Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Al Gore Made Millions While Saving The World

November 13, 2012 by  

Al Gore Made Millions While Saving The World

This is a lesson on how the major media can slant facts and give them new meaning. Let’s start with the explosive facts, as revealed in a Washington Post story.

In 2001, Al Gore was worth less than $2 million. Now, in 2012, it’s estimated he’s locked up a nice neat $100 million.

How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled — via loans, grants and tax relief — somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the Federal government to go greener.

Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the Federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have Federal friends in high places.

For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.

Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.

Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It makes batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM sold when shares cost $21 to $26 — before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.

For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the Administration of President Barack Obama.

On the side, Gore has been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (It isn’t really on the side. Gore is constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.

So Gore has $100 million.

Now, we get to the slant. The headline for this piece in The Post was “Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor.”

Pretty soft, don’t you think? I mean, the man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The Federal government has been helping out with major, major bucks.

This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.

And here’s the kicker: Nowhere in The Post’s story was the issue of manmade warming mentioned as “unsettled” or “controversial” or even “the subject of intense debate.” Nope. Not even close.

That’s called a clue. You see, suppose The Post admitted that warming theories are up for grabs — which they most assuredly are. How would it look if Gore were portrayed as a man circling the globe many times to hype an unproven hypothesis, while profiting enormously from the effort because the Federal government was backing his plays? Hmm. Not very good. No, the story would have taken on a whole new and darker hue.

So the underlying assumption of the Post story, as reflected in its wimpy headline, was: Yes, Gore has been making money, but his cause is just and right and the situation of humankind is, in fact, dire because the Earth’s temperature has been rising dangerously as a result of carbon technology; and Gore is, after all, trying to stave off “humanity destroying humanity.” He’s a good man, in the end. Let him be rich.

That’s the slant.

It doesn’t really matter what facts The Post exposes about Gore’s sleazy business operations. He is doing it all “to save us.”

I don’t think so.

How many scientists and other Ph.D.s have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?

Let’s see. Remember the 49 astronauts and scientists who used to work at NASA and wrote a letter just saying no?

Nobel-prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever just said no.

A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists just said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that just said no. According to, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.D.s.

I’m not automatically assuming these people are absolutely correct in every detail of their positions. A definitive argument against manmade warming would take up many pages. In this context, I’m merely indicating that, indeed, the science is not settled, because many researchers are willing to step up and defend a counterargument.

Yet somehow, all these people’s voices are dimmed by the time elite media outlets like The Post cover the story. Mainstream reporters “who count” in the scheme of things look down their noses at those who claim manmade warming is incorrect science or a hoax.

I’ve worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, and I can tell you that, one for one, these arrogant “journalists” know absolutely nothing about warming. They have no significant personal knowledge of the subject. Their whole talent is making it seem as if they do. That’s the game. That’s why they make the big money.

It’s all a matter of style. That’s how you get to be an anchor on the evening news in prime time: You can fool most of people most of the time. You know how to talk, how to convey certain cues and emotions that put you over the top.

Anchors can make it seem as if they represent the best thinking and most intelligent consensus. That’s their skill.

Many years ago, George Burns famously said: “The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

That’s the bottom line for a news anchor.

And that’s the bottom line for the theory of manmade warming.

Is Gore faking it all the way or does he actually believe his all-encompassing, all-seeing global-warming message?

It’s a very interesting question. From my experience interviewing politicians, I’d say many of them lose the distinction after a while. They come to believe what they’ve previously been faking. This happens because they’re successful. They think to themselves: “I must be speaking the truth, because look at how well it’s playing, look at how well I’m doing, look at how many people support me.”

To stretch an analogy, a few of the bestselling medical drugs in the world cause brain damage. Does that mean they really don’t cause brain damage all of a sudden when sales figures reach $1 billion or $10 billion or, as in Gore’s case, $100 million?

People tell people who tell other people who tell other people, going all the way up the ladder, that the science on global warming is settled. Very, very few of the people on the ladder know the first thing about warming. They are parrots.

They tell the rest of us what’s really what and who’s really who, and they expect us to kneel down in adoration.

That’s mainstream news, and it’s falling apart as the online alternative media pick up the ball and run with it, as people indoctrinated to have faith in the major networks wake up from their slumber.

Big Al: $100 million, lockbox, an honorable man saving lives.

The first two items are facts. It’s the third item that should be open to robust debate in major media, but that’s not happening.

Major media, in most cases, echo the assumptions of their sources. The biggest source for stories, by far, is the Federal government. The Obama Administration has had a strict policy of declaring the global-warming issue wrapped up in a package with a red ribbon. It’s decided; it’s “settled.”

If The Washington Post suddenly investigated global-warming science and declared it bogus, it would suffer grave consequences. Many of its best sources, angered, would dry up overnight. If The Post went too far with its investigation, it could find itself on the outside looking in.

At the level of day-to-day news reporting, this is why big-time media outlets fold up under pressure and support the government consensus.

Of course, at a much higher level, The Post is playing partner with radical environmentalists who, in turn, are funded by titans of globalism. These deadly opponents of the free market want to encompass the planet in one management system (one central-planning system) from which all goods and services are distributed.

Global warming is one of their chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of all life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”

Gore is their boy. He is their front man.

He jets here and he jets there, carrying their messages. He’s their pizza delivery kid.

And for his work, he is paid $100 million — a drop in the bucket.

–Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport

, The author of an explosive collection, "The Matrix Revealed," Jon Rappoport was a candidate for a U.S. Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern and other newspapers and magazines in the United States and Europe. Rappoport has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic and creative power to audiences around the world. His blog, No More Fake News, can be read here.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Al Gore Made Millions While Saving The World”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Harold Olsen

    Doesn’t this constitute insider trading, which is supposed to be illegal. Why isn’t he under investigation?

    • GALT

      Good questions Harold……..a career in “investigative journalism” awaits……

      Journalism 101: Day One


      Day Two: Get to work!!!!!!!

      • kw

        Correction, according to principles of journalism, ca. 1968, “and sometimes Why.”

      • GALT

        You sure that’s not an alphabet question concerning the sometimes nature of “y”
        as a vowel?

        just kidding…….I don’t know if harold will benefit from the subtlety…….and just
        getting the ball ( or stone ) rolling is a start……….

        would have been cooool if he had come back with that one…..

        who knows how bad the “moss buildup” really is?

      • duane

        Galt you forgot Day 3,4,5,6 etc. That is to get lost permanently. Your ramblings are insulting and tiresome. Go lay down in front of a very fast moving semi-truck.

    • eddie47d

      “sovereign nations must be eradicated” That is reckless journalism to say the least and the author even said it with a straight face. I think we can eliminate him as a “wise one”. (his words).

      • MsAbby

        Just what do you think is happening with the new world order crap? The EU is a perfect example.

      • Dale left coast

        What? Maurice Strong has said that many times . . . who was he? Why the Inventor of the IPCC . . . Annan’s right hand man during the “Oil for Food” thing in Iraq. Strong’s good buddy agrees with him . . . who is that? Why good ole George Soreass . . . you know they guy that funds the O . . .
        Got to get out from under that log eddie . . .

    • Ron r

      sounds like Cheney and Halliburton. Something he should have been arrested for but was not.

      • momo

        Using that logic somebody should be putting handcuffs on Mr. Gore.

    • Jeff

      Maybe because Bob is just jealous of Gore’s success.

      • DaveH

        Perhaps you can explain to the readers, Jeff, why it’s okay for people on your side to be rich, but others are greedy?

      • MsAbby

        Jeff- why was Al Gore invested in carbon trading in Europe? why did a lot of those countries stop? It was too costly and it was not making a difference. Why did Al Gore and Clintons, among other, invest heavily in the Chicago Climate Exchange and ask Goldman-Sachs to run the trading floor?

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        What’s NOT ok is that they got rich off of OUR dime!!! The government STEALS from us and gives it to their cronies!!!

      • Dale left coast

        Fat Al had only 2 million bucks when he left the WH back in 2000 . . . he has made a killing with his Gorebull Warming Scam . . . “there’s a sucker born every minute” . . . and many grow up to be lieberals . . . . lol

    • s c

      Harold, for some reason it’s still not yet common knowledge, but our elected SLIMERS do have access to insider trading information [the SOBs made it LEGAL]. I’m tempted to say that Al ‘duh’ Gore shouldn’t be taken to task for his latest example of utopian insanity. However, SOME people (mainly those who find ways to look up to a _____ like Gore) just don’t get it. Wrong is wrong is wrong.
      If they could find a way to be objective [the opposite of a utopian], they’d realize that Gore is an opportunist and a schmuck and a wannabe self-made retard and SO MUCH MORE. By the way, do you think Gore pays his FAIR share? SOAK THE RICH (right?). And if so, HOW would we ever know that it gets done? Utopians CAN”T be trusted – EVER.

      • GALT

        Actually, Al Gore was not in the government for any of this activity, so he
        is not protected………and if the “author” believes he should be investigated….he should
        get to investigating………then he might actually achieve the stature of, Greg Palast or
        David Cay Johnston……….and others…..

        Facts here… with most things…..would be VERY INTERESTING…….

        The problem is……you all don’t seem to care about FACTS…….

        and because of THAT……you are already LOST!!!!!!

  • GALT

    Can’t really make up your MIND what the topic is?

    That is one hell of a range of diatribe, from Al Gore to global domination is one
    brief essay……….and the only thing that is certain is…whatever an investigative
    reporter is………it isn’t you.

    But just to help you figure out what exactly you might choose to investigate….

    Among climate scientists the debate on global warming is settled, and that would be
    97% of climate scientists…………..the only debate is how bad and how fast the effects
    will occur……..and just to make it REALLY CLEAR, of the increase in CO2 from it’s
    previous 800,000 year high of 280 ppm to the present 380+ppm……

    The controversy and debate only occurs among the IGNORANT SCIENTISTS……
    that would be non climate scientists…….the number of Ph.D’s among them is irrelevant,
    and the “scientist’s” number you use…..include’s anyone with a B.S……..but
    don’t take my word for it……….investigate. You might WIN a pulitzer…….but then
    someone might suggest that, that might need to be investigated also.

    As for Al Gore and government money and business, that would be a good topic
    to investigate……..and you could throw in Romney, Blankfein, Welch, Dimon, Paulson,
    Geithner, Summer’s……just so many people……..and many other “investigative reporters”
    have a head start………so you best get cracking………instead of trying to convince
    the already ignorant…….what they are already convinced of.

    Just curious but are your lectures and seminars free?

    If you were foolish enough to actually choose to investigate “climate science”,
    this post will be followed by a link which will get you started………it should be
    also be enough to finish you……..

    But let me end this on a positive note…… investigation of Al Gore and the companies
    he was involved with and the mechanism’s employed ( funding ) could be a very
    worthwhile effort……….on any numbers of levels……..provided you stick to Journalism.

    One question I have about what you suggest here is: Gore was already a tobacco heir,
    so your two million dollar start figure seems a bit questionable………and just as an
    interesting anecdotal aside………both Bush and Cheney live in totally self sufficient
    homes which they were willing to pay GORE to design and construct………

    Isaac Asimov once noted that good science was motivated by the “observation” of
    “hhhhhhmmmmm, now that’s funny?”

    Seems like it might have some application regarding good investigative journalism also,
    or it could just be me?

    As for the settled aspect of “climate science” among “climate scientists”…….

    All 170+ myths ( which is 150 more myths than the “ignorant” are aware of ) are included!!!!

    • GALT

      What the “science” says……….

      • GALT

        with video’s and pictures for the “reading impaired” a.k.a. “functionally illiterate.”

