Al Gore - Comedic Genius!

[FloydGondolli]

GORE TO WARN OF 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADES!

In what political watchers are calling possibly the biggest gaffe in years, former Vice President Al Gore is set to give a speech tomorrow on the perils of global warming -- on what is expected to be the coldest day in New England in nearly half a century!

MORE

Against the advice of senior advisers, Gore is planning to appear at the historic Beacon Theatre in Manhattan on Thursday to issue an indictment of the Bush administration's "inaction on global warming."

Gore will make the warming case on a day forecasters are predicting the coldest temps in Boston since 1957, with wind chills in parts of New England plunging to 100 degrees below zero!

MORE

Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech -- hoping to make the case how "Global warming" is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

MORE

"The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers, sources say, in explaining his motivations. "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

Sources would not say whether the speech is to be given outdoors.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[Igetp2s]

He should come in a Hawaiian shirt and shorts.

 

[D2bets]

Maybe Al doesn't think the Average Joe is as dumb as you think they are. I guess he thinks that a cold day in January is hardly proof that global warming doesn't exist. Ya gotta be a pretty dim bulb to think that a cold day disproves global warming.

That said, Al Gore is a dumbass dweeb.

 

[Shotgun]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
Maybe Al doesn't think the Average Joe is as dumb as you think they are. I guess he thinks that a cold day in January is hardly proof that global warming doesn't exist. Ya gotta be a pretty dim bulb to think that a cold day disproves global warming.

That said, Al Gore is a dumbass dweeb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you need to be a pretty dim bulb to believe blindly in global warming.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm

Ten facts about global warming
THEY don’t want you to know


Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.

Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.

Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.

The only evidence of significant warming comes from mainly non-western stations that are probably ill maintained and are contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.

The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.

The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectives

The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.

 

[angusr]

Right guy. So some dude with a numberwatch website knows more about the scientific merits of climate change than 72 Nobel Laureates. I think the general consensus of the scientific community (which leans toward the acceptance of humanity's effect on the climate) is probably close to the truth than this guy is.....

 

[bunyon]

Yeah.....and say what you will about Gore. But he's been an advocate for the environment for many years. Remember Bush1 calling him "Ozone Man? Don't put down a guy because he doesn't want to destroy the planet. Our Great Grandchildren might want to live here someday.

 

[PatPatriot]

Its -10 with the wind gust at 30 mph right at this time.

It sounds like anothe democratic promisr gone wild.
You know the old liberal mantra...fix somthing that is not broke beyond repair.

Why the fxck won't he stop polluting the air then with his bullshit,his limosines and his airplanes that he uses....When he stops I'll stop.

 

[Shotgun]

The studies that indicate global warming all have flaws, ranging from the measurement of the data to models that aren't sophisticated enough to take account all the variables that affect world temperature. Here are some links I posted earlier about the junk science behind Al Gore-type enviromentalism.

This one explains why Germany is so supportive of the Kyoto treaty:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/german_kyoto_protocol_hoax.htm

This one explains why a few other countries like the Kyoto treat:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/kyoto_five.htm

This one lists the 10 facts of global warming:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm

This one is a letter disputing global warning...signed by many scientists and meterologists:
http://www.sepp.org//leipzig.html

This one is a letter by atmospheric scientists on greenhouse warming:
http://www.sepp.org//statment.html

Here is another letter disputing the "consensus" global warming claim:
http://www.sepp.org//heidelberg_appeal.html

This paper states " The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly."
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

 

[angusr]

with reference to that last link from the oregon institute of science and medicine.....that paper was a highly publicized scam intended to deceive scientists into signing a petition against Kyoto by making them think it had been published in a prestigious scientific journal (PNAS).....pretty much sums up the tactics of some of these groups...

 

[KMAN]

It's just another way for Democrats to bitch about a Republican in office. Nobody knows for sure if there is a global warming problem. If the Democrats were so concerned they would stop driving cars and stop using products that put these so called hazardous gases in the air.....but we all know that will never happen.


