up magically by some kind of super-hero.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pmOreilly says global warming deniers are “nutsâ€.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ Media/ Play/ 14722/ 1/ 60Minutes-OReilly.wmv
February 26th, 2007 at 7:34 pmHow the hell do you relate religion and global warming you crazy fu*k?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 26, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
So he doesn’t have to provide any facts… He can just say that he ‘knows’ it and that we’re all going to hell if we doubt him… Typical nutbag analogy…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:35 pmWhat Drudge misses is that Al Gore’s movie will result in hundreds of thousands or even millions of other people reducing their energy consumption. If they reduce that just 10%, Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, and Laurie David could have ten times as many mansions and fly Gulfstream V’s around the world and we’d still help prevent global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:40 pmwho thinks we were conjured up magically by some kind of super-hero.
Comment by Bluedog49 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
LOL
February 26th, 2007 at 7:41 pmPatrick1 is an idiot. Like Drudge, his big mouth is contributing to global warming. Think of them as small children throwing a tantrum.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pmFact: during the coldest time period our planet has seen, the atmosphere had 4000 ppm (parts per million) CO2 than our current levels(370 ppm). CO2 is the greenhouse gas we are told is responsible for trapping the heat, in turn causing the warming. Fact: Plant life thrives on high levels of CO2, making them bigger, stronger, more heat tolerant, and more productive. Fact: for the past 10 years or so the sun has been going through a solar maximum cycle. During the solar maximum, the emission of high energy Sun spots or solar flares is at its greatest.(Our astronauts had to find protection in the shuttle from one of these solar flares) The Sun is our source of heat, which is currently sending out more heat. Don’t you get it. We live on a planet that goes through changes. Warm and cool periods. Actually, our planet has experienced longer periods of warm than cold, a difference of, conservatively speaking about 90% warm to 10% cold. As far as the ice caps go, they have been water(liquid) more of the time than they have been ice. We always adapt, how ever great the obstacle. Don’t let other people scare you into believing them. All of this information is out there, you just have to do the research.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pmI think this is one of thoes “deniers” people are referring to.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_492572.html
If the people on the right are brainwashed sheep, what are the people on the left? Besides full of themselves. It is amazing how sure of yourselves some of you are. Get up. Step away from the keyboard. There is a world out there. You might find that thou you thought you were, your just not right about this.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pmWhat Drudge didn’t miss is that it’s okay for AlGores horse to crap in the street because He can afford the guy in a clown suit to follow Him around with a shovel. How very progressive of Him.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pmThat isn’t hard since the current “scientists†don’t have any facts, they have computer models and a faux religion headed by an idiot.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
seriously, are you somehow conflating the actual problem of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE with the practice of SCIENTOLOGY ???
oh my…
i’m with zooey on this… let the trolls have at it…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm…
Excellent definition of global warming.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
I’m waiting for your lengthy list of credible climatologists who deny Global Warming… Get to it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pmIf we are wrong with the overwhelming consensus of real scientists backing Global Warming….what have we done? Made the world a better place to live for future generations?
But what if Exxon-Mobil and idiot savants like Patrick1 are wrong? I can understand a corporation who’s profits are impacted by carbon emissions not caring about the human cost…but how does a thinking person justify their position?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pmOT – sorry
February 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pmK. OLbermann on Countdown is planning another special comment — this one on Condi Rice/ Hitler, etc.
Step away from the keyboard. There is a world out there. You might find that thou you thought you were, your just not right about this.
Comment by algore — February 26, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
You step away from the keyboard…
I agree that there’s a world out there. It was from living in it that I gave up my religious conservative upbringing and CHOSE to be a liberal because it’s a kinder and more peaceful way of life. Many of us here have lived your way. It’s why we are so vocally against it.
Try our way. We’d bet you’d never go back…
February 26th, 2007 at 7:53 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? I’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids. Gore is the biggest hypocrite ever. This is beyond parody.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pmEasy to criticize then to be productive isn’t it. No matter what Al Gore does, he knowingly made himself a target in order to bring attention to a serious issue. If Al Gore didn’t have a horse, it’d be his dog, if he didn’t have a dog, it’d be his own fecal matter. It doesn’t end does it? In the end, ask yourself what have you done to make the world a better place.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/benchmarking/default.asp
February 26th, 2007 at 7:57 pmI’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids.
Comment by mandolin — February 26, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
No way… we can’t even get adequate funding in schools for textbooks… so Gore is giving them to the students for free (actually they are giving DVDs of the movie to the teachers).
So, you’re against books? Bible included?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pmComment by Proud American
You are relying on “laymens” point of view. The CO2 is far far above where it naturally goes. What the sun is doing is beside the point. The CO2 is the key. It matches the cycles through out history. And now it is way way up higher than it should be and we know that we produce all this CO2.
If in the past the natural cycle was driven up by CO2 and down by CO2 and now we unnaturally drive up the CO2 way higher than normal… well then logic dictates that the natural cycle will follow and be thrown out of balance.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pmComment by algore
Its not about right or wrong. Its about empirical numbers. The numbers are pointing to what is coming. Opinion means nothing.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? I’ll bet they are used to buy copies of An Inconvenient Truth to hand out to school kids. Gore is the biggest hypocrite ever. This is beyond parody.
Comment by mandolin
I already went to the link FOR YOU. And then came back here and typed exactly where the money goes. So what else do you need? Or are you inlove with your ignorance?
The money goes to funding a mini manhattan project to create wind farms and other non terrorist Saudi oil energy sources.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pmI wonder how much patrick 1 is paid to disrupt this blog?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/ air/ pollution/ benchmarking/ default.asp
Comment by Steed Lankershim
Apparently you did not read anything yet have an opinion. That makes you a fool.
Follow the link and see for yourself how he is trying to make a difference without forcing people out of business like you are suggesting he should.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pmLOL Thanks for the third grade science refresher.
1) Increased deforestation from logging for paper products and lumber as well as suburban sprawl counter the positive effects of clean air recycling from plant life 2) Annually escalating carbon emissions grossly outnumber the plant life required for recycling 3) Solar flares might effect someone in a space shuttle close the sun yet doesn’t effect the planet which is, coincidentally, not a space shuttle closer to the sun (go figure) 4) Planetary climate has historically changed over thousands of years (basic grade school earth science), not over the decades as is currently happening 5) Extreme environmental changes have always occurred at a slower rate thereby allowing planetary species and vegetation to adapt . The oceanic belt responds by moving freshly melted and less dense artic water down to the equator, thus replacing denser warm water with colder fresh water (this is fact, it’s already happening), essentially reversing the poles. Coupled with a rapid rise in sea level due to the large amounts of melted ice requiring coastal cities to be damned or abandoned, effects appear disastrous.
Do not attempt to discredit me by attacking my intelligence. As a current PhD student at Columbia U in social organizational psych (I have a Columbia email address and Columbia doesn’t have part-time status, all students have to be fully accepted by Columbia’s standards), my intelligence quotient is not up for debate, regardless of your comments or insults. The scientific fact (not the media) has been out for a while and it doesn’t look good for humanity.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Actually, better than a list, why don’t you give us a link to peer-reviewed work that cast doubts on the anthropogenic nature of the current global climate change?
We will be waiting….
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmWhere do these carbon credits go to? Does anyone know? Comment by mandolin
Why don’t do some research yourself, before you make such silly comments showing your ignorance. hahaha
In other words you critique something you know nothing about, typical silly neocon
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmGOOD!! Let Drudge and all those other right-wingers CALL OUT POLLUTERS and ENERGY USERS!!
It will backfire on these idiots.
Maybe they should start looking at how much energy they use! Or how about how much carbon Texas is spewing out??
February 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pmHow many scientists do I need to list?
Comment by Patrick1
You could start here. I do not thnk that you find a font of supporters.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pmAs far as the ice caps go, they have been water(liquid) more of the time than they have been ice. We always adapt, how ever great the obstacle. Don’t let other people scare you into believing them. All of this information is out there, you just have to do the research.
Comment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pmSo, for ” millions ” of years humans have been adapting to climate change ? So say Stupid American. The fact is the earth is only 6,000 years old-just ask Busch. I should add :)
There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community,
This statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Nope, idiot, it is the truth.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pmI see that the usual sorts of global warming deniers are peddling their idiocy here again. Give it up, idiots. Nobody’s buying. Seriously.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pmCongratulations, algore. You found a “dissenter”. Find me a field, and I’ll find you its dissenter – in Cosmology, it’s Fred Hoyle and his legacy students.
Find me citations in refereed journals. Because scientific consensus isn’t measured in scientists, it’s measured in papers.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pmPeterW,
Find that shit yourself. We’ve done it to death.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pmThis statement is simply a lie.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Patrick(n) & mandolin-do you guys live in a cave? Your leader the “Talking Head” now says Global warming is real- it is just not caused by people. Get on board. You are now supposed to claim increased CO2 levels are caused by cows farting just like happened with the Flintstones and the dinosaurs. What do they pay you two ?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:54 pmZooey, um, was talking to the rightie troll who picked the unfortunate handle algore, not to any real or rhetorical Al Gore. As point of fact, I’m an ionospheric physicist who knows just enough about the climate science to know that global warming deniers are morons.
Indeed, the anti-environmental pathology among conservatives has something to do with the following mantra common among the right: 1) never show weakness, and 2) attack anyone showing weakness. It’s a very predatory society they imagine we live in. Giving a damn about anything (esp. environmentalism) is weakness in their eyes, and they have to attack it, lest they themselves seem weak and are preyed upon. It’s sad, really.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pmLet’s just face the fact that Al Gore consumes way too much energy. That does not alter the validity of his message.
Why a bunch of the anti-environment wingers would care all of a sudden about Al Gore’s habits is beyond me. They don’t discredit the message by attacking the messenger. They make the message seem more important!
They are also doing the world a service by pointing out that rich people consume way more than they should.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pmComment by PeterW — February 26, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Deepest apologies, PeterW, mea culpa.
I had been trying to read the incomprehensible Condi Rice statement on the thread above, and I think it affected my reading ability. I went back and re-read the thread, and I see what you were doing.
I hate it when I’m an ass. :}
February 26th, 2007 at 9:20 pmYou would think conservatives would support efforts to reduce global warming and pollution … since, you know, ‘conserve’, c’mon.
And its funny how when they complain about having to reduce their wastefulness, they sound like a kid whining about not wanting to wash their hands.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:21 pmI don’t believe I was trying to insult anyone’s intelligence, though I can tell you are extremely insecure I don’t care how intelligent you are. You fail to understand simple facts. The Sun’s mass is 333,000 times that of the Earth’s. The Sun is 90 million miles away. The shuttle travels into near Earth’s orbit about 250 miles. Not a big difference when your in space. The amount of energy released during a solar flare is that of 5000 suns. Again, the Sun is the source of the Earth’s heat. You also have your facts wrong about rapid climate change in our history and people not just plants being able to adapt. Between 1350 and 1900’s the Earth experienced a little ice age. The 700 year time span, compared to the billions of years our Earth has been here around is a rapid climate change. Millions upon millions of people died. We adapted, we moved on. There will always be catastrophic natural disasters. Man did not cause the rapid cooling of the Earth nor have we caused a rapid warming. The funny thing about life is that we die, and sometimes this happens in mass. You are never guaranteed tomorrow.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:30 pmWhy do Drudge’s pages look like they were typed on an VERY OLD government issue IBM machine?
Courtesy of CIA no doubt.
Matt Sludge? – Sit on this and spin … ±
February 26th, 2007 at 9:31 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm#76 – Proud American,
February 26th, 2007 at 9:36 pmIf the energy released by a solar flare is equivalent to 5000 Suns, where does it come from? It certainly can’t be the Sun!
Comment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 9:30 pmN.A.S.A during a solar flare is not worried that the ISS air conditioners will not keep up. They are concerned about radiation and damage to the astronauts cells.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:40 pmlol Waltman, don’t try to edu-ma-cate this one on anything factual. Apparently he knows something that hundreds of scientists and researchers don’t, that the sun is the cause of global warming (and apparently there was an ice age somewhere around the 14th and 15th centuries). I guess we need to rewrite the history books lmao.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:41 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
Comment by beefeater
He isn’t burning “one” drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:42 pmIt’s just that all this makes AlGore look like a hippo-crite. Carbon credits my ass. Sounds like rehab for libs.
Comment by beefeater
He isn’t burning “one” drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:44 pmIt certainly can’t be the Sun!
Comment by WaltTheMan — February 26, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pmWalt you are correct. According to O’Lielly (an expert in this and many other fields) it is caused by cow methane that interacts with carbon credits.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ Culture/ archive/ 200412/ CUL20041202a.html
February 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm“Why don’t you do the WHOLE WORLD a fu*cking favor and shut your fu*cking computer off for good. We all know what eminates from your keyboard.
Comment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 6:59 pm”
And just what is that rachel?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pmDrudge is slime. Just like his fellow reich-wingers.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:57 pm“Why do Drudge’s pages look like they were typed on an VERY OLD government issue IBM machine?
Courtesy of CIA no doubt.
Matt Sludge? – Sit on this and spin … ±
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 9:31 pm”
rachel, did you think of this response all by yourself?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm“He isn’t burning “one†drop more fuel than all that fu*cking illegal armor over in Iraq is on a DAILY basis, so get lost fly-bait.
Comment by rachel — February 26, 2007 @ 9:42 pm”
My rachel, your debating skills are awesome! I can see why zooey says I should stay away from you!
February 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pmlol I’m very secure, thank you. My comment was based on the previous posters personal attacks. As a social psychologist in training, please don’t attempt to psychoanalyze me, it’s amateur at best and insulting.
Thanks for the attempt at “educating” me, but as I have a BA from Stanford in Psychobiology, and a MA and currently studying for my PhD in I/O psychology at Columbia, I can safely say I do not require any “educating” by misled and erroneous “fiction”. Thanks any ways, and good luck trying to inform the scientific community that all their research is wrong and that the sun is causing global warming, you’ll be laughed out of the room as Bush was at the Kyoto conference.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pmActually, when I read the post from Proud American, I lost about half an ounce of Pilsner Urquell through both nostrals and messed up a freshly laundered pair of pants and shirt. I also have to dry out another keyboard – Seixon got that one about three days ago, but it is working again now. I have a pile of four or so on top of the PC. The only thing that really pisses me off is the waste of some quality brew.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pmI can see why zooey says I should stay away from you!
Comment by michael
I never said that, you idiot. I said she was very intelligent.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pmI know you try to avoid intelligence at every opportunity.
#91 Zooey
I don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:12 pm#92 – AshenShard,
February 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pmHe could as least zip his fly.
there was an ice age somewhere around the 14th and 15th centuries). I guess we need to rewrite the history books lmao.
Comment by Cory
There was an ice age around then. It ended in the 1800s. But not before in America there was the “year of no summer”. It was actually on a show today on history channel about the “little ice age”.
The earth has normal cycles of temperature fluctuation as well as occasional events such as volcanic erruptions or meteor strikes… And now a man made event…
February 26th, 2007 at 10:16 pmWow! As Rod Serling might have said “You have just entered the banned Dummie and Huffpo zone.” Who owns this cute little site? Faiz! Control your monkeys!
February 26th, 2007 at 10:18 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm#93 WaltTheMan
Please, you almost caused me to spit some rather good bottom shelf scotch … i keep my keyboard at a distance, but I only have one other that actually functions.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pmI don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
Comment by AshenShard
He still manages….
February 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:20 pmMichael = Troll.
Do Not Engage! Repeat! Do Not Engage!
