Gore Rips Media: ‘Don’t Give Equal Time To Someone Who Believes The Earth Is Flat’
Gore Rips Media: ‘Don’t Give Equal Time To Someone Who Believes The Earth Is Flat’
This morning, former vice president Al Gore appeared on NBC’s Today Show to talk about global warming. Host Meredith Vieira brought up a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed by climate skeptic John Christy, a former member of the IPCC. In the op-ed, Christy wrote, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the activity we see.”
When Vieira asked about the op-ed, Gore noted that Christy “no longer belongs to the IPCC” and is “way outside the scientific consensus.” He also sharply criticized the media for giving so much air time to such climate skeptics:
But, Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the on the one hand, on the other hand approach. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, but when you’re reporting on a story like the one you’re covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don’t take — you don’t search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time.
Watch it:
The IPCC is an international body made up of thousands of scientists from 113 countries who have been studying global warming since 1988. Its February consensus assessment said that global warming is “unequivocal” and “very likely” the result of human activity.
As Gore noted, scientists such as Christy are outliers, yet the media continue to give them an overblown amount of airtime. Last month, for example, Colorado State University professor Dr. William Gray sharply criticized Gore, saying that he is “brainwashing our children” on global warming. His comments were covered by multiple major cable networks and newspapers (with no mention that he also once compared Gore to Hilter).
Additionally, Media Matters documented that the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, CNN, and Fox News all recently reported that a British judge pointed out nine “errors” in Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, without “mentioning that he also stated in the ruling that the film is ’substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.’”
UPDATE: MediaBloodhound also notes that when Gore won the Nobel Prize, The New York Times insisted on coupling the coverage with climate skeptics’ comments on its homepage.
Transcript:
VIEIRA: You know, you share the prize with scientists from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And one of those scientists, John Christy, wrote an op-ed last Thursday in the Wall Street Journal in which he criticized your dire predictions about the impact of global warming.
He wrote, I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.
So what do you make of his assessment?
GORE: Well, he’s an outlier. He no longer belongs to the IPCC, and he is way outside the scientific consensus.
But, Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the on the one hand, on the other hand approach. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, but when you’re reporting on a story like the one you’re covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don’t take — you don’t search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time.
And the reason the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the thousands of scientists who make up that group have, for almost 20 years now, created a very strong scientific consensus, that is as strong a consensus as you’ll ever see in science, that the climate crisis is real, human beings are responsible for it, the results would be very bad for the United States and for the entire world community, all human beings, unless we do something about it. And there is still time to solve it.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
November 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pm6,000 years ago, our ancestors rode dinosaurs to work. They couldn’t have done that if the earth weren’t flat.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmPeople;
We’re missing the point. The conservatives are just turning the the argument against us, and we’re following suit in their favor.
It’s not about whether or not humans are to blame.
It’s that we should do something, regardless.
We know that smog looks bad over our cities.
We know breathing in car exhaust can kill people.
We know we should be more oil-independent.
Everyone has the right to clean air, and we need to let the conservatives know that.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pmExactly Al, you don’t give anyone who might disagree with you equal time, that wouldn’t be fair at all.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Whatever. How many climatologists dispute global warming and the fact that humans are causing it? 5%? How much airtime does Fox give them? 50%? Sound about right?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmBeefeater sez:
If the disagreement is not based in fact and science, no, Beefeater, it doesn’t deserve any time at all, let alone “equal time”.
This is the same bullsh!t “present both sides of the debate” we’ve seen time and again from this administration and its primary propaganda arm, FOX “news”. One might as well give airtime to a Fundie who maintains that the whole global warming issue is moot, since the Rapture is right around the corner.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmSadly, the socialists / communists can’t refrain from Stalinist tactics of “silencing” their detractors. Moreover, the drumbeat has started to “nationalize” our energy industries, so that libs can withhold resources from anyone they designate “unworthy”, just as was done in the USSR.
Capitalism has brought forth the Tesla Motors Roadster and other auto industry electric, electric hybrids and gas hybrid vehicles. Capitalism has brought forth compact flourescent bulbs, of which Wal-Mart has exceeded their 100 million bulb yearly target 3 months early. In Germany, capitalism has backed solar power farms to be built through investment and long term contracts with municipalities.
There is no need to leap to communism / socialism to force green solutions. Capitalism can deliver solutions while stimulating the economy, provided leaders are visionary enough to provide market situations to achieve such gains.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmExactly Beefeater, the hallucinating man walking down Main Street in the little down in Ohio who thinks the Martians are collaborating with the Baptists to take over Islam in order to control the overpopulation by Mexican Catholics should have equal time on television with the U.S. Secretary of State in discussing foreign policy. That would only be fair.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pm“But, Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the on the one hand, on the other hand approach.”
Boy, did that ever need saying!
For example, how they cover anti-war demonstrations. They’ll talk to a couple of the multi-tens of thousands of anti-war protesters and then turn around and give an equal amount of time to one of the five pro-war demonstrators. That does not give an accurate picture.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmExactly Al, you don’t give anyone who might disagree with you equal time, that wouldn’t be fair at all.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
As opposed to Chimpy and Co’s constant use of dissenting outside opinions and their willingness to allow them to be heard , right dummy ?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmIt’s a place right out of history, as I recall
November 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“it’s your modern stone age family” they did seem to lack toilets however.
the nooz will issue a statement condemning Al Gore for flatulence to try to remind voters that NBC never didn’t say or think the earth wasn’t or not flat.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmBeefeater seems to have left, carrying the ass that was handed to him.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmHey, how come nobody asks Fred Flintstone’s opinion on this issue? I mean that guy’s been around for 6000 years! Talk about some freakin’ perspective. Where’s his equal time? Who’s silencing him?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmIt’s a place right out of history, as I recall
Comment by raynman — November 5, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmAnd even a ride down the street from them is protective of the enviroment ; courtesy of Fred’s 2 feet……
Beefeater: You are just as ignorant as most conservatives. Science, facts and other such little considerations just do not matter to a stupid, idiot such as you. Yes, you are nothing more than a fool. I am sick and tired of inferior intellects with small minds demanding equal time for their foolish fantasies.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmBeefeater’s all ass. That’s a load to heavy to carry.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmDoes anyone know exactly what Gore wants us to do about climate change? I never saw the movie, does it offer specific remedies?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmEqual Time??? Sheeesh, they’re getting $50 million for 5 years! (see ThinkFast).