      • GALT

        Just for fun………

        this is the author’s source regarding the breakdown of the “fields” from which
        this petition comes……….it you follow the author’s link……

        1. General Engineering (9,833)

        I) Engineering (7,280)
        II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
        III) Metallurgy (384)
        2. General Science (269)

        That is just one category………but 1/3 of the “scientists”………

        P.S. This so called petition was signed in 2000 or prior, and was “instigated” as
        a response to the kyoto treaty…… based on “scientific data and interpretation”
        up to 2000…….and precedes Al Gore’s involvement in any aspect of “climate science”
        since he was otherwise occupied…………

        NEWS FLASH just based of “my investigative work” today……there is a strong rumor
        that I have or will soon be “nominated” for a pulitzer………..

      • GALT

        Final Investigative Entry……… the “author’s link”, includes a 12 page summary of
        “their science” and the basis of the petition……..

        For those who really want to understand the “actual science” the process is simple,
        take the claims in the “summary” and match them up with the corresponding
        evidence contained here:

      • deerinwater

        Just another feeble right leaning attack to avoid talking about current events that fail to please their favor. ~ There is no end to this kind of crap. What a joke. ~

      • speak truth

        Oh the climate change deniers will be the death of the planet. You idiots, Al Gore owns a Television Station “Current TV”, you must be listen to the republican propaganda channel again: Did Roger Ailes put this story out too! You lost an election for listening to the right wing infotainment channel Faux…and Rush the drug addict for decades. Your information is so disputable, and clearly unreasoned…keep thinking you have the answers and you will continue to lose election after election…..your laughable.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        The Neo-con-fascist-republicans lost the election? Really? That would explain why they are still in power hiding under left-wing cover, because its much too easy to fool dumb-bells like you who are so easily mis-lead by labels. And now you support them on global-warming? There’s should be a law against stupidity…!

    • reelman1946

      Baloney! I am a retired college science prof…
      MMGW is a hoax for $$$, follow the $$$.
      The so-called scientists these days shredded unwanted research results! That is not science!
      They ignored the roll of the sun. That is not science!
      They ignored the published results of, say, 1974 when an Ice Age was predicted.
      That is not science!
      Gore flies all over the world running his mouth but REFUSING QUESTIONS.
      That is not science! Science begs for questions.

      Putting sensors in wrong places get wrong slanted results (that happened). That is not science.

      Anyone with a brain knows the sun is shrinking via fusion which gives us the light to survive…BUT that takes matter being LOST (changed into light/energy)…
      texts for generations told us the earth would freeze in maybe 10 thousand years or whatever as the sun would lose so much matter our light/heat energy would be very very low and still shrinking…this cannot be changed…its the process.

      Oh, I forgot, there are NO research grants out there for that. Follow the money.

      • GALT
      • GALT

        ice age mongering:

        for scientist’s engage in “climate science”……..62% predicted warming, 29% had no position, and 10% predicted cooling……..btw that would be “papers published”……

      • GALT

        be happy they let you retire…….after all “those that can’t do……teach!”……what they let
        you teach….now that IS a question………..

        clearly, if science begs questions…….when were you planning on starting to ask them??…
        after all…….if you taught…..given the intelligence you have just demonstrated… have
        a lot of “damaged minds” to atone for……..not to mention calling into question the
        “credentials” of the school you “taught for”….and the value of the degrees earned……

        sounds like grounds for a class action suit…… where did you retire from???????

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Pay no attention to the babbling Galt, professor. Galt will lecture people into a stupor on the evils and corruption in government, and will go out of his to warn us that everything our government says is a lie, except, when it comes to global warming. It appears that the myth of global-warming is the only credible-myth that has the supernatural capability of transforming liars into saints. Amazing!

      • GALT

        Aw…..poor baby………someday you may possibly comprehend what has been written….

        and you clearly need to grasp what distinctions are……..but this subject is about

        SCIENCE……….so all you really need to know is what science is…….

        of course, learning to actually read might help………

      • eddie47d

        Galt, we’ll have to call Wake, Bubble Boy for that is where he lives!

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Galt says: but this subject is about SCIENCE……….so all you really need to know is what science is…….

        Science? I wish it were so, Galt, truly i do.

        Galt says: of course, learning to actually read might help………

        Of course. I will do my best to learn how to read your dis-jointed and incomprehensible, whatever you call it, Galt.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        eddie says: Galt, we’ll have to call Wake, Bubble Boy for that is where he lives!

        Oooooh, good one, bubble-brain. Btw, couldn’t help but notice you’re sporting a new side-kick. You know, i always thought Galt needed a good mentor…nice to see you two so happy together.

      • GALT

        and the idiots insist on responding idiotically…….does……this……get…..hard….to…..follow

        all in little sound bites…….for the feeble minded………

        little bites…….big bites……..really makes no difference……….

        you just keep being idiotic…….

        wait for it……………

      • Patriot38

        I’m not a weatherman but I think this discussion has been attacked by Hurricane Galt, and has encountered winds at least equivalent to Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Sandy stirred up a lot of crap also. You’re right Professor, it is the process. Humans and their petty activities are just a small boil on Mother Nature’s butt, and when she tires of the annoyance, she will pop this boil and move on.

        • Jeff

          That’s a nice little metaphor, but that boil can become infected and make the host quite ill. If you think being a patriot means believing whatever nonsense comes from Fox and the Becks and Limbaughs of the world, you’ve got a different edition of Webster’s than I do. Climate change is happening and pretty quickly. You can choose to not believe it, but your disbelief is completely meaningless except insofar as it delays any efforts to mitigate the problem.

    • DaveH

      Galt says — “That is one hell of a range of diatribe, from Al Gore to global domination is one
      brief essay……….and the only thing that is certain is…whatever an investigative
      reporter is………it isn’t you.”.
      His usual proof by bald assertion and ad hominem attack.

      Galt says — “Among climate scientists the debate on global warming is settled, and that would be
      97% of climate scientists”.
      More conjecture. The truth is that over 31,000 scientists have signed this petition:

      Oh, Galt will “disprove” their statement by another ad hominem attack, like this one — “The controversy and debate only occurs among the IGNORANT SCIENTISTS”.
      Oh yeah, if they don’t support Galt’s Propaganda they’re “ignorant”. Only Ignorant people would fall for such adolescent manipulation.

      • DaveH

        What happens to those scientists who dare to dissent? Read this:

        Galt’s comments demonstrate just the kind of non-Scientific punishment that awaits any Real Scientists who dare to stand up to the Propagandists.

      • DaveH

        The Global Warming Swindle:

      • DaveH

        For those who would like to do further research:

      • DaveH

        Here is a book review on “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed” by Christopher C. Horner, who has spent many years exposing the political motivations of the Homogenic Global Warming Frauds:

      • DaveH

        Here is a survey of climate scientists by Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch in 2008:

        Keep in mind the kind of non-scientific political pressure that has been conducted on dissenting scientists as described in the previous article that I linked to.
        All you need do is read Galt’s nasty ad hominem attacks to see what I mean. It takes a strong constitution to stand up to those attacks by the Politically-Motivated Socialists.

      • GALT

        Dear functional illiterate DavidH.

        The link to the petition is provided by me and explained by me…….you obviously didn’t read what I wrote and you clearly didn’t read what the petition says, the science it
        includes, or do any comparison with the “actual science” that was offered……

        Of course, as you continue to prove, you don’t really read or comprehend anything,
        you possess minimal reasoning skills and have no clue what a possible intelligent
        discussion might consist of………..and you have been continually warned…….when
        you see my name……don’t react…….RUN LIKE HELL…….

        Doesn’t von mises have a board where you can gather with other’s of your own kind,
        so that you can all play in your fantasy world where you pretend to be rugged, self
        reliant, individualist producers……….with gold and silver coins……that you can flash
        before the more primitive types and say “Look how shiny!!!!!!!”.?????????

      • DaveH

        Something to think about. What’s the most prominent Greenhouse Gas (by far)? Water vapor. What causes more water vapor in the atmosphere? Heat. So think about it. If the heat increases, then the water vapor increases, so there’s more Greenhouse Gas in the atmosphere trapping more heat, causing more water vapor, trapping more heat …..
        Clearly there are atmospheric mechanisms at work which mitigate the heat buildup. If there weren’t, then the natural cycle described above would heat the earth until it was uninhabitable.
        Clouds for instance, reflect the sun’s rays off into space instead of the Earth.

      • DaveH

        Here he goes again. The guy who can’t even put a grammatically correct sentence or cohesive thought together calls me “Dear functional illiterate DavidH”.

        Maybe you should write children’s books, Galt, they might be gullible enough to buy your nonsense.

      • DaveH

        Seek help, Galt. You need it badly.

      • GALT

        DavidH……von mises…….and “functional illiteracy”……….from the “illiterate’s link”

        “Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement… Science magazine helpfully refused to publish the findings, by the way. (p. 157)”

        First problem…….what statement? Look’s like a question………and for anyone
        with a brain the first thing that needs to be done… to find out what the question
        refers to……..

        Second problem this appears to be a question with a range……as in strongly agree to
        strongly disagree…… forgetting that the question is actually vague and really doesn’t
        make any sense………..the 44% are not broken down…… in 1% disgree + 43% no opinion = 44% disagreed or had no opinion……..

        What is known is that 56% did agree………no spin required.

        As to why the question ( not statement ) is a really stupid one…..( or entrapment )
        is………” mostly the result of (man made) causes. ”

        Given the fact above regarding CO2 levels at 280ppm until coal burning started
        in the 1700′s……..the 100 ppm increase……… 380ppm at present………..would seem
        to beg a NO to the question…….280 is what percentage of the 380 total……
        280 natural causes bigger than 100 made made causes?

        But at 280ppm…….there is no problem, just a natural cycle where stored carbon is
        not a problem………..because it is not a factor……

        The problem is the extra 100 ppm……all made made…..and ALL OF THE PROBLEM…
        because we keep adding it…….and nature can’t absorb it…….

        and the 44% that disagreed or had no opinion, did not really have the sense to
        not answer the question……..or couldn’t explain the why of their answers……

        Not new……the Constitution was offered for “ratification” as a all or nothing,
        take it or leave it proposition…… the intelligent question…….and mind you
        I am not accusing anyone of actually having any…….is WHY?

        So it really doesn’t make sense to pay attention to “functional illiterates” who can’t read
        or think or engage in any manner of “intelligent discussion”……..

        BTW the quote was one that the von mises guy used……regarding the Bray/Storch
        reference……so given the sheer intellectual poverty of all elements……you now
        have the true value of DavidH, anything from von mises…….and two stupid scientists.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        DaveH says: “Clearly there are atmospheric mechanisms at work which mitigate the heat buildup. If there weren’t, then the natural cycle described above would heat the earth until it was uninhabitable. Clouds for instance, reflect the sun’s rays off into space instead of the Earth”.

        This is perhaps a small point but we see here yet another example of DaveH’s inattention to detail, both in his presentation of “facts” and in the clarity of his expression. Yes, clouds DO reflect both visible light and the more important infrared radiation back into space.

        But that’s only on the side of the earth WHERE THE SUN IS SHINING, Dave. On the OTHER side that’s IN THE DARK, clouds act just as a blanket does on your bed—they keep the infrared from radiating back into space and trap it, thereby causing the earth, oceans, and atmosphere to retain heat.

        I will leave it to Galt to tell us if there are any good sources here but offhand, since the earth rotates fairly rapidly, I would suspect that the cloud factor pretty much balances out rather than “mitigates the heat buildup” as DaveH would have us believe.

        Ignorance is bliss. Being as ignorant as DaveH while feeling as GOOD about it as DaveH does is sinful. Clearly.