He is out to hijack this thread or any other for that matter, with his GOP BOT/ COPY PASTE/RUN AWAY JOBS.
Please DO NOT FEED this pathetic creature AT ANY COST!
Please.
Let him ramble on and drool all over himself, but please leave him to do it ALONE!
It is much more fun to watch this type squirm for attention.
As I said last night, he is like a freshman in high school vying for “acceptance”.
We all just kind of used to pass him around for kicks in the “big kids” circle, but now we must throw “junior” out.
He is old and stale and just plain “whored out”
He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hook”
You have seen the “type” I am sure.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pmHe could as least zip his fly.
Comment by WaltTheMan
You got me with that one, Walt. :-D
February 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pmSolar radiation or solar energy, is what warms the Earth. Energy is heat. An 11 year cycle of the sun causing solar flares that emit energy that of 5000 suns is a tremendous amount of heat. And again you fail to look at the facts that the Earth has been predominately warmer throughout its history regardless of when we entered the picture. If the Earth has been consistently warming since the last ice age and if it was warmer before the ice age than it must mean the Earth’s temperature is that of a warm planet with an average temperature of about 67 degrees F and not the 57 degree average we have been accustom to over the past 400 hundred years (little ice age 1350 thru the 1900’s). Why is it that the Vikings(1000 years ago) who used to inhabit Greenland were able to farm the land, and which ice caps are rapidly melting?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pmI know, I just found his claims outlandish lol. The terms “Little Ice Age†and “Medieval Warm Period†have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively. The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way. Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age†and “Medieval Warm Period†appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. viewed hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age†can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels. “Little Ice Age” is a misleading term as it is not indicative of an actual “ice age” (of course) but a cooler (and slightly warmer) phase geographically specific regions. This contrasts greatly to the actual historic ice age as well as the current changes in global (not geographical) temperature.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:27 pmComment by Proud American
When are you going to get the hint?
It is not about the warmth.
Its about CHANGE.
There will be an equal and opposite reaction. If we make the NORMAL warmth increase a HUGE warmth increase then what equal and opposite reaction will occur? I sure hope not a major ice age. Its hard to live when there is no farm land. And before that happens in the mean time we have all the side effects of a world getting too hot. I prefer a mother nature in balance. Wide swings risk destruction of our way of life at the very least.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pmI saw upthread the question about climate scientists. Here’s 60 give or take that raise questions. I know it’s not five, but heck, call me crazy:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/canadianPMletter06.html
It also ignores at least three state climatologists in the U.S., Bill Gray the foremost authority on hurricanes and many others. But who’s counting?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:43 pm[...] Think Progress has contacted Al Gore for further clarification. (By the way, if you need evidence of how little regard right wingers have for honesty or rational though, check out the comments by a troll there by the name of Patrick1.) Think Progress received the following answers: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 10:52 pmWell Proud American, the 4th IPCC report out in January shot your ’solar cycle’ argument down in, well, flames:
http://news.independent.co.uk/ environment/ article2193672.ece
The key passage reported by the Independent is:
The IPCC also finally nails the canard of the climate sceptics who argue that global warming is a myth or the result of natural climate variability; natural factors alone cannot account for the observed warming, the IPCC says. “These changes took place at a time when non-anthropogenic forcing factors (i.e. the sum of solar and volcanic forcing) would be expected to have produced cooling, not warming.
Well there you have it..best of luck with that.
Dagadagadagadagadaga – he’s going down, Biffo……
February 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pmThe scientific method has not proven the man made global warming theory. It is a theory were there is a consensus which is nothing more than opinion among scientists, and not all scientists. Lets get the facts straight. Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs. You are all being manipulated. Every piece of information I have stated is scientific fact and historical fact about both the Earth and Sun. Both physical and historical data. Look it up yourself. All you know how to do is insult people. This is all a product of the American Education System. They forget to teach you to use your brains. Its all about how you feel. Nothing but acting on emotion; no thought.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pmGore is doing the correct thing, and continues to shoot the wingnuts down daily. Drudge and company are sore that he’s right, and they’re wrong (as usual).
Note to conservatives: opinion-based reality is doomed to fail. Repent now while you still can.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pmPurchasing “Carbon Offsets” ?
Call me crazy…but that seems like an odd way to ethical satisfaction.
Do we applaud the Tobacco Industry for merely donating to cancer research to ‘offset’ their impact on the smoking world?
To me…it just seems like we’re still permitting certain practices people despise, by allowing them to neuter it by spending even more money to ‘offset it’. I’d love to get into the
Is the idea that if everyone in this world was simultaneously over-using carbon…and purchasing huge amounts of ‘offsets’ that the Earth would be in some sort of balance?
Don’t you suppose there would be a different problem there?
Is there a healthy balance with ‘Bulimia’?
I doubt the environmental form is much better.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:55 pm#104 Rational Comment
Do those scientists back up their claims with support? If they do, please give us links to their scientific analysis of the non-existence of global warming.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:02 pmLets get the facts straight. Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs.
These two statements seem at odds with one another…unless you’ve got the Global Warming equivalent of at least the “protocols of the elders of Zion” for us to read and discuss… where’s your source PA?
Global Warming is a money making power grab by elitist pigs. …Its all about how you feel. Nothing but acting on emotion; no thought.
So do these…
They forget to teach you to use your brains.
Here’s your chance, PA… http://www.ipcc.ch make sure you check in on the section about solar cycles in your studies…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:03 pmSpeaking of using your brain, don’t you find it odd, that the scientists who are speaking out against the idea of global warming, tend to (suprise) be on the payroll of gas and oil companies?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pmThe scientific method has not proven the man made global warming theory. It is a theory were there is a consensus which is nothing more than opinion among scientists, and not all scientists.
Comment by Proud American
I don’t think you understand the concept of the scientific method. By definition, there is no proof, only consensus. It’s not the same as the everyday use of the word “theory.”
Scientific theory is a well-tested and widely accepted view that the scientific community agrees best explains certain observable facts. Extensively documented theories are held with a very high degree of confidence.
You will never have “proof.”
February 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pm[...] President Gore’s people have made a response. I don’t think we’re supposed to assume (as CBS News and the left did, back when the WH [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pmThe question remains, have any of these scientists done any research of their own regarding global climate change (which was the question proposed, not a list of scientists that are asking for review)? What have any of their personal findings concluded (if any)? There are many “former” this and “past” that listed that are petitioning the Canadian government for halting action in adopting environmental policy. Dr. Chris de Freitas, listed, has publications published mostly in the 1980’s and 1990’s (with 2000 being the most recent). Upon reading the Abstract of publications from many of those listed (I hesitate to use researcher as most of them are teaching), most of the information is not based on new evidence, but rather what researchers refer to as “pick and choose science”. Essentially they are choosing to reference material that supports their hypothesis rather than address both issues on the topic and either support or denote those results.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pmWe covered the sunspots a few weeks ago PA – here’s you summary:
http://flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/371632655/in/set-72157594504592593/
This graphic shows the reconstructed sunspot and temperature curves for the last 1000 years. Look at the last 50 or so – hmm good correlation between the spots and the ‘hockey stick’ we all know about… The problem is that around the year 1050, the sunspot activity was also at a high and yet the temperature went the other way – meaning that the sunspot activity is somehow negatively correlated in 1050 and posotively correlated in 1950…. from that, it’s clear that sunspots simply can’t be the major forcer of global temperature in either 1050 or today…..
But then, here’s the Co2 chart….. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
Now if you look at the CO2 trend for 100s of thousands of years, there simply are no odd anomalies like your unexplainable 1050 issue – in this case the correlation between CO2 and temperature suggests that Co2 concentration is a far more important forcer in climate temperature. It’s just mathematics: which is correlated more? Its obvious.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:10 pm#104 – Proud American, (I took too long to compose this post.)
Let us study each of your statements one at a time:
Solar radiation or solar energy, is what warms the Earth.
One right!
Energy is heat.
Wrong – Infrared energy is heat. Other emissions give us light, cause genetic mutations and then there is the neutrino stream.
An 11 year cycle of the sun causing solar flares that emit energy that of 5000 suns is a tremendous amount of heat.
Wrong, in the first place, one Sun can not emit the radiation of 5000 Suns. The math is just not there. Plus there are two major solar cycles, one of 11 years and the second of 17 years. Trust me, my aunt was a solar scientist at the University of Michigan McMath-Hulbert Solar Observatory.
And again you fail to look at the facts that the Earth has been predominately warmer throughout its history regardless of when we entered the picture.
The Earth was a bit warmer 4.5 billion years ago when its surface was molten and the seas boiled. That ceased about 2-3 billion years ago when debris from the Kuiper belt started to settle in the atmosphere and oceans.
If the Earth has been consistently warming since the last ice age and if it was warmer before the ice age than it must mean the Earth’s temperature is that of a warm planet with an average temperature of about 67 degrees F and not the 57 degree average we have been accustom to over the past 400 hundred years (little ice age 1350 thru the 1900’s).
There are no temperature records from 40,000 years back except cores from both the Arctic and the Antarctic and all evidence is that global temperatures stabilized about 10,000 years ago and remained steady until the mid 19th century. Since then, they have risen.
Why is it that the Vikings(1000 years ago) who used to inhabit Greenland were able to farm the land, and which ice caps are rapidly melting?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:11 pmThere was little or no melting of the ice caps in the period you specify. The water current that we call the Gulf Stream was flowing around Greenland during that time frame. The result was severe winters in northern and central Europe while Greenland got green.
WOOHOO! I got an 18.2!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:13 pmSorry about that link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
February 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm“I don’t think he is trying to avoid it…. otherwise why would he hang out here?
Comment by AshenShard — February 26, 2007 @ 10:12 pm”
Simple! To challenge ridiculous liberal comments. Period! That’s the only reason I’m here!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pmBacking up Zooey, and since I know a few people in the science field….
I do no know of any scientific discovery that is not known as a ‘theory’. Scientists are extremely open to new thoughts, so they label everything as theory. There are no absolutes, like in mathematics, which has theorems, which are established fact.
Does anyone deny that gravity exists? I hope not, but it is known as the ‘theory of gravity’ not the ‘theorem of gravity’.
I guess this ‘theory of global warming’ has the same problem as the ‘theory of evolution’, the right seems ready to attack them since they are only labeled as ‘theories’. If we want to defunct any of these talking points, science would be well advised to adopt the word ‘theorem’ in order to dismiss the naysayers. This however would destroy part of the purpose of science, and thus should not happen.
What people should realize is that a ‘theory’ in the scientific world, once it is established as such, is fact until facts arrived at through scientific experiment that can be replicated come about to repudiate the theory.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmAre you actually quoting the IPCC? Do you have that authority? Why is it the big bad IPCC is the only authority on the climate? Check out the link on post 104. I completely understand the ramifications of global warming and the changes that occur because of warming. Man, throughout all of our history has been faced with drastic change. Mass suffering, death and destruction. Most often caused by natural disasters. We have only been burning fossil fuels for a little over 100 years. If we stopped burning carbon fuels right now forever, that would account for exactly 1% of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is a fact. And another scientific fact not theory is that during the coldest period of the earths history the CO2 atmospheric levels were 4000 ppm more than our current levels which have only increased minimally over the past 100 years.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmWhen will Al Gore do something about his coal buddies at Tennessee Valley Authority and their carbon footprint? TVA is the 3rd worst CO2 emittor in the US. The problem is your energy supplier, Al. When will you attack them for destroying the earth?
http://www.nrdc.org/ air/ pollution/ benchmarking/ default.asp
Comment by Steed Lankershim — February 26, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
When are you going to stop beating your wife, Steed?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pmMichael,
you don’t challenge though, you just flame, and spew talking points, and pretend you had challenging life, while wishing to keep people in poverty. You don’t challenge, you are an absurd caricature of a right wing retard.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:19 pm“He is like an old used up hooker who refuses to believe she is pretty damn rough looking and still keeps on trying to “hookâ€
You have seen the “type†I am sure.
Comment by kinnardi, rj — February 26, 2007 @ 10:21 pm”
And as usual rachel you debate like a little girl! You avoid issues and when backed into a corner your natural liberal instinct is insult! I know most liberals who visit this blog aren’t smart enough to see this, but some of the more intelligent ones are, and I’m sure they are embarrassed for you?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:21 pmMy referencing the little ice age was not to illustrate the global impact or regional impact. It was to merely point out the fact that although faced with incredible amounts of death and suffering, people were able to adapt until the tides changed. We always do.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:22 pmThere are so many inaccuracies in this I do not know where to begin. First of all, the scientific method is a “theoryâ€, it refers to the universally agreed upon method in researching and examining knew knowledge. A researcher observes a specific situation needing study either before or after a hypothesis is determined (perhaps the observation will yield to an hypothesis or perhaps the researcher wishes to addresses a specific concern that would yield to such research), state hypothesis, test hypothesis through experimentation by either manipulating dependent and independent variables (lab experiments), observation (field study), survey’s, etc. etc., analyzing results, conclusions, discussion and final reports. Nothing in that is theory or dictates anything about needing consensus.
What “money making power elitist pigs†are you referring to? If anyone is making money, it is the oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil who have reported record breaking 4th quarter profits of $10.7 billion in 2005 (here is the MSNBC article to support that fact http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/ ) at a time when oil prices were breaking records due to the costs in acquiring oil from Katrina and Iraq ( but then why were they making record profits as economics dictate that price rise occurs as the capital needed to acquire such item increases to keep profit margins THE SAME, not an INCREASE IN PROFITS. Hell, Exxon CEO Lee Reynolds retired with a $400 Million Dollar retirement package, and you’re going after Al Gore??? Wtf is wrong with you people?!?!) .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:24 pm“you don’t challenge though, you just flame, and spew talking points, and pretend you had challenging life, while wishing to keep people in poverty. You don’t challenge, you are an absurd caricature of a right wing retard.
Comment by Krazny (a proud American) — February 26, 2007 @ 11:19 pm”
Ok! Let’s try this on for size? What scientists are on the oil companies payroll?
Speaking of using your brain, don’t you find it odd, that the scientists who are speaking out against the idea of global warming, tend to (suprise) be on the payroll of gas and oil companies?
Comment by Krazny (a proud American) — February 26, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 11:24 pmIn my post 114, 104 s/b 101, now. TP can’t you simply leave empty markers?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:25 pmIf we stopped burning carbon fuels right now forever, that would account for exactly 1% of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is a fact. – PA, please stop saying ‘that’s a fact’ without backing it up. Please show your work.
Are you actually quoting the IPCC? Do you have that authority? Why is it the big bad IPCC is the only authority on the climate?
Er, yes and that’s called making an assertion with supporting arguments, I don’t need anyone’s permission to introduce scientific evidence into a discussion.
And another scientific fact not theory is that during the coldest period of the earths history the CO2 atmospheric levels were 4000 ppm more than our current levels which have only increased minimally over the past 100 years.
And what were the climate conditions at that time? Why is the 4000 ppm the only relevant ‘fact’ about climate conditions over 500m years ago…?
Oh and I checked out the link…. the main thrust was that Kyoto was unwise, the earth was cooling between 1940 and 1970 so today’s conclusions must be wrong (a fact handled by the IPCC handily, by the way) and no one offered any concrete evidence of political or scientific conspiracy. Please, the IPCC consists of thousands of peer-reviewed science documents from over 130 countries… so yes they are a very serious player in the climate debate – I’ve yet to see anything to match the gravitas of the IPCC… Not even Exxon-Mobil…. http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20070213-000672-1238 Oh they seem to agree with the IPCC, sorry about that…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pm#123 – Proud American,
February 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pmSo you advocate swimming to the next island when yours disappears beneath the waves? Pick a direction and hope you are right!