We lost “Equal Time” yonks ago.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmDoes anyone know exactly what Gore wants us to do about climate change? I never saw the movie, does it offer specific remedies?
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Then see the movie, read the book or google it up.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pmThen see the movie, read the book or google it up.
Comment by Luis M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
That sounded a bit harsh… let me rephrase it.
I haven’t seen the movie but the book does have some advice and remedies on what you can do to reduce your contribution to global warming.
And it’s best if you read the book, so you can get the information straight from the source.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmTo say that 95% of scientists agree is a blatent lie. Try reading some of these 228 articles (number growing by the day), rather than following this blind “the debate is over†argument.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
6% of the scientists disagree. That’s from one of the links you gave.
But then again, you’re a proven liar.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI haven’t seen the movie but the book does have some advice and remedies on what you can do to reduce your contribution to global warming.
Comment by Luis M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Hm. My question was more political in the sense of, what public policy recommendations is Gore driving? Are they practical? He gets tons of meida attention, I wonder if anyone in government listens to him, like in Congress, say.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmI’m with you Bartlebee. Why argue with these people. There should be schools that teach science and schools that teach creationism and let the parents decide which school to send their kids to. The ones who pick creationism are never going to amount to anything anyway, why waste a good education.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pm6% of the scientists disagree. That’s from one of the links you gave.
But then again, you’re a proven liar.
Comment by Luis M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Hey TC, my bad in #5. 6%, not 5%. So I guess they do deserve equal airtime after all.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pm6% of the scientists disagree. That’s from one of the links you gave.
But then again, you’re a proven liar.
Comment by Luis M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Real links show that of 99% of scientist agree. The other less than 1% work for the oil/chemical companies.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmHm. My question was more political in the sense of, what public policy recommendations is Gore driving? Are they practical? He gets tons of meida attention, I wonder if anyone in government listens to him, like in Congress, say.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
We’re not here to do your research Keltoi. Oh is “research” a dirty word for you bible thumpers?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:30 pmDoing something is better than doing nothing, can you understand that?
1000 trees on my property thus becoming “carbon nuteral†assuring my presents on the planet for all time…….WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
Comment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I’m going to give everyone presents!
November 5th, 2007 at 1:31 pmComment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Was there a point somewhere in that blather?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmI believe EVERYTHING big Al Goreilla says about global warming and would like to thank him for inventing the internets. Soon to be DR. AL Goreilla has done far more for civilization than he could ever have accomplished as President with that 9/11 thing he would have to have spent most of his time on foreign policy and that would mean we as a society would have to have sacrificed the polar bears for peace in the world. Now that we are on our way to saving the planet, the bears and the Democratic party I am going to plant a 1000 trees on my property thus becoming “carbon nuteral†assuring my presents on the planet for all time…….WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
Comment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Nope, if Al Gore hadn’t had the presidency stolen from him he would have heeded the warnings about al Qaeda ready to attack and this whole sad episode would have probably been thwarted. That is if it isn’t just a whole Bushco conspiracy. Of course if a Bush wasn’t president it wouldn’d have gone down the way it did.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmWe’re not here to do your research Keltoi. Oh is “research†a dirty word for you bible thumpers?
Doing something is better than doing nothing, can you understand that?
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
That’s a lot of ‘Tude for a simple question. I figured there would be some Gore fans here who might know what if any practical impact he is having.
BTW, I neither own nor thump a Bible.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pm1000 trees on my property thus becoming “carbon nuteral†assuring my presents on the planet for all time…….WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
Comment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I’m going to give everyone presents!
Comment by bob lahblah — November 5, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
Don’t fall for it bob, hillbilly doesn’t have enough room on his property for a double wide trailer where would he put trees. And isn’t that a chainsaw he’s carrying?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmGiven the state of the media at these times the media would have given equal or more time to Hitler during WWII just because he was interesting.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThat’s a lot of ‘Tude for a simple question. I figured there would be some Gore fans here who might know what if any practical impact he is having.
BTW, I neither own nor thump a Bible.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
It’s hard to accomplish much when you naysayers run the MSM and bad mouth him at every turn. Intelligent people would probably err on the side of caution on the off chance he’s right. But you neocons can’t relate to what intelligent people do can you?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmOh and Keltoi if you don’t like my attitude you can feel free to move on to another site any time you’d like. I’m not really in the mood to hear your whining today, or ever really.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pmDon’t fall for it bob, hillbilly doesn’t have enough room on his property for a double wide trailer where would he put trees. And isn’t that a chainsaw he’s carrying?
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
I guess so…I think I mistook the chainsaw for a PhD in climatology!
November 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmThink about what Gore is saying. At one time the accepted scientific fact, a CONSENSUS if you will, was that the world was flat. Those few who dared to disagree were deemed to be heretics.