      • GALT

        Water vapors role is not in dispute…….although you seemed to have learned about
        albedo since the last time you pretended to know something…..

        however….cloud location needs to be factored in……as well as type and
        altitude so get to work and start
        learning……….the first thing you need to learn………

        you really don’t know much about anything…….you really ARE a functional illiterate
        and you really need to stop proving it…………

        Run away DavidH……….

      • GALT

        For Right Brain…..the idiot can’t read…..he doesn’t bother to read what he posts, and
        he certainly doesn’t bother to read what is posted by other’s or any of the links
        offered to support what has actually been written……..

        Like the B.S. that keeps coming up here…….he just doesn’t stop…….

        As this topic has been constantly repeated………DavidH…….first started talking
        about water vapor as a counter to CO2……….and he had no clue then, that clouds
        actually reflected sunlight……….now it magically appears as “his idea”……..

        Trust me…..if you look hard enough………DavidH has posted every argument imaginable
        on every topic……….he is so STUPID……..that with a little effort….you could
        actually quote him, word for word………..and send it back at him……..and he
        would “argue with himself”……..because he has no clue………what he has said,
        to whom, or on what subject……….

        If you are really stupid……DavidH will say anything…….hell a year ago…….Economic’s
        was an “empirical discipline”……….and his “history” is all over the place….

        But my favorite is that……he thinks evidence of his stupidity, duplicity and functional
        illiteracy is an “ad hominem” attack…………( fallacy )

        Then he whines about being disparaged…….

        Which shows he can get something right……..

        But I’ve had enough of him today….the water vapor stuff is in the links
        already provided……and I can’t be bothered to find it for him……what
        would be the point?

      • Average Joe

        Dear Galt,
        After reading your daily drivel, I can sum up the whole of what you’ve said so far…yada, yada, yada.
        You are entitled to believe whatever the hell you wish to believe and…so is everyone else. Just because you believe your sources…doesn’t mean that those sources are correct in thier research or thier scientific methodology. Computer simulations can only be as good as thier program allows. Since computers are programed by man and since man is fallable…so then must be the programs that he writes and can therefore come up with any conclusions he wishes.
        Opinions are like..well you know.. please stop talking out of yours.
        As for your name calling today…I can only assume that you have reverted back to your childhood and would rather bash your opponent with lame attempts to show your (supposed) intellectual superiorty with your lack of wit and lack of intelligence than to debate the issues in an adult manner. When you resort to name calling and disrepect, you neither gain respect, nor do you have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever winning over “hearts or minds” to your views.
        Now, go put on your “big boy” pants, pour yourself another hefty bowl of [comment has been edited]! Or, you can take an aerial intercourse at a gyrating pastry…..

        Have a wondeful day…..

        (before you reply, please be advised…I don’t give a rat’s arse about your opinion…so don’t waste your time writing it…Because… I won’t waste my time reading it).


      • eddie47d

        Brilliant AJ! Then why should anyone read what you have to say for that makes no sense.

      • GALT

        Average??????Joe…… is really not necessary to keep telling me you are an IDIOT!!!

        I have already agreed with you many times……..along with all your friends……

        Same advice…….see the name…….RUN AWAY…….

      • Average Joe

        Dearest eddie, I don’t recall asking anyone to read my post …although it was adressed to GALT… So, unless your name is Galt…it didn’t concern you…as usual…and you weren’t asked to read it…. I fail to see your issue.

        If ignorance was bliss…you’ld have to be the happiest person in the known universe.
        Did you also forget to put on your “big boy” pants again today? ( it’s starting to become habit with you).
        In the future, don’t BYOB… instead…MYOB


      • Average Joe


        “it is really not necessary to keep telling me you are an IDIOT!!!”

        Once again you bring conjecture (your opinion, which I’ve already adressed) and no verifiable facts….still talking out of your backside? (who woulda thunk?).
        OK, open mouth…switch feet…..have another doughnut.

      • s c

        DaveH, I think it’s safe to say that this website’s resident utopians have little or no use for English. They use an alternative language that lets them define and re-define words. I’m wondering if they have any plans for blaming global warming for Sesame Street’s Elmo and his victimology routine. As some might say, welcome to the wonderful world of the diversity of utopian perversity.
        As for Airhead Gore and his lemmings – ‘and the horse they rode in on.’ I wonder if they need a tech manual to understand “how.” By the way, did any overseas military ballots get COUNTED?
        Yes, I reserve the right to stray from the topic at hand – if twit utopians can do it, WE can do it, too.

      • Average Joe

        Bob L.
        I am suprised at being edited for the word “Stupid and the letters STFU…this is a first. Have the posting rules changed? I only ask, because I have posted this same statement before and have never been censored, until now.
        Best Wishes,

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Couldn’t help but notice, AJ, Galt using the same word on several occasions. Oddly enough, his comments wherein the word is found, have yet to be edited. Perhaps its just a matter of time.

      • coal miner 1

        “The Global Warming Swindle”.

        Very good DaveH.You may have a point.It could be just another hoax.We have been bilk before.I am back.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Good to see you back, Coal!

      • GALT

        Here’s the thing children……when you say ignorant things……expect to be cited for
        your ignorance……..I am tired of playing with children……….learn or go play with
        someone else………….

        I deal in substance, facts and ask questions……..don’t like the questions?

        Too bad……….specialization is for insects…..grow up……..

      • Grammar King

        To DaveH, November 13, 2012 at 10:47 am: Galt could NOT write children’s books, because even a three year old would recognize that placing ‘exaggerated’ ellipses and extra spaces between words are the the ramblings of an incoherent mind.

    • alpha-lemming

      2 minor points as to all CO2 being man made….
      1st, don’t blur man and the biomass….. all fauna contribute.
      2nd, one good volcanic eruption will raise global CO2 by as much as 1% and dump more tonnage into the atmosphere than all of mankind has for his entire history. I’ll admit this second stat is kinda splitting hairs because in “Greentopia” volcanic CO2 is good and animal based CO2 is bad…… coupled with the fact that Bush-43 is responsible for volcanos anyway.

      Also, if you REALLY want to get serious about greenhouse gasses, nothing will ever happen until you address the hydrogen oxide threat. By far and away the most prevalent greenhouse gas…. swamping all other contributers. Responsible for thousands of deaths yearly (dozens were killed in the Northeast recently by an especially bad chemical spill) this toxin is literally ignored by the MSM and greenhouse effects will continue until hydrogen oxide is eliminated or SERIOUSLY regulated.

      • GALT

        the statement and the science say that 100% of the increase is man made…..or
        everything above 280 ppm…..and this begins with the burning of coal…….moves
        up faster with the use of oil……and really takes off in 1950………

      • DaveH

        I guess it’s time for the Politically Motivated Socialist Greens to start crying “Global Cooling!” again as they did in the 1970s.

      • GALT

        gee……the functional illiterate David H. strikes again….

        GALT says:
        November 13, 2012 at 10:14 am
        ice age mongering:

        for scientist’s engage in “climate science”……..62% predicted warming, 29% had no position, and 10% predicted cooling……..btw that would be “papers published”……

        that would be almost a full two hours for anyone that could read……to avoid the
        obvious TRAP of looking really, really, stupid…….way to go DaveH!!!!!!!!!

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        There is no shame in conceding that science still has a long way to go before it fully understands the immense complexity of the Earth’s ever-changing climate(s). It would be shameful not to concede it.

        The climate models on which so much global-warming alarmism rests ”do not begin to describe the real world that we live in,” says Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and futurist. ”The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.”

        But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a recent conference that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot.

        • Jeff

          How long should we wait before doing anything? The East Coast may be under water before all possible permutations are worked out. We know climate change is happening. We know the cause. We don’t know exactly how much sea levels will rise in the next 20, 50, or 100 years but it will be enough to do damage to human civilization. Do we really need to know every detail before taking action?

    • Dale left coast

      “increase in CO2 from it’s previous 800,000 year high of 280 ppm to the present 380+ppm……ALL OF THE INCREASE IS HUMAN CAUSED……….”

      Absolute NONSENSE Gault ! ! ! In the last 100 years CO2 has gone from 375 ppm to 385 ppm . . . CO2 has been 0ver 800 ppm back in the day, in fact during an ICE AGE.
      96% of CO2 is created by nature . . . oceans, decay, cow farts, volcanoes etc., man is responsible for only about 3% of all CO2 . . . the Hypothesis that CO2 causes warming is nonsense at best and after asking for 20 years . . . no one seems to have the Science . . . but many scientists and Galt still “Believe” in Anthropogenic Gorebull Warming.
      Belief is a RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE . . . the Earth Godess Mother Gaia is doing a fine business . . .
      By the way Gault . . . if CO2 was below 250 ppm . . . life on the planet would become difficult . . . even impossible . . . as greenery would have difficulty growing, which could be a potential problem, since CO2 is Plant Food . . .

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        The corrective to sin in religion is absolution, and the power of most religions comes from their claim to have the monopoly on absolution. So it is with the new godless religion.

        Furthermore, it is in the nature of religion to create false markets. In the time of Chaucer the Pardoner sold papal indulgences, which freed the prosperous from the consequences of sin.

        Likewise, the new pardoners sell carbon offsets. As in so much of both ancient and modern society these activities divert effort from wealth creation and so act as a drag on the economy. They also grant to the rich a comfort that is not available to the poor – a sure road to success.

        Original sin in the older religions derived from one of the founts of life on earth – sex. The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life – carbon.

        Perhaps the fundamental human fear is fear of life itself. The amazing propensity of carbon to form compounds of unlimited complexity made the existence of life possible, while its dioxide is the primary foodstuff, the very start of the food chain. Every item of nutriment you consume started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide.

        It is therefore the ideal candidate for original sin, since no one can escape dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as “pollution” and “toxic”: surely one of the most perverse dysphemisms in the history of language. -Professor John Brignell

      • GALT

        Sorry Dale……I didn’t mean to ignore your stupid response………

        So are we clear?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I have previously said in reference to DaleLC that one should never argue with a drunk, but Dale’s disrespect for the intelligence of the rest of us on this site needs to be addressed. He seems to enjoy throwing you-know-what against the wall and doesn’t even care if it sticks. Maybe he enjoys the sound of it hitting? Dale has said:

        “In the last 100 years CO2 has gone from 375 ppm to 385 ppm . . ”

        VERY WRONG—it has actually gone from 375 ppm to 395 ppm in less than 10 years. See also the Keeling data reference below.

        “CO2 has been 0ver 800 ppm back in the day, in fact during an ICE AGE”

        PAINFULLY WRONG—during the ice age cycles it has never gone above 300 ppm, and that’s going back 500,000 years. You would have to go back millions of years to find concentrations in the 800 ppm range.
        “96% of CO2 is created by nature . . . oceans, decay, cow farts, volcanoes etc., man is responsible for only about 3% of all CO2″

        NOT VERY WRONG BUT SURELY MISLEADING—yes, 3% on a yearly basis but that is accumulating on top of the natural sources and causing the problem. . .CO2 concentrations are 40% higher today than at the beginning of the industrial age and the best measurements we have, the Keeling data, show an increase from 315 ppm in 1958 to 395 ppm in 2012. The earth kept a balance and the levels held in the 260-280 ppm range for 10,000+ years until we overloaded the system. And you need to know that the oceans are NOT a source of CO2 but a SINK—they soak it up—-that’s why they are acidifying. If they didn’t do that, the atmospheric CO2 level would be higher.

        “By the way Gault . . . if CO2 was below 250 ppm . . . life on the planet would become difficult . . . even impossible . . . as greenery would have difficulty growing”

        EXCRUCIATINGLY WRONG WRONG WRONG—-during the past 500,000 years and through multiple ice ages, the concentration has varied from about 200 ppm during the cold periods to 300 ppm during the interglacials. 250 ppm is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of that range and the plants seem to have done just fine.

