The ridiculousness of your post makes it quite clear that you are attacking him simply b/c he is a liberal and not b/c of his faith in the theory that Man has contributed to Global Warming.
As I said in my previous post, if you disagree with the data that is one thing but if you disagree with his politics you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Its ok to disagree with the data. Questioning the data is good and it only ensures that there is a proper dialogue.
But if you are relying only on political motivations that you shouldn’t be a part of the debate. And that goes for both liberals and conservatives.
And if you’ll notice I haven’t given my opinion on global warming. There is a reason for that. I need to evaluate the science much like the majority of Americans.
Sorry HI Duke, I forgot that we are to defer to Gorzilla. Ain’t it funny how he always blasts ExxonMobil, but never mentions Occidental Petroleum? Occidental was founded by Julius Hammer, a co-founder of the Communist Party USA. Armand Hammer, his son, sold some property to Al Gore, Sr., then rented it back from him at an exorbitant fee even though neither he nor Occidental ever developed it. It’s been going on for something like fifty years.
“…if you disagree with his politics you need to re-evaluate your priorities.”
The basis of liberal politics is to advocate increases in the size and power of government in order to buy votes and secure incumbancy. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. Therefore, liberals deserve extra scrutiny whatever they are advocating.
“Climate change” is therefore as suspect an agenda as anything else liberals advocate, just because liberals advocate it. When scientists advocate a political agenda, they should be ignored. When politicians advocate a scientific agenda, they should similarly be ignored.
If you want science, listen to scientists. Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Now, if there are scientists who disagree, I am willing to hear from them. But I see only a fox advocate employmnet at the henhouse whenever I hear a politician asking to be put in charge of the planet’s climate.
Is not worth listening to… Never has been & most likely never will be… When something of real importance comes out of his mouth, perhaps someone will pass it on so we can all get something from it, but so far – nothing out of his mouth has impressed me!!!! Sorry if you are an Al Gore fan, but he needs to learn a few things before he starts rambling on and acting as if he has just become the next expert on the matter….
This post was meant to provide an opinion of the poster only & in no way reflects the opinions of Al Gore himself…
Please see something that may shed a little more light on this subject.
House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated
by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest
house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more
energy than the average American household does in a year. The
average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400/mo. In
natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the
national average for an American home. This house is not situated
in a Northern or Midwestern “snow belt” area. It’s in the South.
House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a
leading national university. This house incorporates every
“green” feature current home construction can provide. The house is
4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the
American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal
heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the
ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter
and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a
conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected
and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from
showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then
into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land
surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area
enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.
~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of
the “environmentalist” Al Gore.
HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.
“The issue here is not Al Gore, or how much energy his house consumes [yes it is, because hypocrites don’t believe what they say applies to them], or which scientists claim global warming will lead to worse and worse tropical sotrms [yes it is, because motive is everything]. It should be about those idiots whose hurricane predictions are what so many insurers and reinsurers are basing their underwriting decisions on [which contradicts your previous remark].”
The reason that these predictions are so skewed is because of the political climate that rewards models comporting with “global warming.” That’s where the research money goes, that’s what gets the headlines, that’s what gets one invited to a cocktail soiree. Going against the grain, i.e., telling the truth, risks losing these things. Ergo, wild predictions fit the expected political fad mold, data-based predictions are boring and get you no notice.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The ridiculousness of your post makes it quite clear that you are attacking him simply b/c he is a liberal and not b/c of his faith in the theory that Man has contributed to Global Warming.
As I said in my previous post, if you disagree with the data that is one thing but if you disagree with his politics you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Its ok to disagree with the data. Questioning the data is good and it only ensures that there is a proper dialogue.
But if you are relying only on political motivations that you shouldn’t be a part of the debate. And that goes for both liberals and conservatives.
And if you’ll notice I haven’t given my opinion on global warming. There is a reason for that. I need to evaluate the science much like the majority of Americans.
That’s hilarious, Selina. I am envisioning exjarhead sitting in a steamy tub reading a paperback with Fabio on the cover surrounded by fat candles.
Also, how can there be such a thing as an exjarhead? I thought it was, “Once a Marine, Always a Mraine”?
Sorry HI Duke, I forgot that we are to defer to Gorzilla. Ain’t it funny how he always blasts ExxonMobil, but never mentions Occidental Petroleum? Occidental was founded by Julius Hammer, a co-founder of the Communist Party USA. Armand Hammer, his son, sold some property to Al Gore, Sr., then rented it back from him at an exorbitant fee even though neither he nor Occidental ever developed it. It’s been going on for something like fifty years.
“…if you disagree with his politics you need to re-evaluate your priorities.”
The basis of liberal politics is to advocate increases in the size and power of government in order to buy votes and secure incumbancy. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. Therefore, liberals deserve extra scrutiny whatever they are advocating.
“Climate change” is therefore as suspect an agenda as anything else liberals advocate, just because liberals advocate it. When scientists advocate a political agenda, they should be ignored. When politicians advocate a scientific agenda, they should similarly be ignored.
If you want science, listen to scientists. Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Now, if there are scientists who disagree, I am willing to hear from them. But I see only a fox advocate employmnet at the henhouse whenever I hear a politician asking to be put in charge of the planet’s climate.
Is not worth listening to… Never has been & most likely never will be… When something of real importance comes out of his mouth, perhaps someone will pass it on so we can all get something from it, but so far – nothing out of his mouth has impressed me!!!! Sorry if you are an Al Gore fan, but he needs to learn a few things before he starts rambling on and acting as if he has just become the next expert on the matter….
This post was meant to provide an opinion of the poster only & in no way reflects the opinions of Al Gore himself…
Please see something that may shed a little more light on this subject.
House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated
by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest
house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more
energy than the average American household does in a year. The
average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400/mo. In
natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the
national average for an American home. This house is not situated
in a Northern or Midwestern “snow belt” area. It’s in the South.
House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a
leading national university. This house incorporates every
“green” feature current home construction can provide. The house is
4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the
American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal
heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the
ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter
and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or
natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a
conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected
and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from
showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then
into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land
surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area
enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.
~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of
the “environmentalist” Al Gore.
HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.
An “inconvenient truth”. Especially for liberals.
Yo NY Bozo –
“The issue here is not Al Gore, or how much energy his house consumes [yes it is, because hypocrites don’t believe what they say applies to them], or which scientists claim global warming will lead to worse and worse tropical sotrms [yes it is, because motive is everything]. It should be about those idiots whose hurricane predictions are what so many insurers and reinsurers are basing their underwriting decisions on [which contradicts your previous remark].”
The reason that these predictions are so skewed is because of the political climate that rewards models comporting with “global warming.” That’s where the research money goes, that’s what gets the headlines, that’s what gets one invited to a cocktail soiree. Going against the grain, i.e., telling the truth, risks losing these things. Ergo, wild predictions fit the expected political fad mold, data-based predictions are boring and get you no notice.
I gotcher clown right heah.