Consensus is not science.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 1:36
That is like saying that AFTER the world was recognized to be round people went back and argued that no, it was in fact flat. Which isn’t what happened there or here. Gee you’re an idiot.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm“WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?” — Comment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I’m going to buy you SpellCheck and force you to use it before you post any more of your unintelligible drivel.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmI guess so…I think I mistook the chainsaw for a PhD in climatology!
Comment by bob lahblah — November 5, 2007 @ 1:39
Carefull, hillbilly thinks PhD is talking dirty. Can you hear the banjo music?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pmThe way to combat global warming is very simple, of course. Follow the example set by AlGore. Consume as much carbon as possible with a huge mansion, fleet of limos and a private jet, and then purchase “carbon credits†from Generation Investment Management, a company that AlGore chairs and is partially owned by AlGore himself. If anyone questions your hippocracy, just tell them that “the debate is over,†and accuse them of believing that “the world is flat.â€
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Well besides the fact that every statement you make is a bald faced lie and misrepresentation of these issues, do you actually believe that Gore is doing this to make money for himself? The delusion is astonishing, have you taken your meds?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmThere are a greater percentage of astrophysicists who believe in the possibility of UFO’s being extraterrestrial vehicles than there are climatologists who don’t believe in the dangers of Global Warming. But when Kucinich said he believed that he saw a UFO, I didn’t see the media rush to find a scientist to back him up.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmYou are misreading and misquoting the article.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
The article is pure crap, misreading and misquoting would be a good idea.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmI think we should give equal time to every nut job wacko who has any idea at all.
And all neocon chickenhawks should be required to sit politely with their hands in laps and listen for the entire duration of the nut job wacko presentation.
That’ll keep them out of trouble. Maybe we won’t bomb Iran.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmComment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Was there a point somewhere in that blather?
Comment by missmolly — November 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
I think the answer is inherent in the question.
And that answer is indeed “No, there is no point when Billy Hill posts.”
November 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmI’d like to ask the trolls what percentage of agreement we would need in order for debate to end. Otherwise we’ll never be able to establish anything new as a fact. Or is that your point - to cement us in the dark ages of knowledge?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pmKeitol, I think you get slammed with a lot of crap here that you don’t deserve, most of it simply ricochet from trolls like TDCON and Hill Billy.
But Luis M. had a good response to your original post. Why ask us if Gore has practical suggestions? Do you trust the posters here to represent Gore’s views accurately? You’d be much better served if you sought out the source materials and studied a little on your own.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmhungry hungry ‘hippocracy’?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmYou are misreading and misquoting the article.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Oh. I’m sorry. Let me quote exactly the paragraph in question:
If you’re not against the human-caused global warming theory (6%), then you’re in favor of the human-caused global warming theory (94%). Right? You’re either with them or you’re against them. Isn’t that the neo-con view?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmIt’s a lot easier for the naysayers to just bash Gore than it is for them to actually do anything that might morph into any kind of beneficial action.
If Bush (this will really stretch your powers of imagination) wanted to do anything about the ecological challenges we face I wonder what the lemmings would do then. Besides angle for ways to cash in on the taxpayer money being flung around (and mostly wasted probably) that is. Because, apparently, the government is completely hopeless and incapable of any constructive behavior nowadays, so we have to outsource and privatize everything.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pmGore says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10.
“An Inconvenient Truth†grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film. All in all, its little more than a seriously flawed $50 mil. commercial for Generation Investment Management.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Wow. Straw man after straw man.
1) Gore wasn’t talking about ‘the United States” when he declared 2005 the hottest year on record. He was speaking of the GLOBAL climate. And the facts back him up on that claim.
2) Gore was not the producer of the film, nor was he the distributor. He may have some profit participation, but anyone who thinks that making a documentary is way to get rich has no idea how the world of entertainment works.
But I suspect there’s a lot of things that you have no idea how they work.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pmTCDim wrote: “To say that 95% of scientists agree is a blatent lie. Try reading some of these 228 articles (number growing by the day), rather than following this blind “the debate is over’ argument”.
Do you have any real evidence besides the garbage link you provided? Why not be a real man and debate global warming one on one? Oh I forgot, you’re a chicken-hawk and too cowardly.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm“Yes, Gore and Arafat, too.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007″
the stupid, it burns! how the hell did it take you 68 comments to mention that? other trolls mock you.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pmYes, Gore and Arafat, too
Comment by TCDon
This response is so old and played you’re committing copyright infringement. Pathetic. Why don’t you get on your stegosaurus and go bury that one in Mr. Slate’s gravel pit.
Are you a bot?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmThink about what Gore is saying. At one time the accepted scientific fact, a CONSENSUS if you will, was that the world was flat. Those few who dared to disagree were deemed to be heretics.
Consensus is not science.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
It wasn’t “scientists” who decreed that the world was flat, it was religious dogma not subject to evidence — unlike the current discussion.
Clearly, you have no idea what “science” is.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmBeefeater: “Consensus is not science.”
Where on earth did you get that idea? Of course “consensus” is part of science. During the 50’s and 60’s, the consensus among medical professionals and scientists was that cigarettes caused cancer. A few doctors and scientists were paid by industry to offer dissenting positions. They worked for phony thinktanks like “The Tobacco Institute” funded by the tobacco industry. Conservatives were able to site these phony store-bought opinions as legitimate science.
PAY ATTENTION TO WHO’S SIGNING THE CHECKS AND WHAT’S IN IT FOR THEM.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm“PAY ATTENTION …Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 5, 2007″
and that’s where you lost him.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pmConservatives were able to site these phony store-bought opinions as legitimate science.