        In closing, it IS insulting to all when you PFTA the numbers you cite (that’s Pluck From Thin Air). I, for one, am going to start skipping over EVERYTHING you say if you don’t shape up on your data. I already try not to look at the idiotic personal digs you make at others on the site and the people we may mention. You are not fit to have James Hansen stuff your head in a toilet, never mind call him names Haven’t I counseled you before on this? What is wrong with you?

  • Deerinwater

    Well, he didn’t make it leaving a wake of victims behind, ~ lost jobs, lost pensions delusion and unclear which way to turn as they had been good American citizen and loyal employees.

  • Corkey

    I guess this is what is meant by the term “Welfare Queen In A Cadillac”.

  • Dave67

    Must be a slow news day in right wing/tea partyville after the right’s slanting of facts blew up in their faces last week.

    Can anyone tell me who the “centrist” media is? Seems we have the evil liberal media and the right wing media who couldn’t find water if they fell out of a boat in the ocean.

    Its going to be a tough two years for conservative/ conspiracy/ religious nuts after you were told by the country that “we don’t want you” emphatically last week.

    • reelman1946

      Utopian socislism has fialed all over the globe for decades and those dupes that think Barackaclaus will “do socialism right” are fools…the data is in and the rot continues…the game is to continue shifting blame to repubs and keep promising as Fidel is still doing…Greece teaches the dimdems nothing…they are the arrogant apostles of utopian socialism…this is a fantasy based system thus also a deception based system…and all over the globe we see the rot and pain of socialism…just ask anyone who lived under it overseas…they are calling radio shows with terror in their voices that the dimdems are rushing America into that rotting system. Dupes, rubes and fools…sheeple…the new Greece by 2016.

      • http://yahoo Larry

        Exactly, but some people are so wrapped up in their beliefs that nothing can change their minds. They are the most gullible.

    • DaveH

      It’s been 4 years now and we still have 7.9% unemployment rate, and that doesn’t even take into account the number of people who have just given up looking. So I have no doubt that Dave67 and his Liberal Progressive ilk will still be singing Obama’s praises after 4 more years of economic failure.
      Here, by the way, is John Williams’ estimation of the real unemployment numbers:

      • DaveH

        The “unemployment rate” is conceptually vague. A more appropriate number is the actual number of non-farm jobs as reported by the Bureau of Labor Standards. Go here:
        Then check the Total NonFarm Employment box and pick the “retrieve data” button at the bottom. You will see that the actual number of employed people has barely budged since Obama has been in Office, and that in spite of over $2 Trillion worth of stimulus and a 30% increase in the money supply.

      • Jeff

        And if unemployment drops to 5.9% will you still be a critic? Of course you will because Obama is not sufficiently economically pure for you. The free market has ceased to be a utilitarian tool for you guys; it’s become a religion. And you consider any Government involvement to be tantamount to socialism. I don’t think even Von Mises would have gone that far. He was concerned about the effects of real socialism in the USSR with central planning boards making all the decisions. That’s hardly what we have in our mixed economy, and that’s why Keynes and his followers have eclipsed the pure free market economists. The Keynesians recognize reality and don’t pretend it’s always a choice between pure free markets and pure socialism. The choice is NEVER that stark and when you debate it as such, you reveal your inner crank.

      • DaveH

        Jeff says — “that’s why Keynes and his followers have eclipsed the pure free market economists”.
        Not sure what you mean by “eclipsed”, Jeff. But if you mean the Politicians prefer Keynes, I can only say “Duh”. Of course the Politicians prefer Keynes because his theory is built around aiding the Leaders in their fleecing of the people. Government Spending didn’t work to get us out of the Depression, and it hasn’t worked to get us out of this latest economic calamity. But the Politicians love it because it gives them and their Crony Capitalists more Power and more Money at the rest of the peoples’ expense.
        With Free Markets, the Politicians would have no way to favor their Crony Capitalists and thus their campaign contributions would plummet. Politicians abhor Free Markets for this reason. The Crony Capitalists abhor Free Markets because it’s much easier to buy their Crony Politicians than it is to compete in Free Markets where anybody with a good idea can prevail and where there are no guarantees that any mogul can exist from one year to the next. In Free Markets the Business People have no choice but to please their consumers or perish. With Free Markets they can’t run to their favorite Politicians for Protection from Failure in the forms of special regulations (to stifle their competitors), or quotas, or subsidies, or price fixing, or tariffs, or any other form of Protection the Politicians can provide.
        Keynesianism was acknowledged to be a failed policy by intelligent people long ago.
        There is never any excuse for any amount of Socialism which takes free choices away from the consumers and puts them in the hands of self-interested Politicians. The people would be far better custodians of the 40% of our GDP that is currently wasted by Big Government.
        Those, who want to learn what self-serving Liberal Progressives like Jeff don’t want you to know, should read this book:

      • GALT

        Yo DavidH………get over yourself………nobody is “afraid” of your von mises links…..
        or the BS they contain………..

        a brief excerpt from the book Econned.

        “In 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth fof Nations. In it he argued that the uncoordinated actions of large numbers of individuals, each acting out of self interest, sometimes produced , as if by “an invisible hand,”results that were beneficial to broader society. Smith also pointed out that self interested actions frequently led to injustice or even ruin. He fiercely criticized both how employers colluded with each other to keep wages low, as well as the ” savage injustice ” that European mercantilist interests had “commited with impunity” in colonies in Asia and the Americas.

        Smith’s ideas were cherry picked and turned into a simplistic ideology that now dominates university economics departments. This theory proclaims that the “invisible hand” ensures that economic interest will always lead to the best outcomes imaginable. It follows that any restrictions on the profit seeking activities of individuals and corporations interfere with this invisible hand, and therefor are “inefficient” and nonsensical.

        According to this line of thinking, individuals have perfect knowledge both of what they want and everything happening in the world at large,and so they pass there lives making intelligent decisions. Prices may change in ways that appear random, but this randomness follows predictable and unchanging rules and is never violently chaotic. It is therefore possible for corporations to use clever techniques to reduce and even eliminate the risks associated with their business. The result is a stable productive economy that represents the apex of civilization.

        This heartwarming picture airbrushes out nearly all of the real business world.”

        see how easy it is to save peoples time………while you keep wasting it.?

        The “functional illiterate” will now be “compelled to respond”……..wait for it……

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Galt says: Yo DavidH………get over yourself………nobody is “afraid” of your von mises links…..

        I don’t seem to recall anyone ever expressing fear over Von Mises links, except for you, Galt. You are the first.

      • GALT

        But wake/jay you are already identified as a “functional illiterate”…….

        Who cares what you think you have read…….but thanks for sharing.

  • Jane

    Boy, the Gore supporters learned the bellow straight from the old boy himself! Parrots. Since you mentioned the election, there is enough evidence to make a fool wonder if there was not major fraud going on in that election.

  • reelman1946

    Of course! Gore also broke the tie vote when he was VP to tax SocSec…what a guy! He is the ultimate parasite on the taxpayer…a game the dimdems do best…they find ways to make millions off or like getting monster “bonuses” from F and Freddie like Gorelick and Raines…tens of millions…and not a peep from the pawn media to this day. This is why the dimdem socialists want a monster growing gov-meant/huge taxes…so they can bore into it for personal small group gain…Gore is one of many. The sad thing is the media gives him a pass…a total pass. Corrupt pawn media no longer informs./protects WeThePeople.

  • TPM

    Shortly after Al Gore’s blockbuster hit An Inconvenient Truth, a mass-forwarded e-mail went viral (which Snopes confirmed to be true). The e-mail described in detail two different houses and asked the reader to guess which one belonged to an environmentalist.

    The first house that was described was a 10,000 square-foot, 20-room mansion heated by natural gas. Besides the 20 bedrooms, it had 8 bathrooms. It also had a pool and a pool house. According to the e-mail, the average electricity and gas bill ran $2,400 a month, and the amount of natural gas consumed by the mansion was over 20 times the average American home.

    The second house that was described was a 4,000 square-foot, 4 bedroom house that incorporated every “eco-friendly” feature that current home construction offers. The house used geothermal heat pumps that drew ground water from 300-foot deep pipes, and this water was used to cool the house in the summer and heat it in the winter. This system used no natural gas and used only 25% of the electricity used to power a conventional heating and cooling system.

    Rainwater was collected from the roof and funneled into an underground 25,000-gallon cistern. Wastewater from the showers, sinks, and toilets was sent through water purification tanks underground before being sent to the underground cistern. This cistern water was then used to irrigate the property around the house.

    The e-mail’s surprise ending revealed that the first house, the gas-guzzling mansion, belonged to none other than Nobel Peace Prize-winning documentarian, Al Gore himself. The second house, a paragon of “green” efficiency, belonged to George W. Bush.

    Obviously, the point of the e-mail was to point out “an inconvenient hypocrisy” of Al Gore. Yes, while Gore admonishes others for not being conservationists, he has the Carbon Footprint of a T Rex, and he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

    A man who truly believed what Gore promotes would conserve. Al is all about the money. Gore is a whore. To those reading this Bush vs Gore conservation article, for the first time … don’t you find this enlightening? … Pass it on to your friends. So that all know the real Al Gore.

    Read more:

    • Ted Crawford

      Another easy way to debunk Gore’s rhetoric might be to simply point out that The Inconvient Truth warned of sea-levels rising by 25 feet, yet a coupl of years later Gore buys a $9 Million mansion, on the beach. The haighest point on the propertyis 15 feet above sea-level! Either he is spouting disengenuous rhetoric, or he’s planning to open the first UNDERWATER Bed and Breakfast!

      • Gea

        Al Gore will not live long enough to see major sea level rises, which will occure as the Antartic ice keeps slipping into the oceans as it is already occuring. Thus his buying the house on the beach does not prove or dispruve his statements in Earth in Balance.

        Hurricane Sandy did whipe off several rows of houses on the beaches on the East Coast and some of those rich dudes with the ocean views now have not second houses on the beach.

        Al Gore is a good capitalist who had cashed in on his bet on future of American energy indsutry, which will eventually become renewable, if we make it diffused rather than depending on large grids and large power plants. There is enough solar and wind energy falling on our roofs and back yards to power anything we need in our life, including recharging batteries for electric cars, so that no burning of fossil fuels is necessaryt.

        Evenatully, burning of fossil fuels will be considered very primkitive and un-cool and then we will become independent of Arab oil and their financing islamic terrorism with US money. Everybody will be able to harvest solar, wind and geothermal energy from their homes rather then burnhing anything, except for romantic purposes in a fire place ;-)!

      • DaveH

        Eventually, Gea, the Socialists will have turned us into just another also-ran nation with a weak economy and Powerful Self-Interested Leaders like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela ……

      • eddie47d

        Ted: His house in on a bluff and 200 feet above sea level.

      • Dale left coast

        “Al Gore will not live long enough to see major sea level rises, which will occure as the Antartic ice keeps slipping into the oceans as it is already occuring.”

        Gea . . . Antartica in the last decade has amassed huncreds of thousands of square kilometres of ice . . . what slides off the sides is the excess forced off by the massive glaciers that have grown to enormous size.
        Neither Ice Cap is melting . . . last January the Arctic was “NORMAL” . . . and this January it will be NORMAL as well. We have been carefully studying the Arctic since the late 70′s . . . a little over 30 years . . . a mere blink in the history of the planet.
        The globe has slightly cooled since 1998 . . . the warmest decade was the 30′s . . . when an RCMP ship called the St Croix said through the Northwest Passage.
        The Polar Bear population has increased by 40% since the 70′s . . . Al Bore and his Gorebull Warming Cult are loons at best . . . enviro-nazi’s at worst.