KMAN

 

[lander]

You anti-Enviromentalists seem very uninformed.

Global Warming theorizing scientists have shown that there has been an increase in the Earth's temperature of about 1 degree in the past 100 years, but that this isn't a linear growth - there fear is that it may be an exponential growth which would result in a 4-5 degree increase over the next 50-100 years.

Whether that's true or not is not for myself to judge - I'm certainly not qualified (as many of you falsely believe yourselves to be), but it's quite clear that "Global Warming is a crock because it's fuking cold out" is an assinine assertion.

1. The average temperature only went up 1 degree in the past century, so what's to say that your -8 wouldn't have been -9 without global warming?

2. Global warming certainly would not increase every single cities' temperature 1 degree ... it's a worldwide average. The theory cites that the problem is with changing weather patterns, and since this "Big Chill" certainly isn't normal then one could falsely use your logic to say that this is circumstancial evidence of global warming.

3. As Agnus said, the fact that you people pretend to know more than some of the world's most brilliant scientists is absurd.

 

[SENDITIN]

but it's quite clear that "Global Warming is a crock because it's fuking cold out" is an assinine assertion

That isn't the point Lander...it's the unbelievable stupidity to give a speech on this subject in the middle of one of the coldest days on record. It's like giving a lecture on the evils of gambling as you roll the dice at the Mirage.

 

[lander]

The date he gives the speech has little to do with the facts or falacies of the Global Warming theories.

Perhaps there is no point, but instead the republicans saw an opporunity to attack a reknowned democrat and pounced on it as they always do?

Certianly the opposite holds true, but both sides of distortion are equally troubling and devestating to American politics.

 

[xpanda]

The irony of Al's timing aside, I don't quite understand the opposition to the notion of global warming. Now, I can fully understand the motivation behind certain camps choosing to ignore the issue (big business often equals big pollution) but is the assumption that global warming is a made-up concern by environmental activists?

It's not like anybody expects the planet to warm up in a week or two. If I'm not mistaken, the temperature increase is expected to be 1 degree fahrenheit per decade or something along those lines, is it not? Whether or not this is exaggerated is hardly cause for dismissal of environmental concerns, as was evidenced through Bush's snub at the Kyoto agreement. If it is in humankind's better interest that industry be allowed to continue unchecked, then so be it. Bush won't be around in five hundred years after we've wrecked the place.

 

[lander]

X,
The EPA estimates range from 4-10 degree increases over the next 100 years.

 

[Soothsayer]

That is HILARIOUS!!! Talk about bad timing for Gore... hahahaha!

Thanks for sharing that.. what site did that come from Floyd?

 

[FloydGondolli]

sooth,

That was a link I found at drudgreport.com

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[Shotgun]

Lander, a couple of quick points, then a whole bunch of comments from the world's most brilliant scientists disagreeing with theory of Global Warming.

1) As cities get bigger, they also get warmer (urban heat island effect). This contaminates the data that is used to 'prove' global warming. http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm

2) In the last century, the sun warmed until the mid-1930's, dimmed until the mid-1960's, then started warming again after that.

3) The global climate models used by global warming advocates have major flaws.http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex8.htm

4) The world scientists are split on global warming. They certainly don't agree on what causes it.

"The IPCC, of which McCarthy is part, canvassed a bunch of scientists and arrived at a conclusion that the human population is causing global warming. Yet most of the scientists who formed the IPCC "consensus" have no expertise in the area of climatology. That's how two scientists could go to the North Pole, see a patch of water, and declare that prima facie evidence of global warming." Joseph Perkins, The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 1, 2000

"The global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple." Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winner in chemistry