That’s a perfect description. It’s all prepackaged, fast-food slogans and responses.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmTCDIM @68: “Yes, Gore and Arafat, too.”
WHat about all these Nobel Laureates, are they evil?
2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pm2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 - Kim Dae-jung
1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1984 - Desmond Tutu
1983 - Lech Walesa
1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso GarcÃa Robles
1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
1979 - Mother Teresa
1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1977 - Amnesty International
1976 - Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
1975 - Andrei Sakharov
1974 - Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato
1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
1972 - The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund
1971 - Willy Brandt
1970 - Norman Borlaug
1969 - International Labour Organization
1968 - René Cassin
1967 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1966 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1965 - United Nations Children’s Fund
1964 - Martin Luther King
1963 - International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies
1962 - Linus Pauling
1961 - Dag Hammarskjöld
1960 - Albert Lutuli
1959 - Philip Noel-Baker
1958 - Georges Pire
1957 - Lester Bowles Pearson
1956 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1955 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1954 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1953 - George C. Marshall
1952 - Albert Schweitzer
1951 - Léon Jouhaux
1950 - Ralph Bunche
1949 - Lord Boyd Orr
1948 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1947 - Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee
1946 - Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott
1945 - Cordell Hull
1944 - International Committee of the Red Cross
1943 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1942 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1941 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1940 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1939 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1938 - Nansen International Office for Refugees
1937 - Robert Cecil
1936 - Carlos Saavedra Lamas
1935 - Carl von Ossietzky
1934 - Arthur Henderson
1933 - Sir Norman Angell
1932 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1931 - Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler
1930 - Nathan Söderblom
1929 - Frank B. Kellogg
1928 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1927 - Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde
1926 - Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann
1925 - Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes
1924 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1923 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1922 - Fridtjof Nansen
1921 - Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange
1920 - Léon Bourgeois
1919 - Woodrow Wilson
1918 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1917 - International Committee of the Red Cross
1916 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1915 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1914 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1913 - Henri La Fontaine
1912 - Elihu Root
1911 - Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried
1910 - Permanent International Peace Bureau
1909 - Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d’Estournelles de Constant
1908 - Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer
1907 - Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault
1906 - Theodore Roosevelt
1905 - Bertha von Suttner
1904 - Institute of International Law
1903 - Randal Cremer
1902 - Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat
1901 - Henry Dunant, Frédéric Passy
OK, let me break this down for you. ralph already said correctly that 2005 was the hottest year for Earth, not the U.S., which was indeed 1934. Now, I know this might be hard for you to accept, but the Earth =/= the U.S. The U.S. makes up 6% of the above water landmass, and 2% of the entire globe
(see ).
So for the U.S. to have the hottest year on record in 1934, doesn’t mean the WORLD had the warmest year in 1934. Its a global average. This is hard science and math, no political B.S.
Its good there are dissenters for the global warming science. That allows the scientific community at large to continually test and refine their theories. But the minute the media politicizes it, the true science case is lost.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pm>>Keitol, I think you get slammed with a lot of crap here that you don’t deserve, most of it simply ricochet from trolls like TDCON and Hill Billy.
I know, I am collateral damage and my view is deeply unpopular here, but it is worth it for the occasional quality debate. I just ignore the personal stuff, I am a heartless conservative after all. GW is an issue that gets people pissed off faster than almost anything, I have noticed.
But Luis M. had a good response to your original post. Why ask us if Gore has practical suggestions? Do you trust the posters here to represent Gore’s views accurately?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 5, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
I am less interested in Gore than I am in TPs opinion of him. Debating Gore’s opinion of media coverage is pointless. I was trying to inject some interest in an otherwise rather dry thread.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pmComment by TCDon
You’re not going to get anywhere in life believing what Glenn Beck has to say. Pathetic.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pmYes, Gore and Arafat, too.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
You’re right, Gore is the opportunist. Bush and Cheney are the idealists. Thanks for straigtening us out.
And the movie was successful not because it made sense but because it was so darn entertaining. I get such a kick out of all those documentaries.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:20 pmThere you go. Only 7% give an explicit endorsement of the so-called consensus. 7% is a far cry from 95%. There is no consensus.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Actually only 6% of the papers (and those were mostly trashed during peer review) were explicitly against the consensus. You poor stupid little ‘tards don’t know how science works! Keep believing your FLAT EARTH theories - dum basses!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmComment by troll buster — November 5, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
They gave that damn Mother Theresa the prize! Well that just proves what a crock it all is. She’s a Catholic you know. This prize should only go to Evangelicals otherwise it means nothing, nothing I tell you. After all what good does a Peace Prize do when you are going to be left behind during the rapture!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmJust like he was trying to cast doubt on whether Rudy Guliani tortured people in yesterdays thread, for 14 hours straight.
He’s UNITROLL.
And I can smell him from a mile away.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
That is weird, I wasn’t online yesterday, pehaps your smelling needs checking.
Explain something to me, not just Bartlebee, anyone. Why does is it make you guys feel so good to deny a persons legitimate identity? The freak who hijacked the Thinkfast thread with the La Raza jazz this morning, I can understand that, it was so transparent. When someone gets on and starts spouting Apocalyptic crap from the Bible and wants you to debate them, I can see that too. But why is it so hard to believe that there are several conservatives who disagree with you? Why do they all have to be the same person? It makes no sense.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmWhere did I quote Glenn Beck?
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Where did you quote scientists?
Oh, did you realize that the WINGNUTS that published this study, removed all scientific papers that weren’t in the range they liked? That’s right, it purged a significant number of pro-climate change papers to FUDGE the results!
And yet, they could still only produce 6% dissent, even then!
