My, my, my… (h/t – GP Reader Peter Hughes)
Want to know why Nobel Laureate Al Gore likely doesn’t want to debate any of the myriad of scientists and politicians that have challenged him to such a tête-à-tête regarding his manmade global warming theories?
Could it possibly be because Gore was a terrible science student, and clearly never excelled at anything relating to what folks in Norway and in the media consider him to be so expert at?
The following was reported by the Washington Post on March 18, 2000 — and conveniently ignored by media ever since Gore began lecturing the world about subjects he practically flunked as a student! — in an article [1] marvelously titled “Gore’s Grades Belie Image of Studiousness” (h/t NBer dscott, and tangentially Greenie Watch [2]):
For all of Gore’s later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.
Yet, this is the man liberals and dolts in the media are willing to bet their very lives on when it comes to complex scientific issues surrounding meteorology and climatology. On a regular basis, such folk have the nerve to suggest that Gore is more knowledgeable when it comes to these matters than scientists who have spent their entire lives studying and educating others at the finest colleges and universities around the world.
And just why should we believe Gore’s wild-eyed message of doom on global warming climate change now? After all, it was Gore that said this too in 1998:
[T]his is a man [Saddam Hussein] who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He’s trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen. We are going to win this confrontation.”
Why did Gore’s view change after he lost the 2000 Presidential Campaign and after 3,000 Americans died as the result of eight years of Gore-Clinton inaction against the growing worldwide Islamic terror threat?
Gore lied, trees will die.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
More inconvenient truths: How do busboys and dishwashers making minimum wage find thousands of dollar to donate to Hillary? It is indeed a mystery. (And a mystery about which the MSM has very little curiosity).
Just because Al Gore can only put out 40 watts does not mean that he would not be useful under the basement steps when you are looking for the plunger.
Furthermore, if he arranges his Oscar, Grammy, Emmy and Nobel medal just so, he should be able to boost his reflected output to 43 watts.
Now, if we can just get his voice pattern to hit a steady, standard speed. Nothing like listening to 33 1/3 rpms at 31 1/4 is there?
There has been plenty of debate about global warming in the scientific community for years and there is now an overwhelming consensus. It’s only the right wing politicians and the oil industry that wants to debate it now.
Scientific debates should be had by scientists, not politicians. And we should know who is paying their salaries while we are at it.
Man made Global Warming is a HOAX!
For all the debate that’s on going, I have yet to hear a direct rational answer to this question:
Why is global warming occuring on the planet Mars???
It’s gotten so bad over there, a streem of water started from the northern polar region of the planet!
It’s only the right wing politicians and the oil industry that wants to debate it now.
Since when is Bjorn Lomborg or the Heartland Institute “right wing politicians” or “the oil industry”?
See the rest here.
#3: The “debate” in the scientific community is far from over. Just because the MSM report only the parts that suit its agenda doesn’t mean that there isn’t dissent.
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Does anyone really think that the planet’s climate has been static all that time? Is Earth like an indoor shopping mall – always a comfortable 72 inside?
Yes, the climate is changing. It’s been changing ever since the planet formed. It it will change until the sun engulfs it in another 10 billion years.
The debate is whether or not human activity affects climate (I tend to think it does but in a minimal way) and whether or not turning the world’s economies upside-down will yield anything more than token results. I don’t think climate scientists have figured out whether or not warming will increase or decrease cloud formation and what the affect of more/less cloud cover will have on surface temps.
(And, unlike Algore, I got A’s in my science classes.)
I’ve never figured out why we pay so much attention to celebrities (be they washed-up pols or Hollywood airheads). Being rich ‘n’ famous doesn’t confer expertise.
I just recently flew over Greenland which looked to be plenty well stocked with ice. However, in the 1420’s it was possible to circumnavigate Greenland and there were sheep farms there that were doing well. I have seen some of these farms and buildings that were buried under the ice until very recently.
I visited a silver/copper mining operation in Switzerland. It was worked in the 1300’s before it was abandoned to a growing glacier. Now it has been exposed due to the receding glacier.
Just how long is 600-700 years in terms of climate on planet earth?
Is global warming a fact? Maybe. Is it man caused? Wow! Let’s figure out the answer to the first question before we go crazy over the second one.