Ok! Let’s try this on for size? What scientists are on the oil companies payroll?
Comment by michael — February 26, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
The canadian guy you were slobbering all over last week, who wrote the paper refuting global warming, turned out the organization he worked for was funded by the oil industry. Plus the $10,000 per person offered by a conservative organization to any scientiest who would refute global warming, but hey keep saying there is no connection to false information and the paid whores.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:29 pmWhat are you talking about??? Seriously?!
Plagues and disease are mostly the cause of global deaths. The earliest known visitation of the plague to Europe may have occurred in Athens in 430 B.C., but it is unclear if the disease that afflicated Athens was caused by Yersina pestis. A disastrous epidemic occurred in the Mediterranean during the time of the Roman emperor Justinian; an estimated 25% to 50% of the population is reported to have succumbed. The most widespread epidemic began in Constantinople in 1334, spread throughout Europe (returning Crusaders were a factor), and in less than 20 years is estimated to have killed three quarters of the population of Europe and Asia. The great plague of London in 1665 is recorded in many works of literature. Quarantine measures helped contain the disease, but serious epidemics continued to occur even in the 19th cent. The disease is still prevalent in parts of Asia, and sporadically occurs elsewhere (approximately 2,500 cases worldwide annually). In Surat, India, in 1994, 5,000 cases of pneumonic plague were reported in an outbreak; an estimated 100 people died, and more than 400,000 people fled the city. Because the number of cases of plague has been increasing annually, it is categorized as a re-emerging infectious disease by the World Health Organization.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pmYa know, all you people who’re complaining that ‘trolls’ have hijacked this thread, and why would TP put out a thread like this that’s tailor-made for right-wing feeding…
Don’t you think TP knows this? Don’t you think they WANT the thread to be ‘hijacked’? Look what happened when ProudAmerican and Patrick1 started posting; everybody else in a fit of frenzy starting posting also. What happens? More page hits and page views. More activity on the site. I’d venture to say the TP staff ENJOYS when there’s lots of debate/arguments/etc on this site.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:30 pmComment by Proud American — February 26, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
There are so many inaccuracies in this I do not know where to begin. First of all, the scientific method is a “theoryâ€, it refers to the universally agreed upon method in researching and examining knew knowledge. A researcher observes a specific situation needing study either before or after a hypothesis is determined (perhaps the observation will yield to an hypothesis or perhaps the researcher wishes to addresses a specific concern that would yield to such research), state hypothesis, test hypothesis through experimentation by either manipulating dependent and independent variables (lab experiments), observation (field study), survey’s, etc. etc., analyzing results, conclusions, discussion and final reports. Nothing in that is theory or dictates anything about needing consensus.
What “money making power elitist pigs†are you referring to? If anyone is making money, it is the oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil who have reported record breaking 4th quarter profits of $10.7 billion in 2005 (here is the MSNBC article to support that fact http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/ ) at a time when oil prices were breaking records due to the costs in acquiring oil from Katrina and Iraq ( but then why were they making record profits as economics dictate that price rise occurs as the capital needed to acquire such item increases to keep profit margins THE SAME, not an INCREASE IN PROFITS. Hell, Exxon CEO Lee Reynolds retired with a $400 Million Dollar retirement package, and you’re going after Al Gore??? Wtf is wrong with you people?!?!) .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:32 pmI’d venture to say the TP staff ENJOYS when there’s lots of debate/arguments/etc on this site.
Comment by Dale
Whatever.
I got a 2.25
Keep on working on that carbon footprint, eh Dale? Heh.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:35 pmFebruary 26th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
The only trolls I have problems with are those who make huge copy-paste posts over and over again in every thread.
The other trolls, they are fun to use as punching bags, and for a good laugh since all their positions are totally against fact and intelligence. Though, I do not yet know if it is good practice arguing with them since it may be too easy since all they use are the same talking point positions rather than logic, fact or reason.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:38 pmI’m trying, Zooey, I’m trying. I’ll have to crank the hot tub up a bit; and maybe I oughta start driving my truck more instead of my car.
Lighten up Francis.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:38 pm#132… there should’ve been a “snicker” after the quote.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:39 pmAl Gore should just ignore Drudge the sludge.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:39 pmHow do the scientists from the IPCC make a living? Who’s payroll are they on? I’m sick of people attacking someone for having a different opinion on the debate. Lets not forget that little fact. You can not have a scientific fact unless it is agreed upon to be a fact. It is still a debate. All the IPCC has is data collected over a relatively short period of time that they have made computer models from. This planet has had vast swings in climate change that we still can not scientifically explain. There are theories but not fact as to what caused these changes. We can’t even predict the weather accurately a week in advance in a given city. Now you think we can predict the global weather over a century? This is madness !
February 26th, 2007 at 11:40 pmI’m sorry Dale, but did I offend? My point was referring to the numerous personal attacks on many people here regarding their education level and intelligence, I was not attempting to grand stand or show off in any way. If you have something pertinent to state, I’m waiting with baited breath (snicker).
February 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pmI love this. Anybody who dares disagree is funded by the oil companies. But the oil companies fund both sides. BP and others give to the environmental movement. Hell, our tax dollars go to those same groups because morons in Washington hand them over. So what the real claim here is that anyone who funds DISAGREEMENT is wrong.
Yeah, that’s a debate tactic.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pmok, let’s buy into this “more CO2 is a good thing because plants thrive on it” concept. The problem is…at the same time more and more CO2 is being pumped into the system, we are taking out more and more plants.
“Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth’s land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years.”
The rainforests are the lungs of the planet. When they’re gone, there won’t be enough plants to process the CO2.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pmmy intelligence quotient is not up for debate, regardless of your comments or insults.
Comment by Dale —
No, but you really should see about a refund from the mail order outfit you got your sheepskin from.
Here’s what I think of your “degree” that lacks “common” sense and reality.
The Credit Card Society
I learned something new today: we can now “buy” a degree. I was expecting this kind of non-sence one day or another but now it is real and happening under our very eyes. I noticed that many of my ex-engineering student partners would have been idiot enough to send 10 000$ to their faculty to “buy” their certificate if they could. Well, you can now legally obtain the fake stamp. How could the human race could have reach that level of weak-mindness. People justify their level of achievement according to the size of the stack they gathered. Dad buy his son a brand new japanese convertible and pay his Princeton’s tuition… or Yale, Queens, McGill or you name it. I’ve been -screwed- in the academic process for such a long time to notice that when you’ll get out, nobody will ever give a damn about who you are, they will hire you for your Harvard papers and your ability to kiss other people’s butt. Maybe we should take care more about the educationnal issue but we are too busy building brand new state-of-the-art archologies where we teach our already-dead children where to build a plant in order to minimize the production cost of the little plastic phone plug and where to sell it to maximize the benefits, or in which Carribean island an executive should build his trust. And of course we tell our kids to “Stay in School”. After all, the sooner you hook them, the more slaves you will end up with to wax your shoes. The true beauty of this “freedom-oriented” continent in which we live is that for every one who survive, thousands are sent to pasture, feeding an artificial hero who post his synthetic face-lifted smile in another best-selling magazine who promotes slow-wit.
After “Grease”, they finally released “Greed”… That just says it all. KittScchhink…
Rachel – aka – The Crimson King
February 26th, 2007 at 11:43 pmLighten up Francis.
Comment by Dale
That was light. See the “Heh?”
Maybe you like this instead? :-)
Or this? :-D
February 26th, 2007 at 11:44 pmComment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
rachel, Dale was quoting me :’(, and I go to Columbia lol. I can send you an email from my Columbia account if you don’t believe me ;)…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:49 pm“The canadian guy you were slobbering all over last week, who wrote the paper refuting global warming, turned out the organization he worked for was funded by the oil industry. Plus the $10,000 per person offered by a conservative organization to any scientiest who would refute global warming, but hey keep saying there is no connection to false information and the paid whores.
Comment by Krazny (a proud American) — February 26, 2007 @ 11:29 pm”
And just who was that Canadian guy I was slobbering over? You don’t recall his name? What organization does he work for? How much money did the oil companies pay this organization? What proof do you have that any scientist was offered $10,000 if they refute global warming? Answers? Whore!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:49 pmPoints I’d make to answer the fair questions about AG’s energy use:
-How big is the consuming area-it’s a large house, and a guest house….
-How many people live there? Al Gore is often on the road, so there must be others such as his mom, children etc living there….
-The figure is compared with an average for Tennessee-what does that average entail (with reference to the two points above)…small single houses, most people working during day, …?
-Have they done most of what they can to reduce wastage and increase use from solar and other sources? I suppose so, maybe others can give details….
-Since we are all not perfect, but like to criticise so easily, how do Republicans do on this issue? Let’s see details, facts, to quiet them.
Finally, I think Al Gore is a noble man with full integrity. He works extremely hard, and is respected for his wisdom and for the true passion he has for America and his fellow people. He is a polar opposite to many selfish and fearful Republicans.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:50 pmThere are theories but not fact as to what caused these changes. …You can not have a scientific fact unless it is agreed upon to be a fact.
Please spend some time learning what the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact is. Your debate is undermined by your shifting and incorrect use of the terms.
All the IPCC has is data collected over a relatively short period of time that they have made computer models from. This planet has had vast swings in climate change that we still can not scientifically explain.
So where did they get that 4000ppm from then? The ice core samples go back several 100k years, sure they collected them in maybe 30 years, but does that make them useless? I don’t understand your point. And yes, we don’t know all the answers, but several thousand people from over 100 countries think they have about 90% of the answers for what is likely to happen in the next 100 years.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:52 pm“The other trolls, they are fun to use as punching bags, and for a good laugh since all their positions are totally against fact and intelligence.
Comment by AshenShard — February 26, 2007 @ 11:38 pm”
It would be nice if you could provide an example or two? Maybe?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pmTo Proud American:
First of all, the scientific method is not a “theoryâ€, it refers to the universally agreed upon method in researching and examining knew knowledge. A researcher observes a specific situation needing study either before or after a hypothesis is determined (perhaps the observation will yield to an hypothesis or perhaps the researcher wishes to addresses a specific concern that would yield to such research), state hypothesis, test hypothesis through experimentation by either manipulating dependent and independent variables (lab experiments), observation (field study), survey’s, etc. etc., analyzing results, conclusions, discussion and final reports.
What “money making power elitist pigs†are you referring to? If anyone is making money, it is the oil companies such as Exxon/Mobil who have reported record breaking 4th quarter profits of $10.7 billion in 2005 (here is the MSNBC article to support that fact http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458/ ) at a time when oil prices were breaking records due to the costs in acquiring oil from Katrina and Iraq ( but then why were they making record profits as economics dictate that price rise occurs as the capital needed to acquire such item increases to keep profit margins THE SAME, not an INCREASE IN PROFITS. Hell, Exxon CEO Lee Reynolds retired with a $400 Million Dollar retirement package, and you’re going after Al Gore??? Wtf is wrong with you people?!?!) .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pmDale,
I went to “Common Sense University” I majored in Life.
My Prep School was “The School of Hard Knocks”
And yes, I have a degree too.
So there.
————————————————–
http://www.eff.org – Protecting our rights to blog.
————————————————–
http://www.newsmine.org
Over 10,000 Artciles and Documents for Uncovering and Exposing.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“#
Al Gore should just ignore Drudge the sludge.
Comment by Jay Randal — February 26, 2007 @ 11:39 pm”
Jay, what’s your problem with Drudge? Still holding the Lewinsky thing against him?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:54 pmOMFG.
Cory,
I just need to shut up for awhile now.
Too much Vinoâ„¢
Foot, meet mouth, mouth, meet foot.
Hangs head in embarrassment and shame. :(
Yes I believe you.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:56 pm[...] Al Gore has responded via Think Progress, one of the better liberal blogs: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon [...]
February 26th, 2007 at 11:57 pmWell Al, perhaps we should analyze Republican performance in supporting an issue that they hold dear: the Iraq War. Just how many of Bush and Cheney’s extended family have served or will serve in Iraq?
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/185
A hint: it’s a nice ROUND number… I’ll give the kids in the front a mulligan, but expect them to sign up when they grad high school – after all, Chimpy says the troops will still be there….
February 26th, 2007 at 11:57 pmIt would be nice if you could provide an example or two? Maybe?
Comment by michael —
————————————————–
Michael,
I’ll see your example, and raise you a link.
Got a link for that comment?
Stupid “cut-n-runner” NeoCon.
What am I doing conversing with you. You are a troll.
Be gone.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:59 pm“I’ve been -screwed- in the academic process
Comment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 11:43 pm”
You sure have! You should demand an immediate refund!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:00 amOh sweetie, it’s ok lol, I figured it was a mistake… and no need to shut up at all. =) (and my comment about my “education” was supposed to be ironic, not pompous so I suppose I deserve it lol).
February 27th, 2007 at 12:00 am“Michael,
I’ll see your example, and raise you a link.
Got a link for that comment?
Stupid “cut-n-runner†NeoCon.
What am I doing conversing with you. You are a troll.
Be gone.
Comment by rachel kinnardi — February 26, 2007 @ 11:59 pm”
You’re so intelligent! I see what zooey means! You need to go back to school.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:03 amMichael, if you nothing to bring to the discussion but personal attacks then please don’t say anything at all. In the end, it only undermines your points and reaffirms many of the readers and commentators on TP of your lack of credibility.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:06 amI will reiterate to conservatives who do not understand, what science label as ‘theory’ in practice they treat as ‘fact’. Such occurs until said ‘theory’ is proven untrue by repeatable experiments that prove that theory wrong.
I challenge any conservative posting here to cite one peer reviewed scientific study that proves global warming does not exist.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:07 amMichael, if you nothing to bring to the discussion but personal attacks then please don’t say anything at all. In the end, it only undermines your points and reaffirms many of the readers and commentators on TP of your lack of credibility.
Comment by Cory — February 27, 2007 @ 12:06 am
You’re wasting your time, Michael is the kindergartner who yells “Did too” at you hoping for the last word…. he’s nothing else to say…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:11 amI challenge any conservative posting here to cite one peer reviewed scientific study that proves global warming does not exist.
Comment by AshenShard — February 27, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Cue the link to ‘Junkscience’ and ‘State of Fear’…. in 3,2,1…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:12 amEvery time Iread that term it makes me giggle, the image of a troll perusing the online blogging world to cause trouble lol, it’s so cutting. =)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:16 amHappiness for 19.99$
As Hollywood trained us to think, there is always two kind of people, the good guys and the bad guys: Star Wars’ light and dark side, Democrat and Republicans, left and right, us and them. It also seems that both of these are making money from each other. While most of the money out there is being made by the formal, politically correct necktie-wearing, legitimate and benevolent software developper spending half of his day watching to Seinfeld and Jeopardy and the other half making user-friendly interfaces, countering the plans of the Evil Hacker and finding a way to reach most people with a spare hand from the marketing department, it seems now that quite a bit of money is also made from the “dark side”, commercializing ideas of freedom taken-away and conspiracy theories. Back from the General Idea team, the use of marketing strategies to promote anti-capitalism ideas is paradoxical in itself. N’Sync are best sellers for singing the same old copy-pasted shit while Eminem is the best seller for bitching about N’Sync. In either case, the common point is that both are best sellers. Both needs each other, a symbiosis like hippos and teeth-cleaner birds. Both will keep making money for singing their crappy shit for a few more month until the executives regulating the cartel of pop music decide which new artificial hero will once again take control of the radio frequencies flooding all across the continent. Like remoras, we feeds ourselves out of business sharks leftovers. But once again we’ve got caught in the web of marketing analysis.