You poor stupid little ‘tards really are natural born liars!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pmYes, I understand. Global Warming is the new religion, AlGore is the center of the world, and anyone who disagrees should be burned at the stake for heresy.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Actually, it’s you ANTI-GLOBAL warming people that confuse your RELIGION with SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!
That’s why you keep linking to a STUDY who’s METHODOLOGY has been slammed as unscientific!!!
Poor little ‘tards!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pmComment by StrikerG — November 5, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Great post StrikerG, just the kind of info that makes a trolls head assplode.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pmTell us TCDon, we notice you’ve used up several of your 1/10th of an hour billing periods - you didn’t cheat those customers today by falsely billing them for your blogging - did you THIEF?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmExplain something to me, not just Bartlebee, anyone. Why does is it make you guys feel so good to deny a persons legitimate identity? The freak who hijacked the Thinkfast thread with the La Raza jazz this morning, I can understand that, it was so transparent. When someone gets on and starts spouting Apocalyptic crap from the Bible and wants you to debate them, I can see that too. But why is it so hard to believe that there are several conservatives who disagree with you? Why do they all have to be the same person? It makes no sense.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
We know you disagree with us, you just do it from stupid religious anti-rational places! Didn’t you know that was the issue, little ‘tard?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pmSorry Keltoi, but our cover has been blown. According to the libs, we work for a gov’t run secret Psyops factory. We probably have side-by-side cubicles. There can’t be legitimate disagreement, you know, because AlGore is god.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
There can be legitimate disagreement, it’s just you don’t represent it!
That’s why you use a study that’s already been discredited as ‘unscientific’ to represent your ’scientific’ opinions! That makes you either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest! Either way, you’re a incompetent little hack that cheats his non-existent legal clients!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pmThink about what Gore is saying. At one time the accepted scientific fact, a CONSENSUS if you will, was that the world was flat. Those few who dared to disagree were deemed to be heretics.
Consensus is not science.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 1:36
Long before Christianity, the ancient Greeks had figured out that the earth was round, and one of them was actually able to mathematically calculate the circumference of the earth to within a few percent. After the fall of Rome, science (along with most of Western Europe) fell into the dark ages where religious superstition reigned supreme. Many of the scientific discoveries made during the late dark ages/age of enlightenment were actually rediscoveries of things that the ancients had figured out long before them.
Those who had advocated a flat earth were not scientists, they were philosophers and theologians; those who dared to disagree with their views were excommunicated from the Church and risked exile, imprisonment, fines, torture, and even death.
The same crackpots who so vehemently disagree with global warming typically have contempt for the principles of science and the scientific method in general, and are probably the same fools who believe that the earth and universe are only 6,000 years old and that every species of animal that ever existed lived within walking distance of Noah’s home.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI am less interested in Gore than I am in TPs opinion of him. Debating Gore’s opinion of media coverage is pointless. I was trying to inject some interest in an otherwise rather dry thread.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Dry thread? Just because you hate science, and prefer fantasy religious stories doesn’t make this thread dry, it just proves you’re ‘tarded!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pmThis whole debate seems silly to me.
Even if Gore and hundreds of reputable scientists are wrong, by following their advice; we would have a healthier and cleaner planet. That sounds good to me. I’d like to leave my great grandchildren a healthy and clean planet to live on.
And, if Gore and hundreds of reputable scientists are correct, the human race - and all of God’s creatures - survive on the only home we have.
Again, why are we debating this simple choice? What could the right siders possibly not like about living on a cleaner and healither planet? Or is it that they just don’t like Gore and they are willing to hasten our own demise.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI’m not billing anyone for this blogging time, oh hater of facts. Are you o.k. btw? You seem to be off your meds. Are you going to make it 25 more days until your next government check arrives?
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Ah, poor little ‘tard! Cheating clients, while dragging out the tired old cliche of the welfare Democrats! Too bad for you, that the reality is the Red States have more welfare recipients than any group!!!
Reality has a liberal bias, and when you come down off of that meth hit, and get out of the trailer you might recognize that - rube!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pmI think we should give equal time to every nut job wacko who has any idea at all.
And all neocon chickenhawks should be required to sit politely with their hands in laps and listen for the entire duration of the nut job wacko presentation.
That’ll keep them out of trouble. Maybe we won’t bomb Iran.
Comment by RUCerious
Yeah, right after we waterboard them…
November 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pmI’m not billing anyone for this blogging time, oh hater of facts. Are you o.k. btw? You seem to be off your meds. Are you going to make it 25 more days until your next government check arrives?
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Such witty banter, did you learn that at your “law school”?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pmTell us TCDon, why didn’t you post that this ’scientific’ study removed the bulk of articles that were supportive of climate change from their search?
Or didn’t you know that?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmStratRat, I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmSuch witty banter, did you learn that at your “law school�
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
More likely he lurned in home school!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmSuch witty banter, did you learn that at your “law school�
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007
No, be he does watch Law and Order.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm“More likely he lurned in home school”
Same place he lurnded about the scientific method and statistical analysis.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmThose are legitimate questions StratRat. The problem is that politicians, mostly Democrats, will use this “global warming is proven fact†and “the debate is over†mantra as an excuse for added government control over free enterprise. There are those who believe that bigger governent is good because it gives them more power. Those people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
You really should up your meds, your PARANOIA is really pathetic!
The Republicans have used the power of government to crush the middle class and small business for the protection of their big business cronies for DECADES! Your stupid little post is HYSTERICAL!!!!