#4:
So, over only a few Martian years, we have some observations that a small region of Mars may be warming and you’re going to extrapolate that to what’s happening here on earth? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I just knew this post would provide a few chuckles.
What would be good for a few chuckles, if it wasn’t so fcuking sad, is Ian/KYjelly’s pathetic attempts to contribute to the discussion such as above. Especially knowing damn well that Dave has an irrifutable point.
Suck on that.
I think there is a strong consensus that there is global warming. There is room for debate as to exactly what’s causing it. Of course, there are natural fluctuations in climate and average temperatures. In 1400 it may not have mattered if there was global warming, but it might now. Does it really matter what’s causing the global warming? No and Yes. If the sea levels rise an people near the coasts lose their homes, I don’t think it will make much difference to them what caused it. But even if the greenhouse gases had very minimal, if any, effect on the current global warming, that doesn’t mean it won’t in the future. Whatever affect it has now will only increase with increased usage of current energy sources. The question is, of course, how much. If the current global warming increases by another degree or two in the next 100 years due to natural causes, that may not be so bad. But if it ends up that current energy usage increases it by another couple of degrees, then that could tip the balance and have dire consequences.
So even though I’m not sure what effect current energy sources have, I still recommend alternate sources of energy. Of course, if something like biofuels require more usage of current energy sources to be viable, that’s not going to change anything, or make things worse. So we need alternatives that would use less or none of the usual current energy sources.
I think there is a more compelling reason to do so. It would help to become less dependent on oil from the Middle East. I also believe that doing so will actually do much more in reducing terrorism as well as eliminating the clownocracies in the Mideast region. If this seems far fetched, the Mideast countries that used to depend on oil for revenue, but have been tapped out and forced to seek other sources of revenue have become less radical and more modernized.
I would even advocate drilling for more domestic oil in the Gulf and Alaska. But this should only be a temporary measure while technologies for more efficient and alternative sources are developed.
#10:
He has no such thing. He’s just spewing another desperate climate change denialist talking point. Real scientists know better.
That’s right Ian. Without western civilization, climate would never change. Earth has only one perfect climate and one ideal temperature (both of which happen, by some odd coincidence) to be the temperature and climate that prevailed during the youth of the baby boom generation. That giant fusion reactor in the center of our solar system couldn’t possibly have more effect on the Earth’s climate than my SUV or Al Gore’s fleet of private jets or gigantic houses.
Right on! Pat.
We switched from whale oil to black gold in the not too distant past. Our current standard of living is the result of cheap and abundant energy. There is no question that we have to find a new source of energy to maintain our current living standards. It is also clear that this is obvious to scientists, technologists and tinkerers across the world.
The energy source that saves the day will most likely be the result of fusion. Most people fail to consider that our problem really lies in the fact that we can not effectively store and transport energy.
Bio-fuel is just a cheesy stab at trying to get into the coal or peat or oil manufacturing business. We have not begun to squeeze the possibilites out of deuterium. I believe that France, India, China and Japan are way ahead of us in research and development in this area. They do not suffer from political correctness in their major academic institutions. And they are sending boatloads of their best and brightest to learn what we know. Aside from the US Navy, we have very little incentive for private industry to do research on things nuclear in the US. That is not to say that they are not competing in countries which are more forward thinking.
Jane Fonda did more with The China Syndrome than Al Gore will ever do with his Kyoto and Ozone medicine show. You can look it up.
Sorry, Ian, but no cigar.
You eels are always sliming the point. Of course there is climate change. Fool! What the heck do you think all research on arctic ice cores is about?
The issue, my eely friend, is whether it is man made. Duh! How could climate change alone ever be “an inconvenient truth”?
Now, Master Ian, show us the proof that: a) long term climate change is occuring; b) which way it is going (hot or cold); c) man caused it; d) what the known and probable remedies are; e)that the Kyoto Accords have got it even a little bit right.
That, Scholar Ian, would be the first step in the scientific method. Until you can come up with adequate answers to the above, you are just another mouth on a bar stool.
Ian – since I can’t ask Al Gore this question, I’ll ask you:
For the sake of argument, let us stipulate that 1) the earth’s climate is indeed warming, 2) that any warming is bad, and 3) that all of this warming is due solely to human activity. What’s the answer?
I’ve yet to hear any politician on the planet propose substantive solutions. Substantive solutions will mean telling individuals “no” and “this will hurt a bit”. Blaming Bushitlerhalliburton isn’t a solution.