Books such as “The Art of Happiness” coming from the Dalai-Lama or other new-age prophets are coming out right in time. After all the “Do-it-yourself” books of any kinds where we learned how to make dog-houses, fences, car painting and 4-pieces kitchen sets, now happiness seems to be the new quest for mankind available in any good bookstore. Happiness in a can, 2 minutes of microwave and it pops up. I am not exclusively talking about these silly books but the whole craze for asserting being a preacher of the counter culture on MTV. I am also talking about other sites such as incunabula.org who tells us “How to be enlightened” for only 24.99$ because “enlightement” now has a dollar sign attached to it. Of course many of you would be tempted to sell their hometown called Happyland for one of these “Answer-it-all” books or bands but in opposite to Ivan Stang’s quote from his pseudo-sect of the general Conspiracy, I’m not that certain that “It takes money to fight money” but in case you agree with him, he accepts personnal checks or money orders…
Rachel – aka – The Crimson King
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 amWhat proof do you have that any scientist was offered $10,000 if they refute global warming? Answers?
Comment by michael — February 26, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Here is your answer:
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
[...]
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific institute, said: “The IPCC is the world’s leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that ‘business as usual’ would lead to unacceptable risks [...]
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Please michael, try to keep up…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:20 amCory, the snicker was because of the way you stated that you’re a Ph.D student at Columbia (in social pysch) so your intelligence is quotient is ‘not up for debate’. Having a degree does not automatically denote intelligence… not having one doesn’t rule it out.
That said, personal attacks on somebody’s intelligence or education are just plain juvenile… while I admit I’ll do it sometimes, I *do* try to refrain; judging someone on a WEBSITE after a couple of postings (even 1000 postings) is just plain ludicrous. While I’m at it, this constant “you’re a conservative, you must be a bible-thumping homophobe” “yeah, well you’re a lib, you must be a gay-loving hippie) is asinine. Nobody on here *really* knows what anybody else intelligence/thoughts/education/etc is…. all we really do is guess.
So the reason for the snicker was your comment was just another example (but by no means the only one… on either side) of a schoolyard argument.
Believe it or not, I don’t think my opinion is the be-all and end-all, and I *usually* don’t get on here to troll. I welcome honest, reasoned, intelligent debate… I just get annoyed at the petty sniping. The best way to defend against a personal attack like that is to just ignore it. You probably should’ve done that.
Guess I should’ve also :-)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:24 amLet me help out here…
Michael says: “Did not”
OK, on to the next comment.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:24 amyeah… like that. Though I still don’t agree w/you :-)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:24 amLet me help out here…
Michael says: “Did notâ€
OK, on to the next comment.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle —
——————————————–
Now THAT was funny! ROTFL lmao
Good to see you back TT.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:30 am20 times the national average?! How? I mean, aren’t his kids out of the house by now, and doesn’t he travel constantly? Who is doing what to use that much energy?! He may buy offsetting carbon credits but it seems less sound than not using that much energy to begin with….
February 27th, 2007 at 12:30 amDale:
I agree that keeping debate respectful and open is essential, without which enlightenment and understanding will never be reached. I also agree that bipartisan politics is blinding this nation and causing more harm than good. I don’t agree with everything the democratic party supports just as I do not believe everything the Republican party supports, yet we’re constantly “picking sides” in debates and often losing sight of what we were initially arguing about.
So I guess I agree with you… there at least, on global warming, well, that’s another matter ;)…
I listed my “education” to be a bit sarcastic, mostly to prove the point that you already made (so I suppose I should have stated it as well as you did). I guess my [lack of] humor doesn’t work here lol. See, it’s important to not take yourself too seriously eh. =)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:31 am“Michael, if you nothing to bring to the discussion but personal attacks then please don’t say anything at all. In the end, it only undermines your points and reaffirms many of the readers and commentators on TP of your lack of credibility.
Comment by Cory — February 27, 2007 @ 12:06 am”
You obviously don’t have the intellect to grasp what I do here? I challenge your stupid liberal comments and ask you to back them up. Most of the time my challenges are met with insults, for example zooey and rachel, because they are too stupid to provide any substance to their ridiculous liberal rhetoric. Should I include you in that group?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:31 amNow THAT was funny! ROTFL lmao
Good to see you back TT.
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 27, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Michael says: “Was not!”
February 27th, 2007 at 12:32 amha!
lmao. heh
February 27th, 2007 at 12:33 amMichael says “Oh yeah, well, you’re dumb.”
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 am“Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
[…]
Please michael, try to keep up…
Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 27, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Gregor, are you really that stupid? These are accusations by kooks! Are you one yourself?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 amGore holding oscar: YOU LIKE ME, YOU REALLY, REALLY LIKE ME!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:38 amcmon guys, he flies around in a hugeass jet, has FIVE homes, hasn’r even converted his homes to solar yet and you still worship him?
what the hell is wrong with you?
Michael says: “Did not” to Gregor… man this style of arguing really takes me back….
February 27th, 2007 at 12:38 am“Michael says “Oh yeah, well, you’re dumb.â€
Comment by Cory — February 27, 2007 @ 12:35 am”
Well, if you can’t provide something intelligent to say I will include you in the children’s group with zooey and rachel. By the way rachel and zooey, I’m waiting for you to pick the subject? I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath? Cowards!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:39 am“#
Gore holding oscar: YOU LIKE ME, YOU REALLY, REALLY LIKE ME!
cmon guys, he flies around in a hugeass jet, has FIVE homes, hasn’r even converted his homes to solar yet and you still worship him?
what the hell is wrong with you?
Comment by ballbuster — February 27, 2007 @ 12:38 am”
Ball, haven’t you figured out yet that you are dealing with a bunch of children here?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:41 am….short trousers, snotty nose, sh*** school lunches… staying away from the first graders because they would try to beat us up and steal our snack money…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:43 amToo funny Michael, when confronted with the facts you attack. I am sure your are forgetting the Canadian guy at this point, because of his oil and gas company connections, but you and at least 2 other posters, linked to his “article”. I am sure you memory is not that short.
On that note, good night all.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:43 amblockquote> Well, if you can’t provide something intelligent to say I will include you in the children’s group with zooey and rachel.
Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:39 am
If you’ve read any of my posts, you’d realize the irony in your statement. Perhaps I’m using words that are too big for you to understand.
Me talk pretty for Michael. Michael like.
there, that better? This is the last time I’m addressing you, playa’. Peace.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:44 amI guess I should hold my breath?
Comment by michael —
—————————————–
Michael Did Not,
Can you do what you suggest above until the war is finally over?
Please?
I got Michael’s arms held behind his back if anyone wants to come by and coldcock him just for sport and of course the general principle of it all since it is only Michael.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:45 amBall, haven’t you figured out yet that you are dealing with a bunch of children here?
…. we never even knew what ‘projecting’ was….ah well, thanks for the trip down memory lane Mikey. Until next time, your homework assignment is defining a ‘rhetorical assertion’ for us…please show all your work.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:46 amGregor, are you really that stupid? These are accusations by kooks! Are you one yourself?
Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:35 am
I used to suspect you were slow-witted. I have just confirmed it.
Here is the link to the American Enterprise Institute’s website, where they confirm the story and offer their own explanation as to why they were offering $10,000 to anyone who could find flaws in the IPCC’s study.
Did you really think I didn’t have this link handy? Please. You are too stupider for words…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:47 amOh, me first, me!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:47 am“#
Too funny Michael, when confronted with the facts you attack. I am sure your are forgetting the Canadian guy at this point, because of his oil and gas company connections, but you and at least 2 other posters, linked to his “articleâ€. I am sure you memory is not that short.
On that note, good night all.
Comment by Krazny — February 27, 2007 @ 12:43 am”
Oh I remember unfortunately for you kooks you make stupid comments and can’t back them up referring to the Canadian by name and telling us all how he took money from the oil companies! How convenient? You probably will be too afraid to view my response when you wake up from your slumber?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:47 amI challenge your stupid liberal comments and ask you to back them up.
Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Most of your “challenges” are actually a “back to basics” kind of questions -like your demand that proof be produced showing money had been offered to anyone who could refute the IPCC’s report on global warming.
Here is a challenge for you: Provide a link to peer-reviewed work that cast doubts on the anthropogenic nature of the current global climate change.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:48 am“If you’ve read any of my posts, you’d realize the irony in your statement. Perhaps I’m using words that are too big for you to understand.
Me talk pretty for Michael. Michael like.
there, that better? This is the last time I’m addressing you, playa’. Peace.
Comment by Teej — February 27, 2007 @ 12:44 am”
The last time? Why? Afraid?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:49 am“I got Michael’s arms held behind his back if anyone wants to come by and coldcock him just for sport and of course the general principle of it all since it is only Michael.
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 27, 2007 @ 12:45 am”
Rachel, I’m sure the rest of your liberal buddies aren’t very impressed with your interaction here with people who don’t agree with you. When are you going to debate me?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:52 am“Here is the link to the American Enterprise Institute’s website, where they confirm the story and offer their own explanation as to why they were offering $10,000 to anyone who could find flaws in the IPCC’s study.
Did you really think I didn’t have this link handy? Please. You are too stupider for words…
Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 27, 2007 @ 12:47 am”
I’ve read the article before and dismiss it as propaganda! What I’m more interested in is what YOU think and have to say. In other words, what’s in that grey matter? What can you debate without having to refer to links and articles? Are you up for it?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:56 amI have no life. I frequent blogs in order to call people names and attempt to counter my self-esteem issues. I have a small penis. Please help me. Someone. Please.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:57 amGore has salved his conscience by purchasing an indulgence to cover his abuse of resources. What he has admitted is that he actually uses far more power than the utility bills show — the solar panels (which cost a pretty offset penny to produce themselves) are only partially masking a level of power use far above that of normal human beings. I note he is not disputing the amounts of the bills specified on Drudge.
I know a hypocrite when we see one; in order for Gore’s offsets to be meaningful, he would have to purchase offsets equivalent to his excess footprint each month, and those offsets must immediately be put into place, not at some point far in the future when it might not make a difference to Gore’s Science. Hence, the offsets purchased must be at least equivalent to his excess power consumption; I’d sure like Mr. Gore to show us the receipts (at least a year’s worth) for that level of commitment, as well as the physical manifestations of his offsets.
This stranger from another planet would have us all change our lifestyles, but doesn’t seem to want to change his.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, ….
February 27th, 2007 at 12:58 ammaybe when you have something logical to say
February 27th, 2007 at 12:59 am“Here is a challenge for you: Provide a link to peer-reviewed work that cast doubts on the anthropogenic nature of the current global climate change.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — February 27, 2007 @ 12:48 am”
NO! I’m not making the claim, you jerks are so I don’t have to prove ANYTHING! You clowns are falling all over each other claiming global warming! Prove it!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:59 amnite
February 27th, 2007 at 1:00 amMy prayer was answered. Quick, someone get a pillow, maybe we can save the world from one more…
February 27th, 2007 at 1:04 amI’ve read the article before and dismiss it as propaganda!
Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Are you really this slow? It is a link to the AEI’s own website!
Do you mean the AEI are spreading propaganda against themselves?
Are you normally this asinine, or are you making a special effort tonight?
What I’m more interested in is what YOU think and have to say. In other words, what’s in that grey matter?
I just proved you wrong. Twice. That’s what’s in the grey matter.
What can you debate without having to refer to links and articles? Are you up for it?
What’s the problem, michael -am I typing too fast for you?
You were the one who wanted evidence. I provided it. How in the world do you expect to see evidence without a link? How exactly?
All those years of private school education were wasted on you.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:07 amMichael, have you done your number facts to be handed in tomorrow? And will you please stop yelling “Did not” at people. Yelling louder does not change the facts that these people here present into something else no matter how tight you close your eyes and wish it… please try to show some maturity.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:09 amNO! I’m not making the claim, you jerks are so I don’t have to prove ANYTHING! You clowns are falling all over each other claiming global warming! Prove it! Comment by michael — February 27, 2007 @ 12:59 am
It’s proven. Prove that it’s not proven, st*pid desk hugging c*ward c*nt.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:13 am[...] Progress, a liberal site if there ever was one, talked to the Gore camp. The explanation? Well, it’s ok, because Gore buys carbon offsets. How nice for him. But [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:14 ammichael left? Aaaawww… I was barely warming up.
Funny how every time I provide links to back up what I say (michael’s favorite meme), he turns around and asks “can you debate without reference to links and articles?”
Whenever he says that, I know he’s stumped.
Pathetic little troll…
February 27th, 2007 at 1:15 am[...] Gore’s have responded of course: 1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:18 amMichael was drunk and passed out just before his “nite” comment.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 amMichael was drunk and passed out just before his “nite†comment.
Comment by Matt Jett
His fingers must have hit “enter” on the way down.
LOL
February 27th, 2007 at 2:36 amHey Patrick1,
How’s the weather in Wingnuttia? I also noticed you don’t leave your full real name.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:05 am[...] Over at ThinkProgress, where every good liberal goes to find out exactly what to think each day, they’ve come out [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 3:32 amAl Gore’s Mansion Uses As Much Electricity In A Month As An Average House Does In A Year…
Let me be clear up front, I could care less about Al Gore and his politics. This isn’t an attack because he is a leftie, it is an attack on his hypocrisy. The ultimate in hypocrisy. Al Gore has been……
February 27th, 2007 at 3:44 am[...] that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero. Think Progress » Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics Stupid right wing smear merchants…this is why Gore is a hero, he backs up what he says, and [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 4:25 amFebruary 27th, 2007 at 4:34 am
I love this global warming angle. You can fly a private jet as much as you want, use as much electricity at home as you want, have a huge house and waste as much energy as you want: as long as you are rich enough to pay for “offsets”.
No wonder Hollywood loves this whole thing. They can continue to spew out CO2, use insane amounts of energy, and still talk condescendingly to Americans about their carbon footprint, simply because they are rich enough.
Poor Joe American, driving his pick-up truck to work, can’t afford fancy carbon offsets. Al Gore makes him feel bad about himself, while Gore flies private jets and heats up his mansion.
Sheer brilliance.
Who cares if gas prices go up? Who cares if energy costs go up because of new restrictions on emissions? Who cares if Americans can’t afford an electric car? Who cares if Americans have to pay more taxes on energy?
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:52 amWho cares if gas prices go up? Who cares if energy costs go up because of new restrictions on emissions? Who cares if Americans can’t afford an electric car? Who cares if Americans have to pay more taxes on energy?Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
Who cares if gas prices go up? Certainly no dum bass Norwegians like you – eh? Tell me Seixon, living on the dole?
Liberals are the ones that want both affordable and renewable energy – and the ‘rich liberals’ are offsetting their lifestyles, while rich conservatives only bother shooting their friends in the face while doing nothing to help the problem.
You have to be the stupidest Norwegian I’ve ever seen post! Your half american side must be from the dumbest hick redneck inbred stock on the planet!
February 27th, 2007 at 5:04 amI love this global warming angle.
—————————————————–
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
——————————————————
Correction. Al Gore made his millions when he invented this wonderful device you and I are using right this minute called the internet.
Where have you been?
Dumbass, get your facts straight.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:19 amI love this global warming angle.
—————————————————–
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
——————————————————
Correction. Al Gore made his millions when he invented this wonderful device you and I are using right this minute called the internet.
Where have you been?
Dumbass, get your facts straight.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:23 amI love this global warming angle.