What the CRONIES don’t want is for their FOSSIL FUEL buddies to lose any business, even if it protects all of humanity! It’s that kind of selfish short sightedness that we expect from your fascist freaks! All the while WHINING about socialism! When are you going to follow Adolph’s lead and start rounding up the lefties?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThere are those who believe that bigger governent is good because it gives them more power. Those people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
No, that is called BushCo, take a peek outside your own arse and you can actually see the carnage REALLY Big Government has done.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmMore likely he lurned in home school!
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 5, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Oh yeah, “Lawyering for Dummies”.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmThere can’t be legitimate disagreement, you know, because AlGore is god.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
No. You and several of your cronies don’t have legitimate disagreement because you refuse to even consider the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to the anthropoegenic source of global climate change. Instead, you respond to every “Global Warming” thread with the same hackneyed comebacks that have been debunked time and time again. Do you think that if you keep posting the same lies from Lindzen and his cronies that they’re eventually going to come true?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmThose are legitimate questions StratRat. The problem is that politicians, mostly Democrats, will use this “global warming is proven fact†and “the debate is over†mantra as an excuse for added government control over free enterprise. There are those who believe that bigger governent is good because it gives them more power. Those people are called Democrats. Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
If it’s FREE ENTERPRISE, why does the Fossil Fuel industry receive 200BILLION a year in Government Subsidies - whereas small businesses that provide alternative energies receive almost no subsidies? Is that FREE ENTERPRISE? Or just CRONY FASCISM? Adolph?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmGood people.
It is really pointless to debate science with people who believe using compact fluorescents “emboldens terrorists”. You may despise them, you may ridicule them, but you will never convince them. In order to be convinced, one must possess the power of reason. I think it’s safe to say that “reason” has been eradicated from the right wing; it’s useless to them just like compassion and empathy.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmThose people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Oh that right Democrats like things like regulation. Republican like gasoline at $3.29 and Blackwater mercenaries making $100,000 a year and handling “intelligence” instead of those evil types like Valerie Plame. Is my face red!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThe problem is that politicians, mostly Democrats, will use this “global warming is proven fact†and “the debate is over†mantra as an excuse for added government control over free enterprise. There are those who believe that bigger governent is good because it gives them more power. Those people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
It’s not about “big government,” but a certain amount of regulation is in order. So far it’s the only mechanism that actually works in getting industry to practice better environmental stewardship. Voluntary industry standards only last until people stop paying attention.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pmSure Rockyroad, sure.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 2:44
Don’t you know Bart, Keltoi is the only honest troll around here. No namechanging or namejacking or disrupting threads just to disrupt them. His first absurd posts were just to inject some life to the thread. Never is his intention to disrupt the discussion, he’s just too effing honorable.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pmSorry Keltoi, but our cover has been blown.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
If you two want to talk about getting blown maybe you should go to one of your Republican sites.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmSorry Keltoi, but our cover has been blown. According to the libs, we work for a gov’t run secret Psyops factory. We probably have side-by-side cubicles. There can’t be legitimate disagreement, you know, because AlGore is god.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Whoa…I am talking to myself…
The funny thing is, I had someone tell me point blank I was one of THEM. They really believe there are government psy-ops people trying to disrupt TP.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmStratRat, I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Comment by Shayne
Thanks…Our entire existence is predicated on a clean globe. We cannot afford to get this one wrong. I mean, even the right siders clean their own houses every once in a while, don’t they?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmIt always amazes me that these conservatives lack a full understanding of science or fact based decision making. Let us look at few examples:
1. Evolution is a theory, thus it is nothing more than a guess.
2. 2005 was the hottest year on earth trumped by the average temperature for one nation on earth.
3. Gore invented the internet. No Gore never made such a statement. He did say that he was one of the congressional group that was instrumental in founding the internet. The internet actually arose from a DARPA sponsored data sharing program. Gore and a few others saw the potential to expand this into what became the internet. Gore has been recognized for his role by a number of professional organizations.
3. Many scientific papers cite to pioneering global warming studies using the theories, formulas and computer models to support their work. However, this does not count unless the author also says: “I am a firm believer in global warming.” You know, the same way that every scientific paper using previous work establishing that the world is round has a disclaimer on the first page saying “And I also agree that the world is round.”
November 5th, 2007 at 2:49 pmWhoa…I am talking to myself…
The funny thing is, I had someone tell me point blank I was one of THEM. They really believe there are government psy-ops people trying to disrupt TP.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Doesn’t matter if you’re talking to yourself or somebody else. Doesn’t even matter why you post here. What does matter is that you don’t have anything of any value to add to a discussion just more debunked talking points and all you ever do is distract from the subject. You don’t like us calling you on it, feel free to leave, any time.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pmThanks…Our entire existence is predicated on a clean globe. We cannot afford to get this one wrong. I mean, even the right siders clean their own houses every once in a while, don’t they?
Comment by StratRat — November 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Does straightening up the house before the Guatemalan maid arrives count as “cleaning their own house?”
November 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pmI mean, even the right siders clean their own houses every once in a while, don’t they?
Comment by StratRat — November 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
No, but I heard they do vacuum their Doublewides.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
You give them too much credit. I think they hope to get blown in their doublewides and that’s why they turn on the vacuum cleaners.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pm3. Gore invented the internet.
3. Many scientific papers cite to pioneering global warming studies using the theories, formulas and computer models to support their work.
Comment by JMOHR — November 5, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
As any fool can plainly see, you have used the number 3 consecutively for two successive bullet points. A correct numbered list would have used a 4 for the second of these points (the fourth point overall).