Will Mrs. Clinton propose massive and immediate energy taxes before the election? Will John Edwards propose measures to restrict economic growth in China and India even if the required trade tarriffs will cause a deep recession due to the resulting trade war? Will the Governator stake his political career on plans to impose a moratorium on growth in California (with resulting exodus of companies like Intel which will head for Bangalore)? Will the UN impose sanctions on countries with high birth rates? Will developed countries put a stop to immigration in order to reduce enery consumption?
What, Ian, will you do?
Brought to you by Environmental Media Services, Fenton Communications, George Soros and the Reformed Latter-Day Climatologists (Goremons).
Why is it that nobody ever talks about the funding for Global Warmism like DuPont, BP (big oil) and Enron?
Why is it that nobody ever talks about the funding for Global Warmism like DuPont, BP (big oil) and Enron?
Because statism is a shared agenda of the MSM, the Sorocrat Party, and the Church of Gaia.
Hey Mr. Gay Patriot. You’ve got some gall in dissing Al Gore, seeing as how Mr. Gore has the Nobel (among other prizes) and a lustrous record of political success and public service (Congressman, Senator, Vice-President, elected President), and you have, what? Rented webspace with 20 or so readers — and a lot of gall.
#19
Hey Ian, what the hell good does it do to get a Nobel Peace Prize when it doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore (if ever)?
Jimmy Carter? Arafat? Puhleeeeze!
And just what is his “lustrous record of political success”? How about that White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security he chaired and undermined? Then he had the gall to blame Bush for the airport/airline security failures.
Or maybe his “lustrous” associations with Jose Cabrera, Howard Glicken, Franklin Hanley, Maria Hsia etc.?
Or maybe his “lustrous” fundraising skills at Buddhist temples or calls from his WH office?
Or maybe the fact that he invented the internet?
How about the “lustrous” Live Earth flop?
No matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd. Even if he is still smoking weed.
If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure. -Algore
I would agree. The usefulness and veracity of the Nobel Peace Prize can be shown by the fact that terrorist leader, corrupt billionaire, and anti-Semite racist Yasser Arafat went to his grave with his.
Come to think of it, given Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, it seems that one must either participate in or support global terrorist organizations and terrorists to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Nobel Peace Prize… b.f.d.
“I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace … By suppressing Jews … he was ending struggle in Germany” (Gertude Stein – New York Times Magazine, May 6, 1934).
Hitler was indeed nominated in 1939 although the nomination was later withdrawn.
“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
— Vice President Al Gore
Oh and how about Algore’s “lustrous” support for the troops by pushing to have their votes thrown out?
And as far as “elected president”, why then did he concede, especially after he gave his word that he would not? What’s worse, the drive-by media won’t even back you up on that lie.
Sound familiar?
Sorta like exploiting that Frost kid.
Hello again Fey Patriots. We’ll let Ian speak for himself, TFC (and BTW, your sockpuppet detection skills are about as finely honed as your political arguments), but from here, I’ll only refer you ladies to a list of Nobel winners and let you ponder how silly you seem with your titters that the Prize has no meaning.
http://www.jinfo.org/US_Nobel_Prizes.html
Okay, KYKid, let’s pretend that the Nobel Prize has not been diluted by politics.
What are we to believe now that Al Gore has one? Does the prize warrant his understanding of science and specifically guarantee the accuracy of his musings and
ranprognostications?Does Gore now weigh in above Clinton who does not (yet) have a Nobel? Should the Democrat candidates demand he take the coronation for 2008?
As to “how silly we seem” I am wondering who sees us as silly? KYKid and his merry band of light-weights? Trying to reach you is like trying to get the nerd table at lunch in the middle school to stop giggling at Sally’s boobies.
There is a BIG BIG difference between earning a Nobel Prize in, say, physics and earning a Nobel “Peace” Prize.
Hello again Fey Patriots
So we’re doomed? From what? Your comment sounds rather intolerrant.
We’ll let Ian speak for himself
All I know is that you both disappear for a while and shortly after Ian shows up, you turn up and go muff diving on him.
I’ll only refer you ladies
What a homophobic turd! Take your hate back to DailyKooks, Adolf.
to a list of Nobel winners and let you ponder how silly you seem with your titters that the Prize has no meaning.
And I’ll refer you to Nobel’s standard for the Peace Prize winners:
The prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.
Not only has Algore NOT done any of that, he’s pushed for and voted for war on more than one occasion.
Suck on that.
Rented webspace with 20 or so readers
I leave it to the rest of the forum whether it’s more pathetic to be a blogger with “20 or so readers” or a troll on a blog with “20 or so readers.”
Oh my, the feathers are flying here…nope, sorry, ya’ll were not hawking War this time, so let me begin again…
Oh my, the wrists are flailing here…there, more appropriate…
Especially for you Helio, whose questions all lead to the same answer: Learn to live with it, dear! He won the Nobel Prize for tireless work in alerting the world (if not the regressive rightwing in America) to the looming climate changes that 99.999% of the world’s climate change scientists (dear old rightie-funded Bjorn being THE exception) say are due to human effects on the environment.
And, TFC, don’t try lecturing on tolerance. (A) You’re not up to it; and (B) it runs counter to an image you work very hard at here, 24/7.
Speaking of 24/7, VtheK, you left out the more pathetic option: that being, to actually be one of the regulars here who, instead of speaking up when a blogger writes a whiny partisan post about a great American who has just won world acclaim, rushes to a (what was it Mr. Tolerance called it…muff-munching?) defence of the blogger. And be kinder to your trolls for, without us, your Sunday evening worship here would be a darned sight less interesting.
Unfortunately for you, KYKid, the intelligence– or more precisely, the agenda — of the Nobel Peace Prize committee can be demonstrated by the fact that Yasser Arafat was given one.
Or, in other words, they celebrate the opposite of what they claim — and in the process, demonstrate that the way to win a Peace Prize is not to support peace, but to demonstrate the most strident anti-Americanism possible.
Which is exactly what Gore does.
You see, “global warming” isn’t really about climate change; it’s about punishing the United States for being so darn smart, talented, and industrious.
That fact is made obvious by the other one that the two countries which, between the two of them have almost half of the world’s population, and one of which is the world’s largest greenhouse gas producers, are specifically EXCLUDED from any sort of international greenhouse-gas controlling.
That would be China and India.
And the reason why is simple; attacking either of those would ruin both imports and exports for Europe, raising the price of the former and lowering the demand for the latter.
Furthermore, the Europeans know well what servile creatures US Democrats are; after all, said Democrats nearly thwarted the US’s shutting off of Saddam Hussein’s multibillion dollar kickback machine for the UN and European bureaucracies simply because the Europeans told them to do it.
With an unintelligent puppet like Al Gore, the Europeans have exactly what they need; someone who leftists and Democrats will follow unquestioningly to economic ruin and someone who is too stupid to realizing they are doing it.
Even if true, what does that have to do with peace?
How does Gore qualify over Andree Dumon, Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara, Father Nguyen Van Ly, Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, Álvaro Uribe, Garry Kasparov, Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili, Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Ayman Nour, Walid Eido, Pierre Gemayel, Antoine Ghanem, Rafik Hariri, George Hawi and Gibran Tueni, Reverend Phillip Buck; Pastor Chun Ki Won etc. etc. etc.
What the freakin’ hell has Algore done for peace?
Blockquote screw up aside, I eagerly await Ian/KYjelly’s reply
What sage and desperately needed advice from a totally strange stranger. I fall on my sword and ask redemption. Oh, Thank you KYKiddo!
When Al Gore was gifted with the Nobel Prize I was in utter dispair and incapable of picking my own nose. The Nobel Prize has been my guiding star. Why, oh why has Michael Moore or Sean Penn or Daffy Duck never won it? I was under great stress when it slipped through their worthy fingers and ended up around Al Gore’s corpulent head rest.
But with just six little words, my very soul has been saved by KYKiddo whose forte is a display of insouciance toward reality.
To KYKiddo I return the wisdom: Learn to live with it, dear!
George W. Bush, War on Terror, Christian morality, the work ethic, capitalism, the market economy, standards of decency, strict construction of the Constitution, Dick Cheney, big oil, bovine flatulence, people who don’t twist the facts to find a premise, etc.
If 99.999% of the climate guys agree, why won’t it float? Old Ivory Soap does it with a lower per cent. Ain’t science strange?
#34
Furthermore, four out of five dentists recommend chewing Trident, but somehow 99.999% of “scientists” agree on global warmism?