—————————————————–
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
——————————————————
Correction. Al Gore made his millions when he invented this wonderful device you and I are using right this minute called the internet.
Where have you been?
Dumbass, get your facts straight.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:25 amI love this global warming angle.
—————————————————–
Al Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon — February 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am
——————————————————
Correction. Al Gore made his millions when he invented this wonderful device you and I are using right this minute called the internet.
Where have you been?
Dumbass, get your facts straight.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:28 amWell let’s face you libtards, you aren’t happy unless your idols are liars and hypocrites…
Then again who but a libtard believes in the myth of global warming?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:11 am[...] controversy apparently stirred up enough attention to cause Gore’s office to respond through Think Progress. The response, to me, seems a little weak, but I honestly didn’t realize it was necessary in [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 7:27 am[...] Gore responds, saying he uses “green power” and has installed solar panels, compact fluorescent bulbs [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 7:39 amUm…If his electrical usage was solar generated, why did the reports of his consumption come from the power company???
Does the power company operate and charge him for the energy collected by his solar panels? Or is the solar energy collected IN ADDITION to that purchased from the power company?
This isn’t rocket surgery people…surely you can’t be that stupid.
Then again…
February 27th, 2007 at 7:41 amTypical behavior of anybody who doesn’t want to hear the message. Shoot the messenger.
Al Gore is another hypocrite. A thankless politician, on a goberment retirement pension, who takes everything for granted.
Liberal, Democrat, conservative, Republican, it doesn’t matter. When they’re hypocrites, they’re hypocrites.
You are the last thing on their minds. Think for yourself. To thine own self be true. Forget about Al Gore.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:44 amI don’t get it, whether one supports scientific findings that show global warming exists or not, if our nation mobilized to react to the threat it would be a win-win situation.
For you skeptics, if global warming is real, then we do something about it.
If it isn’t, then there are no negatives to responding to it. First we reduce smog/pollution which is detrimental to our health. You do believe in better health don’t you? I would choose to intake clean air and water over the polluted variety, which is becoming all too common.
We create new businesses who provide enviro-friendly services. Saying that it hurts business is a crock of crap. Yeah, it hurts the business that is unwilling to adapt. Those businesses are bad for us anyway since their unwillingness to change hurts us economically, look at our car industry.
So, reacting to the global warming threat, whether it exists or not, has both health and economic benefits. Is there anything I missed?
February 27th, 2007 at 8:02 am[...] (David L)Â Just as surley as the Sun rises in the East, the folks at Think Progress are upset. what yet again, that the one their heros have been smeared by the right wing: The [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 8:21 amThen again who but a libtard believes in the myth of global warming?
Comment by juandos
Oreilly says global warming deniers are “nutsâ€.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ Media/ Play/ 14722/ 1/ 60Minutes-OReilly.wmv
February 27th, 2007 at 8:25 amAl Gore and the Hollywood elite don’t – they’re rich.
Comment by Seixon
If you bothered doing any research before coming to an opinion you would find the idea to the offsets is to fund non Saudi terrorist oil energy projects since our Saudi terrorist loving right winger president wont put the government into Manhattan Project mode to get it done. And that means the rich are paying for the power generators of the future that will provide power for more than just themselves.
And those that cant afford it just keep doing as they are. Eventually the whole society will get converted over and those that cant afford then will be able to. Real simple. To bad you cant read up on it before blowing off your mouth.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:30 amHere are som people who have scientific arguments aginst the hockey stick:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/search/search_article.asp?id=14429&cid=0&cname=Results
February 27th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Al – You are still using more energy no matter how many “offsets” you buy.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:38 amWhy not move to a smaller house, use less energy?
Practice what you preach.
http://mwillett.org/Politics/cedars1.htm
February 27th, 2007 at 8:56 amI like how conservatives call us liberals/progressives believers in ‘myths’ such global warming, yet they believe everything this administration says. They believe that Iraq had WMD, and they are still there to be found, or are in Syria and Iran. They also believe Iraq had connections to Al Qaeda.
Oh, and they believe in the greatest myth of them all, creationism.
Global warming deniers are on the same level of scientists that believe the world is flat and that the world was created 6,000 years ago.
I also like how they try and frame it that we started the bullying and name calling over global warming. In fact, we responded to their attacks on scientific studies that the vast majority of scientists in the world agree with and find no fault in the methodology. So, rather than quoting from clap trap that comes from people with an anti-global warming agenda, get one academic, peer reviewed study that refutes global warming. You cannot, because there is none. No scientific study has found that global warming does not exist.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:57 am[...] must be feeling pretty invincible as he took it upon himself to respond to, as the very liberal Think Progress describes it, Drudge’s “latest hysterics” on Al Gore’s gw [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:05 amAl – You are still using more energy no matter how many “offsets†you buy.
Why not move to a smaller house, use less energy?
Practice what you preach.
Comment by Dot R
So you advocate a communist system where everyone lives in the same small house?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:09 amGlobal warming exists. It has been in existence for some five billion years.
Anthropogenic causes are what is suspect.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:10 amFor all you “progressives” out there, it’s very simple.
Al Gore is asking us all to sacrifce to cut our energy use…and he is not.
Al Gore is asking us to use less energy…and he is using multiples times as much energy as an average household needs.
Carbon footprint and carbon neutral?? C’mon…that’s a lawyerly response. Be carbon negative.
I like what Captain Ed says:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009270.php
“. . .purchasing offsets only means that Gore doesn’t want to make the same kind of sacrifices that he’s asking other families to make. He’s using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others. It means that the very rich can continue to suck up energy and raise the price and the demand for electricity and natural gas, while families struggle with their energy costs and face increasing government regulation and taxation. It’s a regressive plan that Gore’s supporters would decry if the same kind of scheme were applied to a national sales tax, for instance.
And basically, it doesn’t address the issue of hypocrisy. If Gore and his family continue to increase their consumption of commercial energy with all of the resources they have at hand, then they have no business lecturing the rest of us on conservation and down-scaling our own use.”
February 27th, 2007 at 9:15 amI don’t think I’m going out on a limb here by guessing that no one here attacking Al Gore or the fact that current warm trends are caused by man has seen the movie Inconvenient Truth. Here is my challenge, all of you should get together, pool your resources, and rent the movie. Watch it, digest it, then come back here and criticize the scientific findings which Al Gore discusses in the movie.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:17 amI’ve tried searching your site for a definition of carbon offset to no avail. Perhaps you owe your readers an explanation before making claims as to who does or does not understand the issue.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:20 amthere is very little dispute about global warming. the debate centers on causation. know this, human beings are part of the natural world. our activity is normal and the planet does not care if we are here or not. it will not know when we are gone. the earth is a life creating machine. nothing we can do or not do will change that fact. we cannot, by virtue of our existence or activity, destroy the planet. that is hyperbole, pure and simple. we might put an end to the human species through nuclear war, though even that is highly unlikely, but we cannot stop the earth from producing life.
understand this: human beings are vain creatures. to think we could make the earth unliveable/uninhabitable is not only the height of human vanity, it is an exposition of ignorance of geological time and our place on that timeline.
grow up neo-luddites, we aren’t that important in the short or long run. we can’t change the weather, we can’t even predict the weather. enjoy a long and happy life, get on with enjoying it instead of fretting over a phenomenon you can neither cause, control or abate.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am#221 John F.
When you don’t understand something, you should try using the google, very helpful for finding answers. Don’t bother though, since I already did it and have a link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
February 27th, 2007 at 9:26 am[...] 2: Yawn. Their response is directed to the guy doing the linking and not to the original report (doh). [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:26 am[...] Al Gore’s office have responded here. [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:28 amHere are the facts, Rachel
“Dumbass, get your facts straight.” And posted FOUR times, no less! Priceless.
Better stick to “proving” global warming.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:30 amFinally, a rich, resource-chugging fatcat the port side can swoon over (well, besides the Soroses, Spielbergs, Streisands, Penns, etc. that is).
Does anyone know what Algore’s mansion’s square footage is? I’ve got a pretty big house (4,000 sf finished) and I spend a tiny fraction of what the voluminous ex-Veep does. Is he up in the range of John Edwards’ country estate, 20,000 sf-plus?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am#222 nick
ok, if we still lived in caves and used rocks for tools, then we would still be part of the natural world. Being human, however, we adapt it to our needs and do things that are beyond nature.
Nature never intended for there to be a massive amount of motorized vehicles and industries belching CO2 into the atmosphere.
To say we cannot destroy the planet is ignorant, since we have that capability. We can do it slowly, by destroying an environment through over harvesting of resources and pollution, or we could detonate of few nuclear weapons.
Also, calling us ‘neo-luddites’ is absurd since we support technology and its advancement. What we want is enviro-friendly technology so that our planet is preserved and continue to support life and we can live healthier and thus happier lives.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:31 amI understand that the contention of energy profligacy is based on the Gore household utility bills. If his bills continue to go up despite the installation of solar panels, compact fluorescents and so on, that’s pretty amazing. Perhaps he needs an energy audit from his local utility.
I’m sure our home is much more modest than Mr. Gore’s, but we have central air plus supplemental room air conditioners running pretty much nonstop from April through October, and two refrigerateros in our two kitchens, and I don’t believe that our annual usage costs us more than $4,000.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:33 amAnthropogenic Global Warming is a Theory not a scientific Fact.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:34 amhttp://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468
It just gets worse.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:37 amuh, ashenshard, how do you know what nature “intended”.? either you are a presumptuous buffoon or you have an inside line on what nature does or doesn’t want that none of the rest of us do.
no we can’t destroy the planet. we are like fleas on an elephant’s back only less significant.
the planet preserves itself and takes no notice of our efforts to be clean or dirty. what kind of literature do you read that makes you think otherwise?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:38 amGore can request all the green energy he wants from the NES and instsall his own solar panels.
However, this statement is merely a distraction of the facts.
The power the Gore family household consumes is greater than 88% from C02 sources, and still, his kwh consumption from the NES has increased between 10-15% annually versus the national average of 2 to 3%.
Any way you look at it, Gore’s energy footprint is 20 TIMES LARGER than the average American household, and that means the Gore family household is clearly doing their part to contribute to our human-man global warming problem.
Wake up, you can’t have it both ways. If Gore’s wealth and house size is his excuse, then the parameters of the same argument can be applied to other issues involving the wealthy like taxes.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:39 amGlad to know you lefties are down with the concept of plenary indulgences. Of course, Rank has its Privileges, don’t it?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:40 am#228
May I refer you to posts 118 and 156 to understand the position of ‘theory’ in the science community.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:43 amJust curious to know exactly what all you global warming believers are doing to reduce YOUR impact? I guess you are all driving hybrid vehicles, or no motorized vehicles at all; and that you only use your central heating/cooling systems in the most extreme temperature situations. Right? If not then you are contributing just as much to global warming as those who don’t “believe”…
February 27th, 2007 at 9:43 am#230 nick
So I’m guessing you are one that has no problem with an industry dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:44 am[...] the press release I noted in this post got Al Gore’s attention. He responded to the blog Think Progress who characterizes Drudge’s headline as an “attack” and a [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:45 am#234 EC
It is called reducing, not eliminating. No one who accepts that global warming exists says we have to go back to the stone age to end it. Doing small things, just to reduce it a little bit helps, like turning out lights you are not using, and not putting the temp so high during the winter or low during the summer. Not only does it reduce the amount of carbon you use, but it saves you money. You would like to save money, would you not?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:48 amPrior to Christopher Columbus’ voyage, there was no meaningful scientific debate about the shape of the earth. The consensus was that it was flat, and that Columbus would fall off the edge of it.
Science is not a democracy.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:50 ami’ll ignore your bs question about toxic sludge in our drinking water. more hyperbole from the anointed i’d guess, huh, ashenshard?
give it a rest.
but the fact remains, no matter how much we pollute, no matter how many nuclear weapons we explode, we could NOT end life on this planet. the earth occupies a place in our solar system that, unless we were able to affect our orbit, provides all the primary materials for life. no matter what we do, life will always find a way.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:52 am#237 John
Actually, that is a myth. It was all pretty much accepted that the earth was round by that point.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:53 amI just just very proud that the USA is leading the way among important countries. We produce over 2.5 GDP per 1 emission while places like China, Russia, and India produce around 0.5 GDP per emission. It is time that these countries come to us and learn how to clean up there act. If only the rest of the large economies would follow our lead and clean up there act we would be in a much better place.
I am proud that we in America are leading the way. If we want any chance at saving this planet, it is time to start pressing China, India, and Russia. They are are the number 1 problem.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:55 am“carbon offsets” are so amusing to me. They’re so…. mideval. Like buying indulgences for sins in advance from the Catholic Church. Needless to say, a setup like this one does not exactly convince me that global warming is more of a faith than a science.
Is Al Gore a Protestant? Didn’t Martin Luther nail something to a church door about this sort of thing?
February 27th, 2007 at 9:56 amAl Gore’s Own Inconvenient Truth
Al Gore’s mansion uses more than twice the electricity in one month than the average household does in an entire year. From the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh–more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh–guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
Yikes! Gore is an energy glutton. Now compare this to President Bush’s comparatively modest home in Crawford, Texas, which is a model of environmental friendliness:
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.
This is President George W. Bush’s “Texas White House” outside the small town of Crawford.
Keep in mind that this piece by Rob Sullivan was first published in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, so the fact that President Bush’s home was ecology friendly was not unknown in the media. They just chose to ignore it while they heaped praise on Gore.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am[...] Gore’s can afford to continue in the lifestyles to which they’ve become accustomed, and even if they purchase offsets or install solar panels (and fluorescent bulbs), it’s not enough. It wouldn’t ever be enough. The Gore’s [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 10:01 am#236
I said reduce, not eliminate. Additionally, I already do those things you mentioned, plus I recently bought an “environmentally friendly” car so that I could reduce the frequency of buying gasoline now and easily convert to biofuels in the near future. Obviously, Gore is not “turning out lights” when he leaves a room, and he’s “not putting the temp so high during summer or low during the summer,” or else his energy bill wouldn’t be so astronomical. Fortunately for him, though, he can afford to buy “offsets” to make himself feel better. I equate the purchasing of these carbon offsets with the wetland credits large developers in Florida, Georgia, and other states are allowed purchase in order to destroy the natural wetlands and build artificial ones in places where they can’t make as much money. You can’t “buy” a better environment, so if you’re so worried about it, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!
February 27th, 2007 at 10:02 am[...] Wait no more. Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am[...] exactly after the movie won raised my suspicions — and it appears, the suspicions of others. According to the Tennessean, Gore’s power bill shows that he is offsetting his energy use. From the [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 10:09 amA scientist’s careful analysis of the state of global warming science:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
an excerpt:
Proposition / Conclusion
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. -False
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptiional. -Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. – False
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. – Unlikely
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. – Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. – Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. – Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. – Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. – Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. – False
February 27th, 2007 at 10:11 am#243
Actually, buying a better environment works really well. Us hunters have been doing it for years. We go out and buy 1000 acres or so of dirt fields. We then dig ponds, plant natural grass’, plant trees, and various other plants. Basically, we convert it back to wilderness. We also buy up property that is already in great conidtion. This allows wildlife to keep the land instead of it turning into dirt fields. You can see the benefits of this program today. We currently have more deer and turkeys then have ever been recorded. The Timberwolf and Moose in Minnesota have made a comeback and the Bald Eagle is no longer on the endangered species list. Furthermore, many other species like Red Fox and Mink have made a great comeback as well. Having the rich elitest like Gore and his Hollywood friends spend money to offset/ buy emissions isn’t a bad idea. The best way to fix any problem is to let the free market decide. When you have enough folks that want a clean environment, that becomes a product with value.