  • DaveH

    Anybody, who thinks Politicians and their Crony Capitalists feathering their nests at the rest of our expense, is something new needs to start doing some reading.
    Here for example:

  • Gea

    Insurance companies are firm believers that the global climate change caused by greenhouse anthropogenic gases (CO2, CH4 and CFCs) is behind increases in frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods etc.

    As a professional in the field of risk analysis, I can assure you that even 30 years ago, scientists were rather certain that the rise of average Earth temperatures are directly correlated with the rise of CO2 concentrations, caused by relentless burning of fossil fuels, at the rate that plants on dry land and oceans cannot not absorb and turn back into carbon of trees or oil.

    Al Gore did what any good free entrepreneur did: hedged his bets, particularly since he allowed Presidency to slip though his hands in 2000, even though he and Clinton never brought Kyoto Protocol for ratification in US Congress. The phoney studies that showed that GNP would go down if Kyoto Protocol were implemented was used to prevent any changes in the US energy policies and thus had made US even more dependent on imports of OIL from the Arabs and Iranians.

    We MUST GO GREEN even if there is no global climate change, in order to stop financing for terrorism by the Saudis and other Muslim nations (and Venezuela), wich costs US large increases in military expenditures to defend ourselves from jihad. Unfortunately, moochers in US elected a man who helps this jihad by giving money to Muslim Brotherhood and letting them into the White house.

    There should be an article how much money Obama made after entering politics in Illinois and wrote his great stories in books that sold millions.

    • Ted Crawford

      Ever heard of Sir Issac Newton, Leonhard Euler, Milankovitch, Hays, Imbrie, or Shackleton? How about ‘Nutations’ or ‘Chandlers Wobble’? What is occuring with our climate was predicted as early as 1755 and confirmed as late as 1976, which conicidentlly was the end of the last attempt to control our Energy Industries through an Anthromorphic Climate Change tactic!

      • Gea

        Yes, I am familiar with all those theories, but I stand by my claim that sooner we get away from burning fossil fuels, sooner we will drive Islamic terrorists back into the sands of history where they came from (Saudi Arabia and North Aftica)., by making oil irrelevant and thus cut financing for terrorism.

        Coal is dirty and so is fracking, thus the best way is solra *both thermal and photovoltaic), wind, geothermal, hydro and perhaps tides and other non-fossil energy derivation. It is a matter of making smart decisions on a local level, rather then buiding large wind farms of solar cell power plants which damage ecosystems. Small is beautiful and EVERYBODY had enough solar and wind energy falling on their roofs that we do not need to depend on large power plants and intrinstically unreliable grids.

        Hurricane Sandy had demonstrated how unrealiable those grids are. Small is good and beautiful (and cheap, since sun, rain and wind are free of charge).

      • DaveH

        Welcome to the “Beautiful” Brave New World of GEA:

        Looks like an Edward Scissorhand’s nightmare. And they aren’t even economical. Without the Force of Government, they would be torn down.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Once again, DaveH responds to Gea’s intelligent comments with snideness and irrelevancy. We need to take our minds off the ideas of “economics” and “cost” and realize that if we DON’T take steps (and take them soon), we may have doomed every living thing on the planet. It may already be too late—the tipping points may have been exceeded.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Gea says: but I stand by my claim that sooner we get away from burning fossil fuels,

        Impossible, it will never happen. Green-products are manufactured, maintained, and replenished via burning fossil-fuels, there is no other way. Try building windmills, electric cars, and solar-panels without burning fossil-fuels. can’t be done; sorry to burst your bubble. As to your anti-semetic comment concerning muslims, shame on you! No wonder they hate us. But i wonder sometimes, which of the two they most hate about us; is it our aggression, or is it our stupidy?

    • Dale left coast

      “Insurance companies are firm believers that the global climate change caused by greenhouse anthropogenic gases (CO2, CH4 and CFCs) is behind increases in frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods etc.”
      Key word here is “Believe” . . . Huricain and Tornado frequencies are at their lowest levels in DECADES the last few years. I know FACTS are a problem but that’s the reality. There is also NO LINK between CO2 and storms of any kind . . . unless you include growing storms along freeways of plants enjoying the excess CO2 . . .

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

    The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

    These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;

    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

    • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

    • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

    Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

    Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof.

    Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      If Holdren did not mean any of the things he wrote why did he write them? Common sense and a congnizance of self preservation should dictate that we should believe what this man wants to do in this nation.

  • Steve E

    David Copperfield make a lot of money creating illusions also. But he doesn’t get it from the government.

  • Bill

    I just read in our little local paper this morning that California is now implementing their new Greenhouse law. Under the new law, Major businesses that emit anything will have to attend an auction to purchase pollution permits.

    This really supports my decision to become a newly transformed liberal. I want in on this action and be part of the fleecers over the fleeced.

    All I need is some of my hired goons to make inspections to all businesses and come up with something that they emit. Such as cat toenail clippings if you have a pet salon. With a little creativity, we can find something at every business we inspect.

    Then we make them attend an AUCTION!!!. This is great. Instead of just selling them the pollution credits, we pit them against each other and bid the price up.

    This is genius and I want in on this action. I am so happy I have converted to liberalism . There sure is a lot of easy money floating around

  • BigBadJohn

    “I’ve worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, ”

    Jon, I realize Gore sounds like an insider deal and should be investigated.
    The question is, If you are an investigative reporter, did you look into the Jeff Gannon scandal? Did you scrutinize the no-bid contract given to Neil Bush? did you look into how much money the Bush family made on oil and military industrial complex holdings, as a direct result of the Iraq invasion? How much did Dick Cheney’s fortune increase as a direct result of military action?

  • Joe

    All this green energy crap should be able to stand on it’s own. No subsidies! If they can not make it cost effective, then let it fail. And to think we are going into debt for this is criminal.

    • DaveH

      Exactly, Joe. If the Greens think Alternative Energies are the way to go, then they should invest their OWN hard-earned money to show us the way. They know they aren’t economical though, so they use the FORCE of Government to make us all pay for their follies.
      The wind energy failure:

      • Jeff

        And you think the gasoline-powered automobile became the predominant mode of transportation in this country without Government action? Every time the Government makes a decision it has economic consequences. Building a highway, where it’s built. Without the national highway system, we might be using high-speed mag-lev trains. I’m not saying building the highways was a bad thing, just that it was essentially a subsidy paid to auto manufacturers and oil companies.

      • DaveH

        Jeff says — “And you think the gasoline-powered automobile became the predominant mode of transportation in this country without Government action?”.
        Pure conjecture, Jeff. But even if it were true, when are you Liberal Progressives going to learn that Two Wrongs don’t make a Right?

      • Dale left coast

        Jeff . . . they made Electric Cars in the 1911 to 1918 . . . why did they fail Jeff? They would do about 90 miles on a charge . . . like the Volt . . . but they failed ! ! !
        Who built the roads? Why the TAXPAYERS and private Corporations . . . govts don’t build . . . they just TAX ! ! !

    • GALT

      When you start front loading damage costs onto coal, oil, gas and nuclear power…..
      alternatives will have no problem competing……..

      That is not only not being done…….these industries have not paid for actual
      damages having been caused…….and are all subsidized to boot………..

      Playing by the same rules is always cool………but what really exists is similar
      to a pop warner football team vs the NFL…..with the rules favoring the NFL
      and the officials have been bribed……….

      • DaveH

        Ahh, the complexity of Socialism. Where would we be without it? Wealthy maybe?
        Pollution is indeed a trespass on other peoples’ bodies and property, and the perpetrators should be made to pay damages to the victims. But that should be left to a court of law to hash out, NOT left to self-serving Bureaucrats and politically motivated agencies.
        An example of EPA abuse:

      • BigBadJohn


        AHH the libertarian moan – let the courts decide.
        1.) If an oil company has a major spill that severely impacts fisheries in the whole Gulf and it is up to individuals to sue. Who do you think will win? The oil company has billions to use for defense, individuals, who are already going broke, next to nothing. This would give corporation free reign to rape pillage and destroy what ever they want in the name of profit.
        2.) if those self same libertarians gain enough control in government to appoint their own judges, this would even further reduce the ability of any individual to sue corporations.

        Government regulation are required to keep corporate greed in check. Have they gone too far? In some cases yes in others not far enough.

      • Dale left coast

        Gault . . . do you know of any major manufacturing country or city on the planet that is solely powered by Green Energy? None you say . . . I rest my case . . .

      • GALT

        Do you understand the concept of E.L.E……….self imposed……I rest my case.

  • 45caliber

    He’d be a billionare – probably the richest man on the world – if the government would back global warming. After all, he owns the plants that can make the (very!) expensive equipment to remove CO2 from plants. All he has to do is get his friends in government require that the equipment be manditory for all plants and he’s automatically the richest man in the world. The only thing holding it back is that too many people don’t believe it is real and Congress is afraid to act while the people don’t go along with it.

    • Jeff

      It’s funny how you don’t begrudge the Koch Brothers any of their riches from polluting the atmosphere and fighting the very idea that we can or should think about alternative sources of energy. If Gore can get rich while helping wean us off fossil fuels, more power to him. Jealous?

      • DaveH

        If you think the Koch Brothers are polluting, then get together with your fellow Liberal Progressives and launch a lawsuit, Jeff. Until then, you are just blowing hot air up our hineys, and that will contribute to Global Warming.

        And no, Jeff, I’m not jealous. It’s just that, unlike you, I’ve got Principles and my Principles tell me that the Politicians who pass laws shouldn’t be able to profit from those laws. It’s called Conflict of Interest, something apparently that Liberal Progressives, in their absence of Principles, don’t understand.

      • BigBadJohn

        “Principles tell me that the Politicians who pass laws shouldn’t be able to profit from those laws. It’s called Conflict of Interest, something apparently that Liberal Progressives, in their absence of Principles, don’t understand.”

        I agree with the first part of your statement but you seem to forget how conservative republicans benefit in the same way. Dick Cheney, The whole Bush family, Neil Bush all basically benefited from the Bush administration opening the treasury to them. Post banking crisis Obama wanted to eliminate bonuses for CEO’s of companies that took bailout money – republicans would not let that happen. Then there is the more blatant such as flying 10 billion in cash right into the hands of your supporters. For some reason it appears conservatives are just as, if not more guilty of benefiting from government spending.

      • Dale left coast

        Jeff . . . Koch employes 10′s of thousands of Americans . . . some union members . . . but Gore just spreads chit . . . had carbon trading gotten passed a few years ago Gore and the Chicago Carbon Exchange would have made him a billionaire by now with his buddies Soreass and the chitcago dimmicrap mafia . . . but fortunately it collapsed.

  • Terry Bateman

    I have no problem with Al Gore making money in the stock market with companies
    he invested in . I do have a problem with the stupid stuff he says in his speeches.
    I also disagree with the stupid talk about one world government and one world digital

    • DaveH

      You don’t have a problem with the Conflict of Interest involved when a Politician has the power to influence laws which favor his investments? The question to ask would be — Could he repeat that investment performance if the Government butted out of the Marketplace?

  • Louis Lemieux

    Gore is betting, putting his money in what he believes, nothing wrong with that! In the future we will all be richer by protecting the environment.

    We need more good regulations because the greedy will destroy us and our planet. Everything we consume comes from the Earth so we are consuming the Earth by every bit of a bite!

    Of the ten costliest hurricanes to hit the United States since 1900, eight have occurred in the past eight years — and that was before Sandy.

    • DaveH

      They aren’t going to clean up the world by impoverishing us. It’s a well known fact that the poorest countries are the dirtiest countries.