This tiny typographical error thus throws the entire premise of your argument into disarray, and to wit I can only conclude that evolution IS a myth, 2005 was NOT the hottest year on record, Al Gore DID invent the Internet, and the world IS indeed flat.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThere are those who believe that bigger governent is good because it gives them more power. Those people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
As usual, TCDon’s understanding of history is on par with his low IQ. Government grew during the 80’s and early 90’s under Reagan and Bush. The size of government shrinked under Clinton. Government has again increased in size under Bush II.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThis tiny typographical error thus throws the entire premise of your argument into disarray, and to wit I can only conclude that evolution IS a myth, 2005 was NOT the hottest year on record, Al Gore DID invent the Internet, and the world IS indeed flat.
Comment by toasterhead — November 5, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
toasterhead, go get some fresh air, we’ve all been breathing too much troll dung.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pmIt’s not about “big government,†but a certain amount of regulation is in order. So far it’s the only mechanism that actually works in getting industry to practice better environmental stewardship. Voluntary industry standards only last until people stop paying attention.
Comment by toasterhead — November 5, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
I’m willing to bet that roughly the same argument was floated by the meatpackers when the FDA was established. Even most conservatives are probably glad that there is some inspection of their food, although even this is being gutted (sorry) by this administration.
But it’s always the same argument: “You’re interfering with free enterprise! Waaah!” Yet I suspect they do like untainted food, clean air, clean water . . . and without government regulation they’d have no assurance of any of that.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pmSo, Keltoi - you say that you’re interested in our views with regard to global warming…
In a nutshell, here they are:
1. Serious changes appear to be happening in Earth’s climate, i.e, more storms, stronger storms, drought, rapid melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, sea level rising, etc. etc.
2. Almost all the science appears to validate the theory that man is increasingly responsible for climate change via pollution, fossil fuel consumption, etc.
3. Action should be taken both at the individual level and that of (world) government to slow down the processes.
4. Whether or not it falls out that man is responsible for global warming, it is to our benefit as a species that we clean up our act.
There you have it. The progressive view in a nutshell.
Now, we’ve told you ours, so…
What is YOURview…?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pmtoasterhead, go get some fresh air, we’ve all been breathing too much troll dung.
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Just trying out a bit of Conserva-Logic®, that’s all.
It’s quite fun, actually. You don’t need to think at all. It’s kinda like sending your cerebrum on vacation and responding only with the knee-jerk part of your medulla.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pmTo say that 95% of scientists agree is a blatent lie. Try reading some of these 228 articles (number growing by the day), rather than following this blind “the debate is over†argument.
http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html
Comment by TCDunce — November 5, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
TCDunce,
Articles?
You forgot to include this “article†from the internationally renowned climatologist, Dr. Meskimen.
http://img255.imageshack.us/ my.php?image=globalwarmingltrva5.png
November 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pmBut it’s always the same argument: “You’re interfering with free enterprise! Waaah!†Yet I suspect they do like untainted food, clean air, clean water . . . and without government regulation they’d have no assurance of any of that.
Comment by gummitch — November 5, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
I know - it’s so cute. And what’s more, they think there’s such a thing as the “free market.”
November 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWhoa…I am talking to myself…
The funny thing is, I had someone tell me point blank I was one of THEM. They really believe there are government psy-ops people trying to disrupt TP.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
You very could be. The pentagon ‘blogging’ program was outed to Congress almost a year ago. Why is this so far fetched?
Then we have the GOP program, and one of your bloggers was caught less than a year ago ‘posing’ as an independent blogger while working in the GOP offices (IndyNH).
Then you have all of the religious groups, and the NeoCons and the rest of the ‘GOP LIFE SUPPORT’ that you very well could be working for.
Then finally, you could just be a ‘tarded GOP fool that does this ‘disruption’, because you’re a confused drug addled idiot. Also an equally possible explanation.
But you ‘discounting’ that you could be a government hack, actually increases the likelihood that you are! Especially with the level of FEMA incompetence and idiocy you bring to the blog each day!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:03 pmDon’t you know Bart, Keltoi is the only honest troll around here. No namechanging or namejacking or disrupting threads just to disrupt them. His first absurd posts were just to inject some life to the thread. Never is his intention to disrupt the discussion, he’s just too effing honorable.
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Sarcasm noted, but I don’t namejack or namechange or namecall or disrupt just to disrupt. Ever. Why would I waste my time? I was trying to get an opinion from TP on Gore’s public policy efficacy. If that was absurd, your absurdity threshold is pretty low.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWilliam Gray has made himself into a drooling imbecile. As for John Christy, until last year he argued himself blue in the face that warming was not occurring. Now he concedes that it is happening, because the evidence is irrefutable. Yet he continues to cling to an ideologically driven view, namely that humans aren’t involved, that is at odds with the science. John Christy has discredited himself.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmBut gummitch, it was the illustrious Ronnie Reagan, most overrated president ever, who got rid of most of the inspectors at meat packing plants. Bush just finished off the job.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm5%? How much airtime does Fox give them? 50%? Sound about right?
Comment by bob lahblah — November 5, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
The number is nowhere near 5%. Maybe 1%.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pmIt’s the height of irony for any of our triolls to domplain about Democrats and Big Government or Free Entertprise. Bush has the biggest government on roecord, and the least free enterprise in history. that’s why TCDon can’t understand that everything he says is a Glen beck quote, because the righties all march in a very tiny worldview lockstep. The fact is, Bushco has subverted Ameican democracy and has created the conditions for the next world war, all over power and oil profits. That’s a sick bunch, deserving only of imprisonment or execution.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pmTCDon is even stupider than I imagined. Hard to believe.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pmKinda like huffing spraypaint.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
But without the aerosol aftertaste. :)
November 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pmWow! Annie to the rescue!