I fully support Gore promoting this idea. I think it is absolutely wonderful to let the markets fix this problem. It worked with wildlife, CRP, and forests. Why can’t it work with emissions?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:11 amThe house in question is just one of four the ex-VP lives in and owns. He has another in Carthage, Tenn., one in the D.C. area and a plush condo in San Francisco (plus a house he rents out). In other words his households are spread coast-to-coast with the attendant transportation belching of what he thinks are deleterious CO2 emissions traveling back and forth between jet trips to $100,000 speaking fees in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to get to them. When contacted by USA Today (hardly a bastion of Conservative propaganda) in late 2006, his office responded that of the single house in question, Gore was “looking into” signing up for green power. I guess he signed up after that so he could say he did.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:11 amWhat a maroon.
This careful, critical assessment of the current scientific arguments that support the “consensus” about global warming is worth a read.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
an excerpt:
Proposition / Conclusion
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. -False
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptiional. -Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. – False
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. – Unlikely
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. – Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. – Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. – Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. – Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. – Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. – False
February 27th, 2007 at 10:13 amAl Bore,
As soon as you start living like you want the rest of us to live, I will change my lifestyle. Until then, I plan to drive my SUV, eat cheeseburgers occasionally, turn my house lights on at night, and support the soldiers of the United States of America doing their best to keep terrorists off our soil.
You don’t walk the walk, at all.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:20 amthe present crop of environmental activists tend to be, like their Goracle, statists. this is, to my mind, all about political power and the ability to regulate the lives and livelihoods of free peoples everywhere. statists will use whatever tools are at their disposal, in this case alarmist calls to save the planet. this is propaganda, pure and simple.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:21 amInteresting Al Gore made his movie “A Convenient Distortion,” um, “An INconvenient Truth,” a year ago and has been pounding the alarmist drum about so-called anthropogenic global warming, but is only NOW beginning to use ‘green’ energy. For his mammoth mansion.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:25 amWrong on the Kilowat hours. The research center published what the power company recorded as Mr. Gores annual usage. All other power sources would be off-line and not recored as KWH.
Paying Tereapass for carbon Credits is like paying the Catholic church Indulgences. Martin Luther didn’t like that much either.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:26 amDamn that slimy Drudge. Smearing people like Gore by reporting their actions.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:30 amre: # 251
yeah and his website’s ugly too.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am#243 EC
Well then, more people should follow your example and do those things. I think with Gore, he buys the offsets which only those with wealth could do, and it helps because it is an investment for developing clean technology.
I think maybe the ‘practice what you preach’, if you compare him to others who have the same wealth he does, he has lower than average emissions. He also takes commercial airlines unless he absolutely cannot, though he can afford to take private. How many wealthy people can you say do that? Comparing his level of Carbon output to common Americans is flawed since they do not go around trying to educate the world and make a difference on this topic.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:32 amIt also reinforces the point that he is not trying to make everyone give up technology, just modify their use of it and cut wastefulness to the best of ones ability, and not to the point giving up everything and living in caves.
If the man were honest and not such a pig, he would reduce consumption and not use his unearned wealth to buy “credits” (i.e. I have enough money I can pay for my wasteful energy consumption and pay someone a non-profit some cash to make me look and feel better). Like those that awarded him, he has no idea of what it entails to be a typical working family. Let them eat credits!
I will continue to cut my energy consumption to help offset his pigish behavior.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:32 amre: # 253
a telling statement from one of the anointed regarding the cherished Goracle
“Comparing his level of Carbon output to common Americans is flawed “
we’d never compare our common selves to the enlightened one, no never.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:38 amI have no problems with Gore using way to much energy as long as he is true to his word and buys enough environmental projects to offset it. This is what the free market is all about. He piggishly burns tons of fossil fuels and buys a bunch of forests to offset it. It is a win win in my book. I salute him!!
February 27th, 2007 at 10:39 amAnyone have any evidence that climate change can be slowed, stopped, or reversed by human indulgences? Does anyone want to reverse the current warming trend?
I wholeheartedly endorse global warming. The alternative is far more threatening.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:39 amA simple question from a sceptic, not an American one mind you : I am a Belgian citizen.
I happen to have an interest in history and I know there was a warm spell that lasted about three centuries in the Middle ages. They had vineyards in Scotland then and the Vikings founded colonies in Greenland. Surely this had nothing to do with carbon emissions?
Another question : how can you seriously call deniers “brainwashed” when it is so obvious that the brainwashing occurs exclusively on the other side of the argument. Here in Europe the media, school teachers, politicians, unions, everyone is constantly talking about it and they are al saying exactly the same things. It got even worse after Gore put out his video : nobody bothered to argue anymore. “Go see Al Gore’s video” they all said, as it was God’s own word. Sceptics and deniers may be wrong, but they are definitely not being brainwashed.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:44 amAs usual, this site avoids the big points. Gore claims he is carbon neutral, and takes all these steps, yet why then is his energy bill so high?
And how is Drudge a hysteric for pointing this out? Especially since Gore’s movie makes claims unsupported by the IPCC and other studies he cites in the film. All of the claims of his film are insanely exaggerated.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:48 amI bought and planted four large Maple trees last fall! I going Hummer shopping.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:50 amWhat fun it will be when the books of those receiving funds for selling credits are audited.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:53 am“…purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint…”
Now, that’s funny right there. Global warming is a critical problem. But Al can’t cut his carbon footprint down to nothing FOR REAL, so it’s OK to throw money at it.
Funny stuff.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:55 amWas “Oscar” covered in socially conscious gold? How many children lost an arm for Gore’s trophy?
February 27th, 2007 at 10:59 amWhat is funny is that the hated George W. Bush’s home is much more enviromentally friendly than the Gore mansion. Hypocracy, thy name is liberal.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:01 amDoes Al buy offsets for the emmissions coming from his mouth?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:09 amI will continue to cut my energy consumption to help offset his pigish behavior.
Comment by Todd
————————————————–
That’s the spirit. Take one for the “Gipper”, I mean Uncle Sam, you are so patriotic and a very good American for doing your part.
We’re all very proud of you.
Keep up the good work.
————————————————–
Does Al buy offsets for the emmissions coming from his mouth?
Comment by Todd —
————————————————–
No, but I am going to be checking into purchasing some Tic-Tac stock for that emination of fecal matter coming from your mouth.
I think I will make a “killing” on this investment.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:16 amAnyone have a credit for sale? I just let loose of an aweful one.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am[...] bill, rather than refuting the legitimacy of the argument itself. ThinkProgress.org has a post devoted to explaining that Gore is not actually a hypocrite. They pay some lip service to the [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 11:18 amre:266
the true believers get upset when you criticize their religion.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:19 amThanks, Rachel. I takes a good friend like you to let one know they need a brushing. Could you also speak to Al?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:22 amWhich is more arrogant and small minded at the same time: To say “we caused ‘global warming’” or to say “we can fix ‘global warming’?”
This planet will outlive all of us. WHEN a meteorite hits, we’ll really see our physical significance to the earth. Follow the money guys! “Global warming” fear and fixes are all about getting your money! After all… it’s driven by democrats!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:26 amAl Gore is full of SHIT and so are his sycophants!!!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:26 amSorry to share the news, Rachael. I was going to act on your interesting investment tip, but the company is privately held. They also make Nutella, the world’s number one sweet spead (not including Paris Hilton).
February 27th, 2007 at 11:28 amI think the majority of the first 200 commenters were missing the point. Theories, consensus, blah, blah, blah.
Good for Al that he has enough money to live in a house that big and pay those kind of utility bills. As a conservative capitalist with a libertarian streak, I say more power too him. What rubs me the wrong way is the condescending attitude about what he thinks I should be doing to fix the problem. Don’t regulate what kind of light bulbs I should purchase. Don’t put your hand in my wallet and give tons of subsidies to corn farmers. Don’t look down your nose at me because I chose to buy a pick-up truck rather than a Vespa to get back and forth to work. And especially don’t do those things when you use 20 times more energy than I do.
And to the commenters who contend that “nobody is hurt” if we implement this Kyoto crap. I’m calling BS. We could effectively destroy the world economy and all go back to living in grass huts. Millions would die of poverty/starvation. Look no further than Rachel “Silent Spring” Carson charlatan. After her scare-book/movie came out, DDT was banned and hundreds of thousand of people (children mostly) have died of malaria as a result. All actions have consequences and “good intentions” doesn’t change the likelihood of a bad outcome.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:29 amAMERICAN Scientific Accomplishments:
Cotton gin
Light bulb
Typewriter
Telegraph
Telephone
Television
Phonograph
Assembly Line
Sewing Machine
Computer
Internet
Automobiles
Airplanes
Space travel/Lunar mission
Atomic energy
Lasers
Artificial Heart
Polio Vaccine
Yeah, I can see why you’d be skeptical of scientists. I mean, they didn’t invent EVERYTHING like your Lord did. LOL! Maybe one of you can squint real hard and pray for the Lord to give you a list of religion’s contributions to civilization in response. What a bunch of ignorant rednecks. It would also be nice if the “skeptical” scientists you so often refer to weren’t being offered $10,000 for their souls – I mean opinions.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:30 am$10,000? Is that true? Do you realize how many jars of Nutella that would buy?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:34 amRE: 274
you can thank US entrepreneurs for those innovations. the free market system is a wonderful thing. you should try it sometime.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:37 amWhat a load of shit. “…purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint…” That’s like Ted Haggart offsetting his homosexuality with anti-homosexual preaching. What a bunch of hypocrites.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:38 amI have a problem with people who use a lot of energy. Just because it’s green doesn’t mean you can waste it. My solar panels generate more than I need. It goes back to the grid and helps power someone else’s house who cannot afford to put solar on their roof. Gore’s electric bill is huge unless, of course he has 100 people living (not employed, but living) in the house. The gas bill is also huge and that is not from renewable sources.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:39 amHow many extra earths would we need if we all wanted to live like Al Gore? He’s just another champagne socialist.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:39 amROFL LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLLOOL HAHAHA HAAAAAAA
February 27th, 2007 at 11:40 amI can’t stop laughing, YOU sir should be a comedienne. So funny, my sides, OH my SIDES…
….Installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology….Wow he did all that and he is still burning more than the avg house in 18 months? Way to go Al! Say, as long as you are buying carbon credits to promote your new green investment company, can you buy some for me, too, so I can sleep better at night? I stay awake at night shivering in the cold becuase I don’t want to burn any coal or turn on my lights, thanks to your “Inconsistent Truth” came out! I wish this Global Warming would fianlly kick in and melt the 4 freaking feet of snow outside my door….thanks Al…you rock. Say, Al, do any of the proceeds from the movie, or the “offsets” go to any election campaigns?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:43 amAl Gore is nothing but a stupid a$$ liberal democratic hypocrit. He has no problem preaching for all of us to change our lightbulbs and drive compact cars yet he lives in a friggin mansion and travels in fuel guzzling jets and SUV’s. What a moron…along with you morons that follow him.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:46 amOh, so its OK for Al to pollute all he wants because he is paying some poor slob not to pollute? Is that how it works? Sounds like a scam of the first order to me—do as I say, meanwhile I’ll do whatever I want because I’m rich. Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal….
February 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amPoor Al, he was born with a silver credit in his mouth.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amAfter 2,500 prominent scientists declared that we were contributing to and exacerbating global warming, The American Enterpri$e In$titute offered $10,000 to any scientist to come forward and dispute it. Weak.
And to your nonsense about a free market:
a. Any rational, unemotional adult would see green technologies as a potential emerging marketplace and industry.
b. Would have been nice to see the so-called “free market” ideology proven with the rebuilding to Iraq and New Orleans but you would rather see your friends get no-bid contracts than actually prove your fantasies.
STFU
February 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amI love it. The inconvenient truth of Al Gore’s hypocrisy! He is both a loser in politics and a loser in life. And it’s funny because the Algore ass kissers of Think Progress have no meaningful argument to defend him. When it comes to a carbon footprint, the ex-vice president has to put his foot in his mouth.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:51 amDon’t believe for a minute Al Gore is anything but bright. Ken Lay would have been wise to take his lead from Al. Ken is now food for the earth, while Al tries to rid the world of food.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:52 amAny slightly educated investor would not be criticized for passing on highly speculative investments like New Orleans and Iraq. By the way, which is safer?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:54 amI absolutely adore the comments that criticize an individual for researching and producing a documentary consisting of facts and theories from scientists and independent researchers in order to address an issue that should be in the minds of every single person. Mr. Gore became a target with his own volition and money, fully aware of impending criticism. “An Inconvenient Truth†did not rake in huge profits or break any records, and the profits it did make went to fund causes in fighting climate change. To believe that Mr. Gore would not take the steps necessary in altering his own energy consumption and habits, assuming that his lifestyle was antithetical to his own beliefs in the first place, is preposterous. Mr. Gore has taken the necessary steps in drawing any energy consumed from alternative GREEN energy sources. Mr. Gore is NOT utilizing carbon credits, that is a concept developed for individuals who do NOT use green sources of energy since most Americans do not have access to alternative sources of energy (and the American populace can thank the Bush administration and Exxon/Mobil for hindering progress in that field).
It is easy to criticize and poke flaws than it is in actually being productive and ACTIVE members of society. I often wonder why naysayers become so defensive and angry with environmental issues that it results in arguments and personal attacks, instead of actually having an open mind to the issue and debating it intelligently and calmly. Perhaps when logic is not in accordance with ones one view, anger and personal attacks are all that are left.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:55 amAmazing You idiot libs attack Drudge for printing the TRUTH about your leader, Al Gore. Deal with it, slobs, you lost in 2000 and he is a hypocrite. Facts! Remember this Gore statement when he was taking
February 27th, 2007 at 11:57 amdonations against the law? THERE IS NO CONTROLING LEGAL AUTHORITY! You liberal anti life losers deserve a ‘man’ like Al Gore
Let’s see here, you right-wing dumbfvcks hate:
Teachers
College Professors
Scientists
Educated Urbanites
I figured it out – you’re STOOPID!!! LOL
February 27th, 2007 at 11:57 amThe power of the Goracle (updated!)…
While Al Gore is running around telling everyone there’s a scientific consensus on global warming (there isn’t) and how we need to take steps now to reduce the emission of pollutants, the Nashville Electric Service tells us that the monthly…
February 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amYour pointman is a fraud.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amI’m all for many of the environmental solutions proposed by people like AlGore. That doesn’t change the fact that man made global warming is more real than man mad global cooling was.
Dissenters are merely shouted down and persecuted by the global warming crowd. The “scientists” behind global warming theories are seldom climate specialists, the actual climatologists are teh main people disputing this fraud.
Let’s get green, but there’s no reason to base it on fraudulent research.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amValiant,
You seemed only to get angry for me exposing that Al Gore is a ludicrous poser. His policies, which want to tax industry for emissions, will make energy more expensive for the ordinary American. Of course, Al Gore and his friends are rich, so he doesn’t need to worry.
Meanwhile, he’s telling all Americans to use less CO2. Most Americans can’t afford carbon offsets, so they’ll have to choose between driving their old car to work, or… oh wait, many people don’t have another choice. So poor old Joe American, who has to drive his pick-up truck to the mine everyday, he feels bad because Al Gore says he is making global warming worse, while he can’t afford fancy carbon offsets.
Al Gore, on the other hand, is emitting far more CO2 than Joe American, but talks down to Joe American because he doesn’t have the luxury of being able to afford carbon offsets, the magical bean.