    • Dale left coast

      But . . . the number of storms in the last decade is down to very low levels . . . the Gorebull Warming Folks said they would INCREASE . . . they didn’t – wrong again ! ! !
      Why are they costly . . . because more foolish people are building on flood plains and in storm areas . . . hence more damage . . .
      Worst years for storms on the Eastern Seaboard was 1954 and 55 . . .

      • Right Brain Thinker

        If you had any connection to reality, you’d think about the fact that we haven’t had storms hit NJ-NY-New England like this since the storms you reference in the 50′s—maybe that was just 60 years of good luck?.

        Now we are getting Irene and a year later Sandy and a week later a very unusual and rather severe nor’easter. Or will it take a storm every other month before you pay attention to what’s going on?

        Did you notice the unusual situation that caused Sandy to veer toward the coast rather than out to sea as most of these storms did in the past? That’s caused by certain changes in arctic sea ice, high pressure areas over Greenland, and changes in the jet stream—-all related to global warming.

        • Jeff

          The key is not the number of storms per year; it’s the number of the storms that become monsters like Katrina or Sandy. The best analogy I’ve heard is to steroids and home runs. You can’t point to any single home run that Barry Bonds hit and attribute it to his use of steroids, but after use, his home run production increased from the 40s to 70. And he’d have hit a lot more if they’d have pitched to him! Similarly, you can’t say climate change caused Sandy to happen, but when you get once in a century storms every few years, you have to say the increased ocean temperatures are acting like the steroids.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        PS I forgot to mention that I grew up in NJ and am quite familiar with all the areas Sandy damaged in NY and NJ. Many of the homes that were damaged had been there for many decades, often occupied by the same family for several generations. They were not put on land that was susceptible to flooding when they were built and never flooded before Some of them had 10+ feet of water from Sandy. Does that tell you anything?

  • Polski

    The Bill Gates Foundation is part of the Monsanto EVIL EMPIRE of GMOs, Genetically Molested Organisms, but you don’t hear much about that. Is he a Republican? You write about Gore because he’s a Democrat. You don’t write about Bush/Cheney because they’re Republicans. ” May you have an interesting life”, that’s an ancient Chinese Curse.

    • The Christian American

      Al Gores right name is Armand Gore. He’s named after Armand Hammer, the cleaning solution man. He is/was a devout Communist and a friend of FDR. Armand Gore’s family is the principals behind Occidental Petroleum. Birds of a feather.

      • Dale left coast

        Al father . . . was a Senator and a friend of Senator Byrd . . . they shared similar values and some say were both segregationists.
        Read about the Gore’s stealing land from the natives allow oil exploration back in the day.

    • Dale left coast

      Gates is a dimmicrap . . . . lol

    • nickkin

      Polski…..Old chinese proverb….”Ah so it is said, that the lover of Dems, is not a lover of life”.

  • The Christian American

    Al Gore mastered the art of TERROR: a physical or psychological act, sometimes violent in nature, committed to gain submission. Our government’s in the terror business. Al Gore’s in the terror business, along with his ilks. It’s like liberty and freedom have been replaced with fear. Come up with something, anything to allay anybodies fears, real or imagined, and you can make millions. In Al Gore’s case it’s fear of our environment, something only God controls. The chief perpetrator of fear, terror is the people’s own government. People like Al gore know it and they have found a niche and they are capitalizing on it. Think about it. How many fears, real or imagined, are you dealing with? Evil spreads fears and we are an evil nation if we’ll just admit it to ourselves. It’s getting worse as told to us in Matthew 23 & 24 if you will read the bible. While your at it, Suggest reading and believing John 3:16. Short time fears are going to be replaced with a total lack of fear, and soon the way we’re going.

  • http://yahoo Larry

    Al Gore on face the nation when he and Clinton were running, “Wellllll iffff youuuu makeee $250,000 a yearrr in 4 yearsssss aren’ttt youuuu aaaa millionaireeee.” What a pant load anyone is who would believe anything this fool would say

  • Robert

    Larry, Your comments submitted at 10:02 a.m. have absolutely! captured in print the EXACT way Al Gore speaks. I found it the most amusing thing I have read in a long, long time. Thank you!

  • MsAbby

    Haven’t been here for awhile. Sorry, but may not come back. Galt seems to be in charge here with all his rantings. How about we take into consideration that we have wiped out most of the world’s rain forrest, have over-populated areas and wiped out more trees, and made most of US one big parking lot in the process? How does that compute for you Galt?

    • DaveH

      Apparently, Abby, you don’t understand what Galt is saying (That’s understandable since his grammar is atrocious and his comments are disjointed), but he is on your side.
      I’m not. For one, we have more trees now in our country than ever before:

      • Right Brain Thinker

        DaveH does it yet AGAIN! Will he never stop?

        He says “we have MORE TREES NOW in our country THAN EVER BEFORE”
        and then cites as a reference a link: entitled “MORE-TREES-THAN-THERE-WERE-100-YEARS-AGO”. Since when does “ever before” equal “100 years”?

        Yet another demonstration of Dave’s sloppy thinking, impaired math and logic abilities, and general lack of respect for the rest of us.

      • Dale left coast

        He’s right no-brain . . . much of the timber cut in the USA is on Private Land . . . it only makes sense to replant . . . even an enviro-nazie like you should agree . . .

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Not sure what you’re saying DaleLC. You ARE correct in saying Dave is no right brain thinker. We RBT’s value truth and intellectual rigor and would never sling the garbage that Dave does.

        And I fail to see why you are talking about tree harvests. Dave and I never mentioned them—I was merely pointing out Dave’s intellectual and moral inadequacies in my comment and he was spreading his usual misinformation.

        Why are you changing the subject and hanging it my comment? Start a new one.

        • Jeff

          I wonder if von Mises taught Creepy Bastard (DaveH) how to tread water.

  • cerebus23

    The planet has been here what about 4.5 BILLION years old, humans have 200 YEARS of “accurate” temperature data.

    Of course we can make grand assumptions on cooling and warming and the how and whats are causing it with the amount of data that spans a oh so brief 2 human lifespans.

    Lets look at the more specific elements of our weather cycles to show how good humans are at weather science in general.

    We do not know how lighting is formed or exactly why it happens.

    We do not know how tornadoes work, or what causes them to form or not form.

    We guess the daily/weekly weather there are so many random variables in wind/ocean/butterflies farting, etc, that it is impossible to predict the near term weather with much accuracy, it is all best guess and probability.

    So in context of faked temperature data, champions that are lining their pockets, the fact that scientists figured out in the 70s that predicitng that some looming natural disaster is coming is profitable, and if you can tie it to human action somehow than you will just get gobs of money thrown at you.

    And yes he should be arrested for insider trading, if it is good enough for the private sector, then it should be good enough for current and former government employees.

    When we get a do over on all this i would like to suggest an amendment that the government shall live by the laws they pass for the people, not one law for us and another set of rules for them, have the president get health care under obamacare, have the senate leader, So how fast laws get struck down or just made better if suddenly they had to live in the nest they made with us common folk down here.

    • Dale left coast

      In the last 100 years we have had TWO WARNINGS of Impending Ice Ages and TWO warnings of Impending Unstoppable Gorebull Warming . . .
      Next it will be Global Cooling again . . . as that is next in the “Scare” cycle . . . Laughable . . . but lieberals always believe . . . and want to take over the weather . . . INSANE ! ! !

      • GALT

        three times in one day…….

        GALT says:
        November 13, 2012 at 11:34 am
        gee……the functional illiterate David H. strikes again….

        GALT says:
        November 13, 2012 at 10:14 am
        ice age mongering:

        for scientist’s engage in “climate science”……..62% predicted warming, 29% had no position, and 10% predicted cooling……..btw that would be “papers published”……

        that would be almost a full two hours for anyone that could read……to avoid the
        obvious TRAP of looking really, really, stupid…….way to go DaveH!!!!!!!!!

        Are you getting the “functional illiterate” thing yet?????????

        Do you often take or make bets on things that are 6 to 1 against you?

        And you want to be a capitalist?????????

  • ranger09

    Well when you belong to the CLUB, You get Richer. NOW WHO would pay 175,000 for Gore to Speak. Check it out. Its called payback. All the ex Politicians do it, Beats working for a living. And we allow this. We just follow the Bell.

  • Mike

    I’d be really happy if someone could simply tell me the local weather- 15 days in advance. Please tell me if it will rain, snow, or be sunny. Please tell me the temperature, humidity, and dew point. Please tell me the direction and speed of the wind.

    Once you’ve done that to any degree of accuracy then I’m totally willing to listen to global climate speculation.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    We’re piling on Gore for being a REAL AMERICAN and doing what politicians and capitalists do, i.e., make money. At least the companies Gore is investing in may produce some positive benefits for the planet and the economy somewhere down the road.

    How about we also look at another losing presidential candidate while we’re at it? We should look at the Mittster’s dealings regarding Delphi, an auto parts manufacturer.

    Romney and his fellow hedge fund vultures destroyed the jobs and pensions of 30,000+ Americans as they raped Delphi and sent most of its jobs overseas. Romney made upwards of $100 million on an investment of less than $10 million and did it in only about a year.

    This obscene profit at the expense of good Americans would have shown up on his 2009 tax returns. Could that be the reason he wouldn’t release them? Was he afraid that it would alienate some voters? I think yes, perhaps even as much as the “47%” comments did.

    • Dale left coast

      Let see No-brain . . . Al made a Fake Movie . . . made a 100 Million and that’s OK with you.
      Romney bought up failing companies, closed some that were unproductive and technologically challenged and saved some which today employ 10′s of thousands of Americans eg: Staples . . . and that’s not OK with you?
      You are a complete dim-wit . . . Al employees no one but his pilot who files him about the globe to spread his chit . . . and Romney’s ex-companies . . . still make money for their owners and employe 10′s of thousands of AMericans . . .
      conclusion . . . lieberalism is a Mental Disorder . . . LOL

      • Jeff

        Your posts tend to prove the opposite of your thesis.

      • Dale left coast

        Didn’t think you could read jeff . . .

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Thank you, Jeff. Asinine is only one of many words that we could use here but you are right—-why bother?. (In my line of work, we had a saying—-”Never argue with a drunk”)

  • boyscout

    It would seem to be seen reprehensible for one on the left (Gore) to act with any similarity to the touted virtues of “small” business ownership, and that we should be outraged at any such leftist business successes. The very thought of selling the concept of “clean” energy (ie. without carcinogens, particulates, heavy metals, carbonate contaminate contaminates, etc.) is a disgusting outright prevarication and blatant affront to the monied corporatists who presently control our superb supply of carbon based burnables and the indestructible grid presently used to supply and distribute electricity. What the hell do 97% of climatologist know about climate change anyway? These morons should be forcibly silenced to protect your wonderfully functioning status quo.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Yes! Silence those climatologists!

      That was actually attempted (by Republicans of course), James Hansen being the most prominent. They tried to keep him from testifying before Congress. White House political operatives under Bush rewrote papers written by scientists before allowing them to be released. More recently Attorney General of VA Cuccinelli (Kooky Nelly to some of us) lost a court case in which he tried to force a climate scientist at the U of VA to release all his records—emails and all. Kooky was on a witch hunt and was hoping to prove that the scientist (MIchael Mann) was guilty of “misuse of state funds” in his research. The real reason of course being that Mann believes in climate change and Kooky doesn’t..

      • Dale left coast

        Janes Hansen? Is a friggin clown . . . he sent his underlings to debate Prof. Richard Lindzen PHD Head of Earth Sciences at MIT . . . a couple of years ago in NY . . . He would not show up himself. Lindzen SHREDDED the two clowns Hansen sent . . . and the audience agreed . . . poled as they left 65% said Gorebull Warming was NONSENSE! ! ! Maybe you should have gone no-brain . . . could have learned a lot.

      • Right Brain Thinker


        You are not fit to have James Hansen stuff your head in a toilet, never mind call him names.

        That statement is excerpted from a reply I made late last night to one of your earlier postings. Please go back and find it. I care about you.

  • cerebus23

    If romney got his money via insider trading then yes he should have been fined jailed or whatever.

    What we do know is al gore here magically managed to put all or most of his money into companies that were getting fat government contracts, you do not do that by sheer luck. And you do not sink your money into failing businesses that would go out of business period without a miracle less you know something that others do not.

    That is illegal

    • Right Brain Thinker

      It wasn’t illegal until the passage of the STOCK act earlier this year. Gore did nothing illegal when he used his position to gather insider information. Such behavior has been running rampant amongst our elected representatives for years, and that’s why the STOCK act came up. Romney did nothing illegal either. What he did may be considered immoral by some of us, but it was within the law (or close enough to it that he will not be prosecuted).

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.

    Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.

    The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:

    It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.

    The climate is always changing, so they must be right.

    Only the relatively elderly can remember the cynical haste with which the scaremongers dropped the “coming ice age” and embraced exactly the opposite prediction, but aimed at the same culprit – industry. This was in Britain, which was the cradle of the new belief and was a response to the derision resulting from the searing summer of 1976. The father of the new religion was Sir Crispin Tickell, and because he had the ear of Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who was engaged in a battle with the coal miners and the oil sheiks, it was introduced into international politics with the authority of the only major political leader holding a qualification in science.

    The introduction was timely yet ironic since, in the wake of the world’s political upheavals, a powerful new grouping of left-wing interests was coalescing around environmental issues. The result was a new form of godless religion. The global warming cult has the characteristics of religion and not science for the following reasons.

    Faith and scepticism

    Faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:

    The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

    Huxley was one of a long tradition of British sceptical philosophers. From the Bacons, through the likes of Locke, Hume and Russell, to the magnificent climax of Popper’s statement of the principle of falsifiability, the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned in a few short decades. It is one of the great ironies of modern history that the nation that was the cradle of the scientific method came to lead the process of its abandonment. The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief. There is a great variety of faiths. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism. There is no evidence either way. There is no fundamental clash between faith and science – they do not intersect. The difficulties arise, however, when one pretends to be the other.

    The Royal Society, as a major part of the flowering of the tradition, was founded on the basis of scepticism. Its motto “On the word of no one” was a stout affirmation. Now suddenly, following their successful coup, the Greens have changed this motto of centuries to one that manages to be both banal and sinister – “Respect the facts.” When people start talking about “the facts” it is time to start looking for the fictions. Real science does not talk about facts; it talks about observations, which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant.

    The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled. They were not, however, always so wise.

    In 1900, for example, the great Lord Kelvin famously stated, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” Within a few years classical physics was shattered by Einstein and his contemporaries. Since then, in science, the debate is never closed.

    The world might (or might not) have warmed by a fraction of a degree. This might (or might not) be all (or in part) due to the activities of mankind. It all depends on the quality of observations and the validity of various hypotheses. Science is at ease with this situation. It accepts various theories, such as gravitation or evolution, as the least bad available and of the most practical use, but it does not believe. Religion is different.

    It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and proscriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin – a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles.

    Original sin in the older religions derived from one of the founts of life on earth – sex. The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life – carbon. Perhaps the fundamental human fear is fear of life itself. The amazing propensity of carbon to form compounds of unlimited complexity made the existence of life possible, while its dioxide is the primary foodstuff, the very start of the food chain. Every item of nutriment you consume started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is therefore the ideal candidate for original sin, since no one can escape dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as “pollution” and “toxic”: surely one of the most perverse dysphemisms in the history of language.

    The corrective to sin in religion is absolution, and the power of most religions comes from their claim to have the monopoly on absolution. So it is with the new godless religion. Furthermore, it is in the nature of religion to create false markets. In the time of Chaucer the Pardoner sold papal indulgences, which freed the prosperous from the consequences of sin. Likewise, the new pardoners sell carbon offsets. As in so much of both ancient and modern society these activities divert effort from wealth creation and so act as a drag on the economy. They also grant to the rich a comfort that is not available to the poor – a sure road to success.

    Most religions seek to grow by means of proselytism. Science does not seek or need converts. It teaches those that are willing to learn, but it does not impose itself on those who are indifferent. Religions (at least those that are successful) have a different imperative. A growing cohort of believers reinforces the beliefs of existing adherents and participating in the quest for converts helps assuage the inevitable doubts they might harbour. Successful religions are structured to encompass this expansionary mechanism. Those who can recruit others to the cause are therefore held in high regard.

    Demagoguery is also, therefore, a feature of religion. Some people have the capacity to hold the masses in their thrall. It is a mysterious art, as their skills of oratory do not often stand up to any sort of critical examination. They are idols of the moment, who often turn out to have feet of clay, as so frequently seems to happen with charismatic TV preachers.

    One of the most notorious demagogues of the godless religion is Al Gore. He is certainly no great orator, but he makes up for it with chutzpah. His disregard for truth is exemplified by his characteristic and ubiquitous pose in front of a satellite photograph of hurricane Katrina. Even some of the most vehement climate “scientists” refrain from connecting that particular isolated and monstrously tragic event with global warming. Likewise his Old Testament style prophecies of further disasters, such as floods due to a rise in sea level, greatly exceed the more modest claims of the “professionals”. As in the overthrow of the cities of the plain and other biblical prophecies, Gore promises a rain of fire and brimstone on us, unless we change our ways.

    Gore also displays all the characteristics of the classical religious hypocrite. He disregards his own proscriptions with abandonment and ostentation. By his own measure (carbon footprint) his sins are great; at least twenty times those of the average American. It is all right though, because he purchases absolution (carbon offsets) through his own company. As he is a private individual it is not known whether he profits directly, but at a minimum he does not pay out of his taxable income and, worst of all, he demonstrates that the rich are immune from any of the actual privations that attachment to the new religion visits upon its poorer adherents. This is also not unknown in traditional religions and has been a source of material for satirists throughout the centuries.

    Infidels and apostates

    Religions vary in their treatment of unbelievers, which ranges from disregard to slaughter. The new religion relies at present on verbal assault and character assassination, though there are those who would go further. They call the infidels “deniers” – a cheap and quite despicable verbal reference to the Holocaust. There is a sustained campaign to deny the deniers any sort of public platform for their views.

    Apostates are universally even more reviled than infidels. They have turned their backs on the true faith, whichever that might happen to be. Partial apostates, or heretics, are even more loathed and through the ages have been subjected to the most appalling punishments and deaths. In the case of the “sceptical environmentalist”, Bjorn Lomborg, he is of the faith. In fact he is a serial believer; accepting, for example, that eating celery causes two percent of all cancers and, of course, that global warming is man made, but he rejects the sacrificing of humanity to the belief. This is unacceptable! What are a few million deaths from dirty water, mosquito bites and other hazards so long as people can be made to conform? So far he has only been assaulted with insults and custard pies. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, broke with the movement over its growing anti-human, anti-scientific tendencies and drift into extremism. The last straw for him was the campaign against chlorine, not only an essential component of human life but also the basis of one of the most dramatically life-saving hygienic interventions. He has, consequently, been subjected to a prolonged campaign of vilification, described as an eco-Judas, turncoat and traitor.

    Every minor commentator or blogger who manifests disbelief can expect to be the target of abuse from self-appointed protectors of the creed.

    The rest here:

    • GALT

      Doesn’t change what the science IS……..

      Just makes you “irrelevant and inconsequential”…….as you always have been, Jay……

  • old hillbilly

    there once was a political whore
    by the name of Al Gore
    who knocked on the white house door
    but fell upon the floor

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Professor Richard Lindzen on global warming science.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      WTS (Jay) has buried us with a flood of material in his 6:13 PM posting that few of us have the time to fully read and digest. Like all good propagandists, he says much that is true or nearly so, and thus lulls us into complacency so that he can slip a big fat lie in there from time to time. His lies would take many sentences to refute and most readers would tune out before finishing any rebuttals. Good technique for subtly altering perceptions.

      He has made an error with this post. Since all it contains is a link to a professor speaking to “global warming science”, it is easy to look at it and go “WOW—I know about Lindzen”—-and find the time to try to balance WTS(Jay)’s long posting (and its subtle disinformation and misinformation) with some info about Lindzen, someone who WTS(Jay) must admire greatly since he is telling us to listen to what Lindzen says..

      *Lindzen is one of the foremost global warming deniers/skeptics on the planet.

      *He works as a consultant for oil and coal interests and charges $2500 a day for his “consulting services”. They do not fund any of his research. They merely pay him to “shill” for them.

      *He has been a featured speaker at conferences sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a group whose global warming denial views are so extreme that many of the deniers actually refuse to attend their conferences or be associated with them in any way.

      *LIndzen has come under much fire from other climate scientists for both spreading disinformation about climate change and global warming and his bad-mouthing of other climate scientists, including some of the most highly respected in the field.

      Lindzen is hardly a role model or impartial observer by any measure. Anyone who would like to read more about Lindzen should go to the Climate page of the ThinkProgress website.

      • Jeff

        Even some former skeptics are becoming convinced by the data.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Jeff is correct. That’s why it is more correct each day to say “The vast majority of climate scientists believe in AGW and climate change”. As more and more shift over from denial to acceptance, we will one day be able to say “Virtually ALL scientists…”.

        There will, unfortunately, always be the deniers in the employ of the fossil fuel interests. That will allow Faux News to continue its “fair and balanced” reporting on the issue by interviewing one of the last remaining 11 deniers and one of the 56,481 believers and giving what they say equal weight.

      • GALT

        never try to confuse the opposition with facts……….of any kind, about anything…….

        when you think about it…….they are simply following the example of their bettor’s,
        are they not?

        Still there is some hope…….things are changing so fast now…’s kind of hard
        not to be open to change………

        could just be me though?

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly vehement because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single rational argument left.”

        -Margaret Thatcher

      • Right Brain Thinker


        Are you referring to my indictment of Lindzen when you use the word “vehement”? Poor word choice there—it is merely a blunt but factual statement of why he has no credibility in the climate science world, but hardly qualifies as “vehement”.

        Considering that your “fortay” seems to be long-winded piles of disinformation and obfuscation, the shortness of your “Maggie” reply would lead one to think that YOU are the one who has run out of rational arguments (and perhaps even irrational arguments).

        Let’s hear a defense of Lindzen or a refutation of my indictment of him from you. That would be interesting to many of us, I’m sure.

        Don’t hide behind Maggie. She was too good a lady for you to use that way.

  • bakerjohn

    YES I’ve said all along Global Warming IS A SCAM, still say it even though they changed the name Climate Change is still a SCAM and money maker for a select few while the average Joe and Jane pays extra through the nose for all the ECO crap Extra Taxes and Fees on stuff that costs to much already. I’m a firm believer in Recycling, Composting etc. but lets keep it so the average person can afford it. A tank full of gas can get most Europeans going around for a month since destinations are so much closer and Rapid Transport is available in most small town a tank of gas gets me back and forth to work for maybe 2 weeks without extra driving around for other stuff I have NO Public Transport available were I live so HAVE to depend on a car when I lived in a big city I would only use my car on weekends if I wanted to go shopping or do some other things. So while folks like Al Gore get RICH from the SCAM the average person pays for it and ends up with LESS Money and Mobility.

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Why are the global warmers so zealous? After a year of arguing with people about this, I am convinced that it’s because global warming is first and foremost a political theory. It is an expression of a whole middle-class political world view. This view is summed up in the oft-repeated phrase “we consume too much”. I have also come to the conclusion that this is code for “they consume too much”. People who believe it tend also to think that exotic foreign places are being ruined because vulgar oiks can afford to go there in significant numbers, they hate plastic toys from factories and prefer wooden ones from craftsmen, and so on.

    All this backward-looking bigotry has found perfect expression in the idea of man-made climate disaster. It has cohered a bunch of disparate reactionary prejudices (anti-car, anti-supermarkets, anti-globalisation) into a single unquestionable truth and cause. So when you have a dig at global warming, you commit a grievous breach of social etiquette. Among the chattering classes you’re a leper.

    But why are the supporters of global warming so defensive? After all, the middle classes are usually confident, bordering on smug.

    As I found when I examined the basic data, they have plenty to be defensive about. Billions of dollars of public money have been thrown at global warming, yet the hypothesis is crumbling around their ears.

    To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer.

    Then there’s the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there’s a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore’s movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows.

    Then there’s the precious “hockey stick”. This was the famous graph that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth’s climate.

    But then researchers took the computer program that produced the hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Virginia and others.)

    In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore’s movie.

    And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth’s atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change.

    They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent warming. They can’t explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-’70s. What are they left with? Some mild warming in the ’80s and ’90s that does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases.

    The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they’re defensive.

    • GALT

      Have questions? Find answers……..don’t choose ignorance.

      • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Within the church of global warming, there is a strong and widespread belief that the current extreme weather events are produced by anthropogenic global warming. Without considering the scientific merits of this theory or religion a simple consideration of the implications of its validity might be instructive.

        If true, the vast expenditure of global, national, state, county and municipal funds to attenuate its effects have failed. If false, the current climate shift is the result of natural processes over which mankind has no control.

        These options suggest that the current efforts to regulate the global climate are either ineffective or misdirected.

        I doubt that this short note will diminish the strongly held belief that these efforts are effective. Redirection of some funds spent on the study and regulation of the Earth’s climate might be better spent on an Annual Tooth Fairy Festival, as the Tooth Fairy is a much cheaper abstraction based on similar logic.

      • GALT

        Or “not wake the sleepers”……..but here is a question for any and all……

        How long would YOU ( this means anybody ) be willing to stay in a room 40 x 40 x 40
        with an atmospheric mixture of 70% oxygen and 30% CO2…….with the oxygen being
        maintained at a constant 70%……..all the food and water you desire and whatever else
        you would need, for personal comfort and to alleviate boredom?

        Would you bet on your answer?

        Would you give odds or expect them?

        Don’t all you “morons” answer at once…….

        • Jeff

          Since normal oxygen levels in air are around 20%, not long at all.

      • GALT

        Not sure I am following your answer…….the oxygen levels that would be maintained
        would be two and a half times MORE than the normal atmospheric oxygen level……
        so in and of itself……..this would not be a reason for not doing it?

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    The goal of the global warming movement is to end the use of fossil fuel. Proponents of this movement claim that fossil fuel use is “killing God’s green Earth,” as one popular TV ad declares. They claim that the use of alternative energy will save the planet for future generations.

    The use of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide which certainly does not kill God’s green Earth – it enhances it. Carbon dioxide is to vegetation what oxygen is to people – essential to life.

    It is an indisputable fact that vegetation growth and production is enhanced in direct proportion to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Contrary to the lie of the eco-terrorists, that being, the global-warming-alamists, Co2 is the life-blood of the planet. Without generous amounts of Co2′s the planet would simply starve, and a significant portion of life on the planet would perish. Indeed, the planet and all life on the planet is in grave danger, but not by Co2, but by the anti-carbon-dioxide-cult; a religious-satanic-cult, the enemies of the planet and of humanity. It is their intention to starve the planet and reduce human life on the planet to a manageable/controlled number. The environmental-movement, is, in essence, a eugenics program!

    Does anyone truly wish to save the planet and all life on the planet? Then i suggest we fight the anti-corbon-dioxide-cult, who’s sinister intention is to significantly reduce life on the planet by depriving the planet of that which the planet needs most; Co2. Co2 is not, evil, Co2 is good, and the more Co2, the better. Co2 is absolutely essential to the life on the planet, and most importantly, the planet itself. Lets produce as much of the life-giving element as we possibly can. Let’s generously feed the planet until it is pleasingly-plump, and gorged with Co2. Let’s show the planet and all life on the planet that we truly care. Lets produce as much Co2 as we possibly can!!!

    • GALT

      Have questions? Find answers……..don’t choose ignorance.

      • s c

        Komrade ‘g,’ the last grade school you ran away from just called, and it will be necessary for you to return and finish all of the classes you never passed. Enjoy.
        By the way, komrade, do you get paid more than $1 an hour for your camp-follower, running-dog, freedom-hating, lower life form comments? Just wondering. Many want to know. You need to give serious thought to what you want to be when you grow up (and remember, brain transplants have not been perfected yet).

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

    Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections:

    Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.

    Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing.

    Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU.

    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.

    Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological


    Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes:

    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

    Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.

    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.

    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.

    William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.

    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University.

    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.

    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.

    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.

    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.

    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.

    Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo.

    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center.

    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.


    Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences:

    Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth’s environment.

    Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

    Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

    Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.

    Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.


    • Jeff
    • Right Brain Thinker

      Where do you find the time to write all this stuff? Are you in a manic phase right now? Can we look forward to you running out of steam soon?

      What is the point of listing 50 or 100 or 150 names of scientists (some of whom may question parts of the evidence but not necessarily all?) And including names of some who have been thoroughly discredited like Lindzen?

      When I go into my next manic phase, I will sit down and type a listing of the 33,783 scientists who DO recognize the problems we face with AGW and climate change. They so far outnumber the deniers that it is ludicrous for you to think your list matters to anyone but those who are ignorant in ill-informed. But those are the ones you talk to on this thread anyway so maybe it does make sense.

    • GALT

      Dear ‘functionally illiterate” ( Jay )……

      The only qualification required is being able to understand what you read…….

      So staring with the FIRST name on your list:

      “Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that “[o]ne of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.

      More recently, he has endorsed the now common usage of “global warming” as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to recent “measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science.”

      Bye now……..

  • Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    Climate Change is the new political-manufactured definition that solves the limitation-imposing name of Global Warming. The name Climate Change has the flexibility of covering cool temperatures as well as warm, instead of only warm with Global Warming. Ultimately, Climate Change allows world governments to blame their climate ills on their people whether the Earth’s average temperature rises or falls.

    In 1995, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released it’s second and most influential propaganda report. Broken down by three sections known as ‘Work Groups’, the book contained simplistic diagrams which were mostly pictures and few words. Between each work group was a coloring section followed by stickers.

    The useful information in the report came from the simple diagrams which explains, by way of pictograph, how weather phenomenon works and how it is influenced by man. By following the pictures (after completing a few connect-the-dots activities) it can be
    determined that the smoke produced from man’s camp fires, car exhaust, and evil cigarette smoke, raises, sits in the atmosphere and puts hand-cuffs on the sun-rays, holding them in the atmosphere. When a buildup of sun-rays occur, rabbits and trees will begin to cry, and the Earth will become sad. The saddened Earth will then produce hurricanes and tornadoes, how exactly is unclear, however; the Earth is seen as angry at such time with the words “Hot Head” printed above.

    In 1990, a secret climate model run by an anonymous group of politicians has shown that the Earth will either get warmer by at least 0.01°F within the next 500 years or warmer by 500°F within the next 0.01 years. The complete findings of the group after eight years of research and 154M dollars was distributed nation wide on orange post-it notes with the words “Humans are cause” written on it. Since the release of the note, inquiries from prominent scientists worldwide for the group to expand upon their findings have been met with silence.

    Proponents of climate change, such as The Church Of Scientology, Al Gore and Santa Claus, claim that climate change will devolve humanity, eviscerate the Earth, and collapse the entire universe. On new years day of 2005, The Church Of Scientology, Al Gore and Santa Claus, collectively, aired pornographic commercials on every major network in order to get their Climate Change message out. Dubbed the Green-Thumb-Threesome, a cardboard cutout of L. Ron Hubbard stood next to an exposed and flaccid Al Gore while Santa Claus (Chris Cringle) explained Climate Change. At the conclusion of the 30 second ad, Al Gore stated “If you don’t want to see this anymore, you’ll do something about the climate”. The commercial met with severe criticism, but the stations continued to play the ads due to the substantial prices the threesom were willing to pay.

    Much of the official climate science research is a trade secret kept in Castle Greyskull, and the little that is released is often debunked (laughably) by third party research.

    Independent scientists across the world claim that the limited climate model information released “…isn’t even remotely accurate”. Furthermore, scientists claim that ice core samples and tree ring data are often cited as originating from either the 1851 novel ‘Moby Dick’ or the ‘Holy Bible’.

    However, prominent climate research scientist prof Phil Jones of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, fervently disagrees with any and all skepticism about global warming:

    “…rest assured that the science has been completely settled beyond everything and there is no more debate…under penalty of torture. Climate change is therefore an indisputable scientific law, much like gravity and UFOs. And if anyone disagrees with it…then they’re a Nazi holocaust-denier, and should wear a gold star on their chest!”

    Side Effects of Climate Change:
    Upset stomach
    Fast or irregular heartbeat
    Sudden or unexplained weight gain
    Suicidal thoughts

    Talk to your doctor and find out if Climate Change is right for you. Do not take in conjunction with medications containing cheese, broccoli, sparkling grape juice, or MAOI inhibitors.

    • Jeff

      You are seriously disturbed. Just keep believing all the crap shoveled your way by professional skeptics paid by the Koch Brothers to make them billions and save you (maybe) a few cents at the gas pump. A good reason to play roulette with the future of human civilization.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I fully concur with your assessment that EYS(Jay) is seriously disturbed but have to say this bit is quite cleverly done.

        WTS(Jay) should perhaps look into a career as a comedy writer. He would likely do far better there than as a writer about climate change and global warming.

        Comedy writers are richly rewarded for saying fantastical things and twisting truth in amusing ways—-WTS(Jay) belongs with them.

  • http://Yahoo Peter Barney

    Al Gore and his go green fake bake!

  • nickkin

    E-Gor is special……but is he part of the nasty 1% ? Wait……he is on the libral left…that’s different……he gets a waiver. It’s okay for e-gor….his money is green and that’s part of his green energy. The stup couldn’t be considered a capitalist because he whored money from the feds that pimped the American tax-payor. E-gor would be considered an inside bank robber whose domain was established in the vault. E-gor is a business-man illusionist……looks legal but it’s not. Should be in line for a cabinet job but he has the wrong name….name has to sound like Barrack Huessin Obama…..maybe Barron Hustler Orobber would be appropiate.

  • http://none historianMI

    A popular admonition is: “Follow the money.” Gore HAS made millions preaching his “Global Warming” blurb (or is it “Climate Change”?) One story was that while Gore was telling people in Tennessee to limit electric usage, his own mansion was lit up on every floor.
    Perhaps the “Chip of the old block” fits here. Albert Gore SR. was a Senator—-and a good buddy of a guy named “Armand Hammer,” who was a good buddy of Joseph Stalin. Al Sr. quit his gig as Senator and went to work for Hammer, and was well paid for his efforts. This from a book about Hammer. “Dossier” by E. J. Epstein. I recommend it.

    • Jeff

      I’d say Al Sr’s sins definitely disprove the whole climate change theory no matter how many actual scientists say otherwise. If you’re an historian, I’m Don Corleone.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.