"Sixty-one percent of the state climate experts said historical data does not indicate 'that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels,' and nearly all said the earth 'experienced large global temperature fluctuations with both warming and cooling periods prior to the beginning of the industrial age' and the advent of burning fossil fuels. Countering claims by theorists that weather patterns have been changing due to global warming, 72 percent of state climatologists say weather events in their states in the past 25 years have not been more severe or frequent. Among the 19 percent who said they were, less than a third attributed the changed weather patterns to global warming." CSE Foundation survey of state climatologists, Oct., 1997

"Many climate experts caution that it is not at all clear yet that human activities have begun to warm the planet--or how bad greenhouse warming will be when it arrives." Richard Kerr, Science, May 1997

"A telephone call to the Gallup organization located the Center for me and another call brought me the findings of the poll, which had been released in February of '92. The results of the National Survey of Climate Experts show this: A majority of experts, 60%, believe that the Earth's atmosphere has warmed over the past century; however, fewer than one in five believe that this was human-induced. Forty-four percent assert that it was not human-induced, and 37% aren't sure." Jack Stauder, University of Massachuetts, Dartmouth, 1994

"The so-called consensus on greenhouse warming exists only among climate modelers and their associates. The majority of practicing meteorologists have very strong misgivings about the amount of warming predicted for a doubling of CO2, but they are hesitant to speak out for fear of revealing or being accused of ignorance of the principles of radiation transport." Hugh Ellsaesser, 13 Feb 1990

By the year 2000 we are committed to an average global warming of 1.6-4.7 degrees Fahrenheit." Bill McKibben in 1989, The End of Nature, p. 142. [Comment: The net global warming from 1989 to 1997 using either satellite or ground-based temperature measurements is 0.13 F +/- 0.15 F, or indistinguishable from zero, and less than 10% of McKibben's minimum prediction.]

A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." Richard Benedict, State Dept. employee working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation

"The trouble with this idea is that planting trees will not lead to the societal changes we want to achieve." Unidentified Kyoto delegate, Dec. 5, 1997

 

[lander]

Shotgun,
As I clearly stated, "Whether that's true or not is not for myself to judge".

I see this akin to the selfish reason that some believe in a god - "just in case."

Clearly many of the world's most brilliant minds believe that global warming not only exists, but that it comes with grave danger for future generations. Clearly many other brilliant minds don't believe these theories.

Let's consider the two possible outcomes, shall we -
A) The enviromentalists are correct
and
B) The enviromentalists are incorrect

Now, we have exactly two possibilities (for simplicity sake, surely I realise that portions of the theories may be correct creating X alternatives to the two obvious results) and with these two possibilities we have two options - 1) Adhere to prevention mechanisms to cease/prevent Global Warming 2) Do not adhere to prevention mechanisms to cease/prevent Global Warming.

We now have a permatation with 4 outcomes - A1, A2, B1, B2

Let's explore these ..

A1
A) The enviromentalists are correct & 1) Adhere to prevention mechanisms to cease/prevent Global Warming.
Likely result - We saved the planet and future generations will be spared from living through the destruction of Earth.
Humanity persists.

A2
A) The enviromentalists are correct & 2) Do not adhere to prevention mechanisms to cease/prevent Global Warming.
Likely result - We could have saved the planet, but instead future generations will witness the destruction of Earth.
Humanity ceases.

B1
A) The enviromentalists are not correct & 2) Adhere to prevention mechanisms to cease/prevent Global Warming.
Likely result - We didn't need to save the planet, but took preventive measures to anyways (just in case).
Humanity persists.

B2
A) The enviromentalists are not correct & 2) Do not adhere to prevention mechanisms to cease/prevent Global Warming.
Likely result - We didn't need to save the planet, and didn't take any preventive measures just in case.
Humanity persists.

--------------------------------------------
I honestly do not know who's correct, but both sides make compeling arguments. I'm inclined to play it on the safe side because, frankly, any other action is irresponsible and not an option that any intelligent human being should explore.

 

[lander]

Don't get me wrong - most of those "tree huggers" are wackos, but still ...

we need to take precautions - it is afterall, the only planet we have until Bush finishes conquering the Solar System in 2030