It is the worst sort of liberal elitism.
What do you mean you can’t afford to be carbon neutral??!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:59 amTodd – you are an idiot. Iraq and NOLA were GOVERNMENT rebuilding projects, not investments. Let talk nice and slow for you like Dubya does:
They gives out de monies to companies to build stuff and do things
They’re not investing anything, they’re RECEIVING government contracts to do work.
Jesus Christ!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:00 pmnice take on the late Ann Richards quote “Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
Ann Richards is rolling in her grave…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pmI read this article because I like both sides of the story (I’m not left or right I’m somewhere in the middle) and I found it interesting until I got to the last paragraph that says there is no meaningful discussion going on in the scientific community.
To see that made me realize that this website is basically a left version of the drudge report. I mean how can you state an obvious lie and expect anyone to believe anything else you said in the article?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:02 pmI am not smart enough to know the cause of global warming or any changes we can make to effect a meaningful change in this trend. I am smart enough to spot a con man and a hypocrite.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pmJust great. I’m reading under dim lights in order to offset Al’s hypocrisy. You’d think the inventor of the Internet could work out a better solution to his apalling thirst for energy.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmNo this site is NOT a leftwing version of the drudge report since it does not pretend to be an impartial source of news. It supports liberal and progressive views and critiques what it feels are inaccuracies and misinformation in the media. Drudge pretends to be some kind of ugly CNN.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmSorry think progress, you usually make some good points, but not today. How many of you saw the movie and calculated your carbon footprint? If you did, you’ll remember how much airline travel increased your carbon footprint. Now…how much of the movie was of Al Gore going through airports and flying on airplanes? Don’t we all remember how he advertised in the movie going international, flying around the world to get the message out? How many forests did he say he bought to offset that? How many remember the footage of him as the hero Senator grilling Dr. James Hansen in front of a Senate panel? How many of you know that James Hansen has always been one the most outspoken proponents of energy policy change to curb carbon emissions? Now his home energy usage is public knowledge and it’s ugly. Why is he above being held accountable? The Discovery Channel created a program “Global Warming: What You Need to Know” which outshines “An Inconvenient Truth” in facts. It does not star politicians or famous musicians or have credits including firms like Getty Images (created from big oil trust fund money). It seems to me that none of you care about the environment. You’re more concerned about being right and having untarnished heros. Oh, and by the way, how many kilowatt hours will the Save Our Selves tours use?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pmYour are correct, my highly educated friend. New Orleans and Iraq are classic examples of government spending. There is no accoutability. A reasonable would not want to make investments in such places (save gun merchants). Bid or no bid doesn’t ensure effectiveness, just that the inefficient work is done cheaper.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWho pissed in all the liberals wheaties? Another example of “do as I say, not as I do”. Can’t you recognize that Gore is a hypocrite? How many lights does he have on in his house at one time? He’s not even there that much.
Nobody is disputing Gore’s claims. Green energy is a great idea. But he obviously doesn’t follow his own advice. Are you all so blind that you can’t get on his case for it. Grow up and see things from an objective view. Al Gore is now like the rest of his Hollywood counterparts. Barking orders at the rest of us, but not following his own hollow orders. Sad….
February 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pmLiberals this-Conservatives that-
The fact remains that Matt Drudge is a
February 27th, 2007 at 12:12 pmjerk, personally, and a complete tool of the neo-con agenda-professionally.
I enjoy the fact that Gore believes that the rest of the country has the money to install solar panels, buy carbon offsets, and that “Green Power Switch” is no more expensive than regular electricity or it is even available in their area. I’m sorry, but I don’t have the money to do that or the resources. What should my poor ass do? Sit in the dark at night and freeze my ass off in the winter?
Gore can afford to offset the needless energy his mansion consumes. If he were really concerned about global warming he would live in a shack and only consume what his land could provide. Without the use of tractors or other carbon emitting equipment mind you. (Do keep in mind that he has the money do just that, but he doesn’t)
Bottom line is that he brings to light a valid concern, but totally screws it up by not practicing what he preaches and being a role model for his “cause”.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pmOk, I have to admit, that was genius. ROFL funny, I concede =)
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmDrudge and all the righties just can’t handle Al’s popularity AT ALL.
It’s clearly jealousy, nothing else.
It’s funny to watch.
Sorry, righties, but that’s what happens when people really believe in something, rather than adopting ideologies as is convenient and expedient to your electoral goals.
The hating doesn’t surprise me too much. The people doing it spend most of their time hating someone, Al just happened to end up a lightning rod for them for a while. Whatever. They’ll all move on after an Actor or brown person says something they don’t like.
Jane hears Righty bitch.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmBitch, righty, bitch.
Listen, Jane, listen to righty bitch.
Righty is bitching a lot.
Just think – who would beneift if “is all hype”? Practically NO ONE.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmWho would benefit by denying the facts? Hmmm… People involved with the OIL companies (such as politicians in office), people who are afraid of change (I’m going to drive my big a*s SUV to Walmart), people who don’t know the difference between science and propaganda (like those who don’t believe in evolution).
I don’t really have an opinion about Drudge personally, but I am very impressed by anyone who can get 422 million hits on their website in on month. Seems a lot of people are desirous of seeing what he is offering.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pmAgain:
I absolutely adore the comments that criticize an individual for researching and producing a documentary consisting of facts and theories from scientists and independent researchers in order to address an issue that should be in the minds of every single person. Mr. Gore became a target with his own volition and money, fully aware of impending criticism. “An Inconvenient Truth†did not rake in huge profits or break any records, and the profits it did make went to fund causes in fighting climate change. To believe that Mr. Gore would not take the steps necessary in altering his own energy consumption and habits, assuming that his lifestyle was antithetical to his own beliefs in the first place, is preposterous. Mr. Gore has taken the necessary steps in drawing any energy consumed from alternative GREEN energy sources. Mr. Gore is NOT utilizing carbon credits, that is a concept developed for individuals who do NOT use green sources of energy since most Americans do not have access to alternative sources of energy (and the American populace can thank the Bush administration and Exxon/Mobil for hindering progress in that field).
It is easy to criticize and poke flaws than it is in actually being productive and ACTIVE members of society. I often wonder why naysayers become so defensive and angry with environmental issues that it results in arguments and personal attacks, instead of actually having an open mind to the issue and debating it intelligently and calmly. Perhaps when logic is not in accordance with ones one view, anger and personal attacks are all that are left.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pmSo when Al Gore travels he’s supposed to fly in a plane that doesn’t use oil? I think he’d be open to that idea actually. Where can he find that plane? Oh right it doesn’t exist. And if he uses actual energy, he’s a hypocrite. LOL. I really am starting to feel sorry for you – you really can’t be proud of lame arguments like these. Pathetic. You really don’t have anything left do you?
It probably hasn’t dawned on you since it will never come out of Hannity’s mouth, but right-wingers called ANYONE a hypocrite is hypocrisy. And ironic to boot. LOL.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pmPurchase Offsets. How convenient…especially if you are born into a wealthy family. Too bad for me that I wasn’t. So I guess I’m fucked if I can’t afford a Hybrid or all the other nice things that Liberals think I should buy in order to be nice to the environment.
It’s good to be both liberal and rich I suppose. Oh well, at least kicking puppies is still free to us common folk.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pmI thought the same thing, but then someone said that Drudge counts every reload as a hit (or something to that effect) while most sites monitor the actual IP address. The actual number was maybe 1/100th of what Drudge reports.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm#45
What Drudge didn’t miss is that it’s okay for AlGores horse to crap in the street because He can afford the guy in a clown suit to follow Him around with a shovel. How very progressive of Him.
Comment by beefeater — February 26, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Dude, if you hate your job and your boss so much why don’t you find another one? Maybe he will let you keep the suit.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:25 pmIt is ok to criticize the war and support the troops. It is not ok to criticize Al or his piggish use of energy. Intellectual honesty is so needed today.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:25 pmOne Word: Teleconference.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pmTodd, I would think that it’s a GREAT investment since the Republican government really didn’t give a crap whether the end service or product is delivered. For instance, the 8.8 BILLION dollars that went to Iraq for reconstruction. No one seems to know what happened to it, and no Republicans seems to care.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:28 pmSomeone said…something to that effect…if….maybe…could be. Wonderful analysis.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pmI’ll say it once and I’ll say it again – here’s what scienctific principles and theories have been right about:
Cotton gin
Sewing Machine
Telegraph
Typewriter
Telephone
Phonograph
Light bulb
Automobile
Airplane
Assembly Line
Television
Computer
Atomic energy
Polio Vaccine
Laser
Lunar Mission
Space Shuttle
Artificial Heart
Internet
You have NO argument…
February 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pmI suppose telelconferencing doesn’t use energy?
Dolt.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pmThe 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.
This is President George W. Bush’s “Texas White House” outside the small town of Crawford.
GWB is more Green than Gore… Who’d a thunk it?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pmI am sure a few care where the money went. But, who can really believe what they say anyways. There are probably some Democrats that care too. Either way, I think most know where it went in the broad sense – waste, currupt people, and Nutella.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pmYes, the Earth is warming — it does that. The question is, WHY? Did you know that humans only put out 4% of the total carbon released into the atmosphere? Even if we stop all output, we would only stop 4%. Now that you know that, does that make that much difference? We need to figure out how to control the temperature, not worry about what car some idiot drives. I am more worried about the toxins than warming.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pmFor example, in the Democratic Party, Vice President Al Gore has a long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum that has been enormously beneficial to the company. Occidental’s late chairman, the controversial Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore’s father, Senator Albert Gore, Senior, quote, “in my back pocket”, unquote.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pmCertainly they do…but are you saying they use more than a 767 business class ticket? If so, I may have to radically re-think the manner in which I do business with my European counterparts. And thanks for the insult…. it indicates that you’ve already lost the argument.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pmWho’s Al Gore? Oh that’s right, he was that vice-president of Bubba Clinton that everyone on the left hated for his wife’s music lyrics/censorship campaign. Frank Zappa must be rolling in his grave. Just like he “invented the internet†he now seems to have the attribute of having “invented the global warming paranoia†with its inherent European Imperialism. Judging my Mr. Gore’s bloated cuerpo, I would say that he additionally contributes to “global warming†through his frequent flatulence.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pmAnti-Tobacco-Al raised campaign funds from tobacco farmers/producers (a business that made him wealthy) after his sister died from lung cancer from smoking.
People, we may be the cause of global warming, but we must be intellectually honest about the research and debate. Please don’t look to a con man for answers to such an important issue.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm#341
It probably hasn’t dawned on you, because it would just blow your mind, but not everyone who writes something that you find disagreeable is a right-winger or Hannity listener.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pmIf Al Gore ate a forest and no one was there to see it, would the forest be gone?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pmno one should be fool enough to believe anything this website says. They are on record as liars, ironically while calling the President a liar. Trusting these people is like trusting Dan Rather on document analysis.
Maybe this is Gore’s position, maybe it is not. And maybe Gore is really not the hypocrite he usually is, on this issue. But these guys telling you shouldn’t settle the issue for anyone appropriately skeptical.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm333
I don’t see/taste/smell any urine in my cereal, but I do know that all anyone has to do is say “Al Gore”, and all the righties in the world show up and start a-bitchin’, like flies to a fresh cow patty. You guys are weird. Don’t you have anything to think/care about, besides what Al Gore is doing??
Al I see/hear from righty is a bunch of regurgitation of whatever that drug addict guy said on the radio….again, pretty weird stuff, for guys who think themselves so “normal”.
Liberals think for themselves, and they come together through coincidence. Righties come together by design, and have someone else think for them.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmI wish everybody would stop talking about what Drudge wrote.
Folks, he didn’t write any of this. Just links.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pmWait, I see the messenger over there. Aim… FIRE!
…
The only solution left to those whose arguments cannot dispute the facts.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:52 pmI don’t know about this global warmin’ stuff, but Al is getting hotter by the day. That lucky Tipper.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pmBRING ON THE GLOBAL WARMING!
I’m dying to take a trip to Atlanits!!
February 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pm333
Who pissed in all the liberals wheaties? Another example of “do as I say, not as I doâ€. Can’t you recognize that Gore is a hypocrite?
Lefties are very bright just full of themselves.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pmIf his name was GW Bush lefties would be all over this hypocrisy.
Al Gore has Big Carbon Feet!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pmGet your energy credit here. No fuss, no muss, 30% off retail price, satisfaction guaranteed. Bargains, bargains, credits galore.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm#356
It wouldn’t blow my mind at all if I didn’t hear the same pre-packaged McDonalds Talking Points over and over. Sometimes I don’t even know why you bother couching your ready-made Talking Points with verbs and pronouns. This Al Gore logic has been already done! Remember Nancy Pelosi’s plane? Cut and Run? Fight Them Over There… blah blah blah, Stay The Course, Flip-Flop, and now… Slow Bleed.
That’s not debate. That’s TV Dinners. How pathetic. Come up with something original for once.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pm[...] Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics 2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains: [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:07 pmYou anti Drudge-ite sheeple are STOOPID STOOPID STOOPID!! Let me get my crayons out and draw a picture that you leaping lemmings will understand. DRUDGE DIDN’T WRITE THAT ARTICLE !! Drudge is a LINKING SITE, he simply posts links to news stories WRITTEN BY OTHER PEOPLE !! YES, I know it’s hard for your little pea brains to accept, but it’s true.
The article Drudge reprinted was a release from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367 which you could have discovered on your own with a little Google search if you were as smart as you all think you are.
But NO, you’d rather SPEW HATE and use your head for a hat rack, which in your case is actually a better use for your heads , cause you all have NO BUSINESS TRYING TO THINK, your brains are oxygen starved from having your heads so far up your collective asses. Leave that hard work for the grown ups.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pmtom baker #337
February 27th, 2007 at 1:11 pmIt seems more like you can’t handle Drudge’s popularity. When so many liberals like yourself can hold so much hatred towards a guy who maintains a website that provides links, you know there’s something wrong. I mean, he doesn’t even get T.V. attention like Algore does and you lefties shudder in fear when you hear the name Drudge. That my friends is powerful.
What kind of argument is that? Scientific principles and theories were used to invent some things, therefore global warming is real and 100% manmade.
I guess this is what passes for rational thought on the left.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pmYou think someone would put him on TV with his gay little hat? He looks like Peter Brady when he pretended to be a reporter. Please.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm[...] dioxide by 60 percent by 2050. – Reuters Meanwhile, back in the States, the dogs froth over trumped up BS discrediting Al Gore. How dare he provide a working knowledge of global warming to every citizen in [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:23 pmCotton Gin – Eli Witney was not a scientist… he was an inventor. It’s possible that the Cotton Gin also was invented in a somewhat different form in India…
Light Bulb – Edison did not invent the light Bulb…he improved it.
Typewriter – The first commercially sold typewriter was made in Denmark (many nationalities had a hand in its development
Telephone – Antonio Meucci (Italian) first invented electro-magnetic speech transmission, Alexander Graham Bell was the first to patent a pratical phone.
Television – Again developed by multiple folks… initially Britisch. The first public demonstration of a TV was by a Scottish guy.
Phonograph – (talk about 20th Century!) The theory behind the device goes to the French. Again American inventors (not scientists) were the first to manufactre a working device
Assembly Line – Ah…finally an American scientist?! Henry Ford was a scientist?!
Sewing Machine – Sorry…again this honor goes to the British…or at least a german working in Britain.
Computer – Depending on your definition of what a computer is…a German is probably the first inventor of a computer…but then one could argue an abacus is a computer…and we Americans didn’t invent that either
Internet – Well if you discount Al Gore…it was developed by a Berners-Lee…a British guy.
Automobiles – A Flemish missionary in China built the first Steam powered car.
Airplanes – Although Wilbur and Orville had the first successful flight…the science behind it (aerodynamics) was invented by a British guy (Damn those brits)
Space Travel/Lunar Mission – You are joking right? Werner Von Braun? Does that sound like an American name?
Atomic Energy – The first Nuclear fission was done by Germans…again I think you must be joking… Fermi? Anyone, Enrico Fermi? And the worlds first Nuclear power grid was in the USSR.
Laser – Sorry…Albert Einstein laid the foundation for the science behind the laser… Wasn’t he German? Lol
Artificial Heart – WOW…this one is All American…finally found one.
Polio Vaccine – Finally another All American invention…although to be honest…the science behind it really should be credited to the guy that first coined the phrase Virus…a Dutchman.
Basically you don’t seem to know a whole lot about Science yourself.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pmIt’s a list of things which scientists were right about. Things which NEVER existed before. Sound waves is a scientific theory. Atomic energy is a scientific theory. Light is a scientific theory. Space travel is possible only due to scientific theories. And global warming is also a scientific theory for which there is overwhelming support.
I’m saying that you are skeptical of a community which understands the workings of the universe better than you and well enough to accomplish these historic achievements. But for some reason you can’t accept their word. These accomplishments are a major reason why this country has the wealth it has.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pm368-
I didn’t say dick about drudge (I was talking about people like you), so bite me – I shudder in fear for nothing (really, nothing), least of all some righty blogger dork.
Leave it to righty to miss all the facts, take a made-up fact out of context, and try to turn it into an insult to someone else. If you spent half that mental effort reading books and newspapers, you wouldn’t be here showing everyone how much you don’t know.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pmMaybe a bit late to this game, but here is my input. :)
While I am not really worried about the level of human CO2 or other emissions, but I do like the argument, and was hoping, maybe here, I could find a good critic. If you disagree with this argument, please post.
The numbers I look at when I enter this debate are from the 3rd TAR report from the IPCC and from the related papers from the EPA. They are not current to the latest release, since we don’t have anything but the Summary of that one.
First: CO2.
The Pre-Industrial Baseline (PIB) is 288 ppm. Current is 380388 ppm IIRC, but as of the TAR report, concentration was 368.4 ppm.
Natural Additions were 68.5ppm and Human additions were 11.9 ppm
Current percentage of CO2 in the Atmosphere from human activities is 3.2%
The increase of CO2 in the Atmosphere since the PIB is 85.2% Natural, 14.8% Human.
Next: all other gases, relative to CO2
CO2 has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1. Where as Methane has a GWP of 21. Nitrous Oxide is 310. From a warming stand point of the minor GH gasses, CO2 garners 72.3% of the effect, Methane has 7.2%, and Nitrous Oxide has 19%. All other gases account for 1.43%
Of the Human Increase or additions to those, after adjusting for GWP, and natural increases, Human contributions account for 2.33% of the GHE from CO2, 1.32% for Methane, and .91% for Nitrous Oxide.
Third: Water Vapor
Now, this is a big miss I think. Water Vapor is the Largest ‘Green House’ Gas. Water Vapor has a GWP of 1, like CO2. It also absorbs the “Black Body†radiation emitted by the earth at the same spectrum as CO2. So, when talking about the Frequency of Absorption from CO2, Water fills in the same spectrum, and should be counted as exactly the same. From an emitted chunk of radiation, it is no different than CO2.
Based on concentrations, and adjusted for GWP, Water Vapor accounts for 95% of the GHE. Carbon Dioxide for 3.6%, Methane for .36%, and Nitrous Oxide for .95%
Human affects on each Gas is broken down like this:
Percentage of GHE from Man Made CO2 Emissions is .117%, Methane is .066%, and Nitrous Oxide is .047%.
Now, I am just not very worried about a .28% change to the atmosphere from 100 years of collected human emissions. Especially since Natural Emissions far out reach the Human Emissions by a factor of 5.
Okay, any arguments? Again, this is from the next to latest IPCC TAR and EPA, not the 2007 version, because it hasn’t been released.
Thanks!
Josh
February 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pmMaybe a bit late to this game. :)
While I am not really worried about the level of human CO2 or other emissions, but I do like the argument, and was hoping, maybe here, I could find a good critic. If you disagree with this argument, please post.
The numbers I look at when I enter this debate are from the 3rd TAR report from the IPCC and from the related papers from the EPA. They are not current to the latest release, since we don’t have anything but the Summary of that one.
First: CO2.
The Pre-Industrial Baseline (PIB) is 288 ppm. Current is 380388 ppm IIRC, but as of the TAR report, concentration was 368.4 ppm.
Natural Additions were 68.5ppm and Human additions were 11.9 ppm
Current percentage of CO2 in the Atmosphere from human activities is 3.2%
The increase of CO2 in the Atmosphere since the PIB is 85.2% Natural, 14.8% Human.
Next: all other gases, relative to CO2
CO2 has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1. Where as Methane has a GWP of 21. Nitrous Oxide is 310. From a warming stand point of the minor GH gasses, CO2 garners 72.3% of the effect, Methane has 7.2%, and Nitrous Oxide has 19%. All other gases account for 1.43%
Of the Human Increase or additions to those, after adjusting for GWP, and natural increases, Human contributions account for 2.33% of the GHE from CO2, 1.32% for Methane, and .91% for Nitrous Oxide.
Third: Water Vapor
Now, this is a big miss I think. Water Vapor is the Largest ‘Green House’ Gas. Water Vapor has a GWP of 1, like CO2. It also absorbs the “Black Body†radiation emitted by the earth at the same spectrum as CO2. So, when talking about the Frequency of Absorption from CO2, Water fills in the same spectrum, and should be counted as exactly the same. From an emitted chunk of radiation, it is no different than CO2.
Based on concentrations, and adjusted for GWP, Water Vapor accounts for 95% of the GHE. Carbon Dioxide for 3.6%, Methane for .36%, and Nitrous Oxide for .95%
Human affects on each Gas is broken down like this:
Percentage of GHE from Man Made CO2 Emissions is .117%, Methane is .066%, and Nitrous Oxide is .047%.
Now, I am just not very worried about a .28% change to the atmosphere from 100 years of collected human emissions. Especially since Natural Emissions far out reach the Human Emissions by a factor of 5.
Okay, any arguments? Again, this is from the next to latest IPCC TAR and EPA, not the 2007 version, because it hasn’t been released.
Thanks!
Josh
February 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pm372 – they’re still all scientists you nitiwit. I was trying to be all super patriotic like you folks. I figured you wouldn’t understand anything unless it was draped in the stars and stripes. I know how you don’t like foreigners.
We contributed to the development of them all. AND implemented most of them into our industry.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pmGlobal warming theory cannot yet predict current temps based on past measurements. I was right..you don’t understand scientific methodology…because the key point here is that theory and fact can stand in opposition… and theory is only good for as long as it cannot be disproven… sort of like how in the 1970s there was a scientific consenseus that we’d be experiencing another ice age.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm[...] Link [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pmDing ding ding ding ding! We have another McDonalds Talking Point, ladies and gentlemen! The old 1970s ice age is coming meme! You have just proven that Republicans cannot make an argument without resorting to regurgitated pre-packaged debate filler. Wow that didn’t take long.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm[...] ThinkProgress [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pmSo in essence you don’t know what the hell you are arguing. How do you know I don’t like foreigners? I happen to have married a foreigner for pete’s sake. And again, thanks for the 2nd insult…it’s doing wonders for your credibility.
Let’s skip back to the point, since you’ve forgotten what it was. Mr. Gore advocates for the common people a strategy that he cannot himself follow. Hence why he buys offsets. That is called hypocrisy. I or folks at my economic level weren’t born to a Senator..we don’t have the cash to buy offsets…so I guess we’re screwed eh?
February 27th, 2007 at 1:41 pmSorry… must have missed the memo to avoid mentioning what the scientific consensus was a mere 30 years ago.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060906_02/20060906_13.html
Maybe this will help you visualize the issue?
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif
February 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pm#370
February 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pmMany of those items on your list were not ideas of scientists. They were in fact developed by engineers, technicians, and independent inventors. Many of these folks would probably be insulted if they were to be thought of to be scientists.
Sorry for the double post!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#381 – I think you’re refering to my post. It was actually a rebuttal to another that stated all of the inventions were made by American Scientists. I agree 100% with you..inventors and Engineers are not scientists…but I don’t want to confuse the guy with anything other than hard facts…. he appears to have issues with reading comprehension.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pmWhat is extremel interesting and telling is the apparent fact that many of the commentors are glossing over well stated arguments in support of global climate change and Al Gore’s campaign. Again, it is easy to criticize but much harder in being productive and active. Ask yourself, “what have I done to make the world a better place?”.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#383
Oh, my bad.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pm379 – Look I’m sorry if I have insulted you or something but the level of this back and forth on this page is childish at best and ‘m playing the game here. I don’t really understand why then you’re not offended by the way Bush speaks to you. He addresses you like you’re retarded.
I haven’t forgotten the point at all – I just think that it’s yet another right-wing distraction. Another rhetorical device to supposedly “trap” liberals into some indefensible corner. And I know you’ll hate this but it’s 100% classic Hannity – very much like the old attempts to paint anyone who disagreed with Iraq policy as supporting Saddam. “Well would you rather have Saddam still in power?” It’s just so weak. I’m not going to give that technique any respect.
I think that you’re looking for an excuse to dismiss what is a lot of evidence and professional opinion. I think that the right wing knows that we are the biggest polluters in the world and if anyone would have to pay to clean it up it would be us. I think that you just don’t want him to be flying around the country giving speeches and increasing awareness so you say he’s a hypocrite for flying. You act as though if there was a green jet he would just continue flying the same way.
And don’t lecture me about hypocrisy. You are no longer in any position to lecture anyone. You’re not in charge anymore. It’s time you listened to other people’s opinions.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm“Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.”
You forgot to mention that Gore only switched to Green Power Switch after it was reported that he had opted out of it by the “vast right-wing media”.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pmSo what if some weren’t PhD scientists? All of the above used physics, electricity, gravity or some other established science to create it. Why can’t you admit that technology has created some amazing things? Why can’t you give science any respect?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pmYou dumb flippin’ retards… mother earth can kick your liberal asses from one ocean to another… there isn’t jack shit wrong with the planet and there sure as hell isn’t any convincing evidence that what were seeing is nothing more than the natural ebb and flow of planet earth.
You liberal nimrods have got your heads so far up your collective ass, you don’t have a clue what natural environmental evolution is all about.
Get and clue… use your heads for something else other than regurgitating Al “chicken little” Gore and his “sky is falling” routine”.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pm#386 Opinion is not fact. And it is also not a solution (If indeed there is one…or if indeed we are in need of one)
Hannity – sorry, never listened to him and I couldn’t pick him out of a line up if paid to do so… so much for the sterotypes… BTW I’m American Indian…want to stereotype me some more?
Hypocrisy… sorry, fella but I was never in charge in the first place.
The issue here is that Gore and those standing beside him in Hollywood are advocating a path which they themselves cannot follow. That is not leadership at least not as it was taught to me at West Point. (How’s that for another stereo type?…Indian at USMA?
That is specifically why you are seeing people tear into this one… Gore isn’t LEADING he’s lecturing. And until the political left understands this, they won’t get anywhere with this issue.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pmIf you’re poor, and you’re a conservative, you’re on the wrong side – unless you actually prefer poverty
WOW Mark 389 – tell us how you feel about Al Gore, and why.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pmYou should re-read your posts…it was you that postulated that the Political conservatives think that way that you are asserting. No-one on the right made that statement.
The fact is I have tremendous respect for technology and science (It’s how I earn my paycheck) but you are confusing T&S with belief. Is the earth warming? yes…at least as far as our modest quantity of data can tell… is it a product of human action? Regardless of the numbers of scientists saying yes, I think the jury is still out…. simply because the models used to assert this cannot replicate current temps via past data. That means they aren’t accurate..so some folks are advocating spending big $ for what may be a data modeling error.
Never-the-less, I’m a big proponent of Nuclear energy and electric cars etc… Now if old Al wanted to advocate that…and he helped make them affordable, I’d be in support. But telling me what to do, while doing just the opposite isn’t about whether global warming exists or not… it’s about leadership and hypocrisy. The guys has lost all his credibility on the issue right there.
Stop telling me what I need to sacrifice…and do it yourself.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:18 pmComments:
Gore uses solar energy — that wouldn’t apprear on his massive electric bill, duh.
Yes, everyone agrees that some global warming is occurring, what is in contention is the CAUSE, and whether or not such climate variations are cyclic.
How many scientists does one need to quote on global warming? Just the ones who have actual degrees in climatology and are involved in active research in this domain will do for me, thank you. Everyone who works for Lockheed Aircraft does not design plane, nor is every one with a degree in just any “scientific” field qualified to rule on the merits and demerits of the cause of global warming.
BTW, reading the posts, I’ve a question: are there any adult liberals who frequent this site?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pmAccording to?
And I wonder why Liberals are always being accused of class warfare.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pmIs Al Gore all that Rush has been talking about this week? How did Al Gore become such a bfd? Does anyone really care that much??????
Going on 400 posts to this thread, while other WAY more important things go ignored.
Hey righties, is this how you support the troops, by bashing on Al Gore, while George Bush sends them off with no training or equipment to get blown up, and cuts VA funding??
you’d think Al Gore was on American Idol, or a dead blonde with massive hooters.
I think he’d better stay out of the US – all these righties sound downright dangerous, and you know they’ve got closets full of guns they fantasize about using…..I dont’ dount that one of them would try to shoot Al. They’ll surely try to kill Obama.
righties are hateful and violent, deep down in the core of their personalities. like pitbulls raised wrong, just waitin for a chance to bite some kids face.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pmAn American Indian goes to WP. Wow. So impressed. Dude you joined the very organization which systematically slaughtered your people, stole your land and confined your ancestors to a reservation. LOL. No wonder you’re so confused.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pmSigh. Where to start….
February 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pm“What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.”
The point is that not everyone can do this. If everyone tried to buy carbon offsets to bring their footprint to zero, there would be none to buy, because the C02 is still being created. It’s like saying everyone should be above average. By definition, it just can’t happen.
And this does make Al look like a hypocrite to the average man or woman. He can try to explain it away, but it comes out sounding like so much selfish dribble. May be right or wrong, but that’s how it is.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmIf you respected science you would be listening to the scientists!
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pm[...] and HERE. To their credit, both feature Gore’s response, which ThinkProgress first published HERE. 2:13 pm | [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pmAnd I agree with 391. A conservative with no money is a tool. It’s almost as bad as having brown skin and being conservative. Or red skin.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pmBellEdisonWright, you are getting your ignorant tail handed to you by a Poor Conservative. You better stay down before you get embarrassed even more…Turn off your AlGore internet now before you hurt yourself.
LMAO!
February 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pmWell that was predictable…it’s why I threw it out there. And yet oddly I had enough sense to make my own way without letting history determine that I stay on the Rez. No one I served with ever killed any of my ancestors or confined them to a certain stretch of land.
What’s next for a liberal…calling me a race traitor?
February 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pmWho’s ignorant? Gore didn’t invent the internets and he doesn’t claim to. Getting my tail handed to me? According to who? You? ROFL!
February 27th, 2007 at 2:3