>>1. Serious changes appear to be happening in Earth’s climate, i.e, more storms, stronger storms, drought, rapid melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, sea level rising, etc. etc.
Agree that there appears to be change.
>>2. Almost all the science appears to validate the theory that man is increasingly responsible for climate change via pollution, fossil fuel consumption, etc.
Pollution is bad, it certainly isn’t helping. The climate has always changed over Earth’s history, however. There is validity to the theory we are doing it, I agree.
>>3. Action should be taken both at the individual level and that of (world) government to slow down the processes.
Well, that was sort of what I was getting at - does Gore have a workable plan?
4. Whether or not it falls out that man is responsible for global warming, it is to our benefit as a species that we clean up our act.
There you have it. The progressive view in a nutshell.
What is YOURview…?
Comment by Leftside Annie — November 5, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Not too far from yours, which is why I find it so odd that I am getting such a ration of sh*t over this.
Lets assume all Gore says is true. Lets assume every American saw things like he did. What would we have to do to stop global warming? Is it possible without reverting to pre-industrial living? And how could you possibly predict with any accuracy the outcome of changing your life without actually doing it at astronomical cost to our economy? And does anyone think China and India are going to stop using fossil fuels?
I guess that for all I hear about GW, I never hear any say THIS is what we need to do and the polar bears will be safe. Doing something is better than nothing, but I think the discussion is almost totally theoretical because achieving any international action plan is impossible.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pmwhat awful karma is it of the US that fate has denied us a real person like Gore for POTUS - you know, one with intelligence, knowledge, and morality.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pm.
The number is nowhere near 5%. Maybe 1%.
Comment by VerbalKint — November 5, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Even if the number were 50% the thing to look at is motivation. I think that it’s safe to say that 100%, of “scientists” who disagree with the consensus that humans are destroying the environment, are on the payroll of the energy industry or are “true believers” of the Christ myth.
I defy anyone to identify a single scientist, who refutes the fact that humans are killing the planet, that doesn’t have a financial, or theological/political, incentive.
And just to prevent the inevitable “dispute” by trolls; there are countless climatologists who have zero motivation for “anti-Americanism” who have concluded that our planet is in peril. If you are concerned with motivation all one has to do is follow the money.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmYou panty waist liberals only want to stifle free enterprise and the great American industries by your limits. Our corporations need to be totally free to produce and expand without your bleeding heart protections of children, the environment, workers, and resources. Our corporations have quarterly profit goals to meet and you commies think about the **snicker** “future” and “communities”. Without us corporatists, you sniveling whiners wouldn’t have two nickels to rub together. Our corporations have the God-given right to dominate the earth and everything in, on, and around it for “the good life, financial liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” of the few with the guts to grab it.
/snark off
November 5th, 2007 at 3:27 pmHet metal! You were going to provide us with the text in the Geneva Convention that prohibited us from invading Iraq? Have you found it yet? It’s been about a week!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Unfortunately for you, mikey the liar, that line was indeed printed here recently. Did your special ed instructor not show to read it to you? Is that why you can’t read it yourself? Here’s the same question I would ask your presidon’t Bush: are you evil or merely incompetent?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThat’s the best answer algore can come up with?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
That’s the best question you can come up with?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pmSo, YOU can’t answer the question?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
So you can’t ask a relevant question?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pmBS! These guys are after the grant money they hope will appear for their research!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
So you’ve met the global warming deniers?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pmGore answered your questions completely, honestly and factually, michael, now, do like everybody else, and go watch the documentary instead of arguing with your shadow. You’ll never wi; your shadow has more brains than you.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pmSo, YOU can’t answer the question?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Do you always question the answer?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:31 pmS! These guys are after the grant money they hope will appear for their research!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Ah, you’re admitting that your oilmen are buying off the scientists that are rightwing enough to happily lie to the American people for a few bucks. Now you’re getting somewhere!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pmLets assume all Gore says is true. Lets assume every American saw things like he did. What would we have to do to stop global warming? Is it possible without reverting to pre-industrial living? Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
That’s a strawman, and a stupid one at that!
And how could you possibly predict with any accuracy the outcome of changing your life without actually doing it at astronomical cost to our economy? And does anyone think China and India are going to stop using fossil fuels? Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Actually if you had read the IPCC, they already broke out the cost to the global economy! And it’s actually quite small! They also pointed out that the changes could in fact stimulate economic growth!
Your argument is like the people that whined about how industrialization would destroy the worker! It’s ignorant and uninformed!
I guess that for all I hear about GW, I never hear any say THIS is what we need to do and the polar bears will be safe. Doing something is better than nothing, but I think the discussion is almost totally theoretical because achieving any international action plan is impossible.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
You’re a fool! What’s IMPOSSIBLE is trying to debate an ignorant flat earther like you!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmYou’re WRONG! Point me to it?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Find it yourself? How lazy are you? Republican-lazy or shitstain lazy?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI guess that for all I hear about GW, I never hear any say THIS is what we need to do and the polar bears will be safe. Doing something is better than nothing, but I think the discussion is almost totally theoretical because achieving any international action plan is impossible.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
We could put money into research for alternative fuel sources by purchasing carbon credits for one… You know, instead of spending money on disseminating false information about climate change and Al Gore.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmIt is? Maybe you can elaborate?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
It isn’t? Maybe you can elaborate?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmBetter yet, how about a common sense pill for liberals?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Better yet, how about a common sense pill for conservatives?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmYou’re WRONG!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Sorry, your post was not in the form of a question.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pmLunch time!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Don’t leave those children in the oven too long!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pmLunch time!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
run away, run away, little wingnut fool!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm