27 Aug

Al Gore – You Man-Made Global Warming Skeptics Are Racists!

                                       

What do the liberals do when they are losing the argument?

Call you racist

YouTube Preview Image

Oh please.

The science is NOT settled. There is most definitely a rational basis to be skeptical of people like Mr. Gore who cry “the sky is falling” when the science just does not support it. He has made a lot of money off of the scaremongering, that in itself leads me to be skeptical.

And because I’m skeptical I’m comparable to slave owners I suppose.

Sigh…

It gets better:

Al Gore on Friday bashed the notion that climate scientists are manipulating data for financial gain, a charge levied by global warming skeptics, including GOP White House hopeful Rick Perry.

Cough….ClimateGate….cough

And a perfect endpiece to the Gore absurdity?

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Read the whole article to learn how threatened the man-made global warming crowd was over CERN, and how they attempted to shut them up…to no avail, finally

I mean imagine that. The sun, that huge nuclear fireball of energy, just might have something to do with how our climate changes!

Who woulda thunk it? /sarc

Instead, the crowd who had the most to gain financially…cough Gore cough…pushed and pushed the theory that us insignificant human beings (when compared to the energy of the sun) were the cause because of CO2.

Well, time to start over: [PDF]

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature :

“[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in ClimateGate, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Science. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, August 27th, 2011 at 11:15 am
| 1,824 views

45 Responses to Al Gore – You Man-Made Global Warming Skeptics Are Racists!

  1. Ivan says: 1

    The “Science” has refuted MMGW. Game over. I don’t even know why anyone bothers to discuss this crap.

    Climategate put the nail into the coffin of this scam.

    The Republican House should be having hearings on this scandal, but I can’t find any evidence of said hearings.

    It would be a win-win for the Reps.

    ReplyReply
  2. tarpon says: 2

    Galactic Cosmic Ray deniers are a hoot.

    ReplyReply
  3. Rob Zotti says: 3

    “It’s difficult to confront the denial facts that people spew out” – That’s because you can’t confront them nor deny that they have valid agrument knowing there are so many holes in the science behind AL Gore’s ideology and BS he’s pushing on us.

    ReplyReply
  4. Greg says: 4

    “Climategate” put the nail in nothing, for anyone actually concerned about the truth of the issue.

    From Forbes, August 24, 2011: Climategate” Scientists Cleared of Wrongdoing – Again

    The bottom line is that there is simply no evidence that Michael Mann or any of the other scientists at East Anglia have lied or falsified data. As Phil Plait succinctly put it, “all the outrage, all the claims of fraud and fakery, were just — haha — hot air.”

    What “climategate” actually represented was a victory of propaganda over truth in the war to control public opinion. The consensus among the scientific community that adverse climate change is occurring and that human activity is a primary cause has not changed.

    ReplyReply
  5. NYGino says: 6

    It used to be an insult to be called a racist but the term has been so watered down lately that not only does it have no meaning any more but it actually is looked forward to. Now being called a racist means that your antagonist has no argument and is conceding this. It’s like two kids having an argument in a schoolyard and the one who can no longer defend his position finally says……..”Oh yeah! Well my father can beat up your father”

    ReplyReply
  6. Disenchanted says: 7

    Al gore is such a blow hard. How could anyone believe a word he says? if he doesn’t keep up the hype it will hit him in the wallet.

    ReplyReply
  7. Marine72 says: 8

    @ Greg says:

    It would be great to hear of who you are affiliated with? The other contributors are easily understood through their responses. Please let us know for whom you work or is this just a FA attempt to ensure a libtard response to keep up the lively comments?

    Greg: You seem to always be in such personal distress. It escapes me why you haven’t changed your depends yet?

    ReplyReply
  8. Mr. Irons says: 9

    Oh Greg, hope you like being as stupid as you make yourself sound here, as Climategate has caused the dismissal of Mann’s Tree ring data and warming charts as being legit research considering how it was documented that he didn’t even remotely use traditional Scientific methods of data collection or hypothesis testing. Or how the fact a Scientist, Charles Monnett, that Al Gore used for his arguments of Enviormental damages to wildlife aka Polar Bears is now suspended and being investigated for forging research reports on Biology as many specialists in the field are reporting thriving and increasing numbers of Polar Bears (a bit of a problem for Al Gore’s argument.)

    Or how there was no propper research at all in this whole field to start with by, “Professionals” that Al Gore used who were never Geologists or Biologists to start with but were Sociology professionals or Pyschological professionals. Hell just straight up Solid Core samples across the Globe paints a far different biology/temperate picture than what Al Gore is spewing but hey guess your wine drinking self proclaimed intellegence is too lazy to actually read a Physical Geology book.

    ReplyReply
  9. oldguyinwhittier says: 10

    Not meaning to offend any living Catholics or anything, but has anyone else noticed the similarity in behavior among the part of the environmentalist body politic and the scientific community dependent on government largesse from them for filling their rice bowls, and the folks among the Middle Age church who went after guys like Galileo and Giordano Bruno? They were a threat, not because they taught something unscriptural, but because they had observed with their own eyes facts that contradicted church teachings of the time. They humiliated Galileo, but they burned Bruno at the stake. His crime – not only was the Sun the center of our solar system, but he speculated the sun was … just another star. Galileo recanted and lived; Bruno did not and died.

    Lysenkoism in the USSR was similar. A lousy experiment with unreproduceable results about artificially inducing ‘evolutionary improvements’ in plants was trumpeted by a bunch of thugs who wanted support for the idea of their creating “the New Soviet Man”. The actual result was a poisoning of a lot of scientific research in the USSR for decades: if you wanted to be published instead of unemployed or persecuted there, you didn’t say certain things. If your research would help the Soviet military, you could get funding, but you expected a lot of Mafia types to destroy your life if you got out of line (Andrei Sakharov went through that).

    The CLOUD experiment folks experienced that firsthand. The first attempt to fund and perform the experiment was ridiculed, then funding was blocked by the climate-change lobby. Finally, they found a home at CERN, and the results are far more conclusive than the left-slanted articles would lead a reader to believe. Non-visible radiation from the Sun contributes far more materially to cloud formation than we had previously thought; combining that with other forms of insolation (solar radiation striking the Earth), and it makes up the bulk of the cause of warming periods (increased solar activity) or cooling periods (decreased solar activity). The correlation is strong, while CO2 is a lagging indicator, which more strongly supports the hypothesis that increased CO2 levels are caused by warming rather than vice versa.

    Hilariously, the head of CERN’s research arm essentially forbade them to offer any opinions supporting their report. This leads to two questions:

    1. Did his insistence actually strengthen their case? After all, he is a climate change advocate.

    2. What would have been his position if their results had turned out to be the opposite?

    And, anyone who can argue that Climategate was an exaggeration hasn’t read the hilarious comments in the source code that was leaked. Holy crap! The poor programmer had to find one devious hack after another, introducing coefficient values and other intentional computational distortions to “hide the decline”.

    In this day and age, typically the act of drumming someone out of scientific circles is reserved for actual kooks, and people already in “the club” who disagree with today’s orthodoxy. They are viewed by the purveyors of conventional wisdom as the same people, and that is the real shame here. That kind of behavior has a tendency to slow down actual scientific inquiry and progress more than a lack of no-strings-attached funding does (as it did in Russia during the Cold War).

    I miss Michael Crichton. He really knew how to kick their butts.

    ReplyReply
  10. Randy says: 11

    @Greg: Greg, keep your head in that hole in the ground and continue to ignore the world around you. Of course they were vindicated! The investigation was done from inside the universities and a guilty verdict would have meant the loss of millions of dollars in research. If Mann is so pure, why will the University of Virginia not release the grant applications that Mann dubmitted for Virginia State Grants? If there were nothing to hide, why were they hiding anything?

    ReplyReply
  11. Randy says: 12

    @Greg: Here is the latest on the University of Viriginia attempt to keep the Mann documents from the public. They have spent over $500,000 of tax payer money to keep the documents from the tax payers? Isn’t that fraud? http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/08/uva-goes-all-climate-gate-foia-coverup

    ReplyReply
  12. Eric says: 13

    @Greg:
    No fool like an old fool. Or is that no whore like an old whore?

    ReplyReply
  13. anticsrocks says: 14

    This is for Greggie:

    The data is from our own US Dept. of Energy, the article appeared in The American Thinker –

    There is little doubt that the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy, which has been going on since the start of the Industrial Revolution, releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Also, CO2 levels have been increas­ing steadily and are now estimated from ice core analysis to be some 35 percent higher than 200 years ago.

    The problem with such seemingly serious assertions regarding CO2 is that, in spite of its increasing presence, it still remains just a trace gas in the atmosphere. As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere was estimated at 0.0382% by volume, or 382 parts per million by volume.

    Another problem is that natural production of CO2 from such sources as combustion of organic matter, natural decay of vegetation, volcanic emissions, and the natural respiration of all aerobic organisms dwarfs that produced by fossil fuel burning. The U.S. Department of Energy has released estimates that nearly 97% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth and that, because of the overwhelming presence of water vapor, manmade CO2 causes less than 0.12% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. To attribute so much power to affect the earth’s climate to a man-made gas so minor in amount would appear to defy common sense. – Source

    What do you have to say about that, Greggie?

    ReplyReply
  14. Marine72 says: 15

    @Randy: Randy: I think we’re talking about the fogged up window in Greg’s stomach. Consider him as the contortionist who bends over, inserts head and is then unable to see out the glass due to fogging of the window. Another visceral image similar to “head in hole in the ground”.

    ReplyReply
  15. Eugene Segreti says: 16

    Al Gore is just upset because he won’t be the first to be a climate billionaire. I can’t believe I actually voted for this jerk.

    ReplyReply
  16. Greg says: 17

    “Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report’s authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts. “

    From America’s Climate Choices 2011, a report by the U.S. Academy of Sciences.

    They might want to roll up the report and thump Congress over the head with it repeatedly until they get some sort of an intelligent response.

    I really don’t know what to say to people who are so out of touch with reality that they believe the scientific consensus has actually changed.

    It hasn’t.

    Climate change denial becomes harder to justify

    ReplyReply
  17. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 18

    MENTAL ILLNESS, Algore remembers segregation conditions in the South because his father was a DixieCrat senator from Tennessee. The inhereted Gore estate is adjacent to the state public park space dedicated to Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate general and founding member of the Ku Klux Klan.

    ReplyReply
  18. anticsrocks says: 19

    @Greggie: What? You too afraid to provide a link to your source? Instead you include a hit piece by the Washington [Com]post??

    And I did not think you would be brave enough to reply to my comment #14. I guess you don’t consider the United States Department of Energy a reliable source worthy of your comment…

    Too bad, I thought you might be up for an actual debate.

    I am.

    ReplyReply
  19. anticsrocks says: 20

    Al “Internet Inventer” Gore now wants us all to eat less meat…

    Gore Wants You to Eat Less Meat

    I guess this just proves that there are moonbats at every income level.

    ReplyReply
  20. James Raider says: 21

    Gore has through the years repeatedly provided ample evidence that he does not have the intellectual acumen to present a coherent argument – about anything. The above nauseating interview just adds to the pile.

    Prognosis: Not good. Patient seems to lack sufficient energized synapses and the brain, while difficult to detect, appears to be present, but it’s function is impaired.

    It grates on me that this pompous, ignorant, goof sits on the board of my favorite company, plus, his son Albert Junior, gets paid by the company to tell the Board diverse Non-sense.

    ReplyReply
  21. James Raider says: 22

    @THE SOOTHSAYER: # 18 ,

    It is so easy to rewrite history, as Gore likes to do, or ignore it altogether – particularly when the Democratic Party was the defender and promoter of slavery.

    Of course, it could be argued by the wondrous mind of Mr. I-invented-the-internet, that Slavery does not necessarily mean Racism.

    ReplyReply
  22. Dan Pangburn says: 23

    The cause of the temperature run-up in the 20th century and the flat and declining temperature trend for the latest decade have been discovered.

    A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of only sunspot number and ppmv CO2, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). The equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived are in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, and 3/10/11).

    The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down. The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans (about 100 times everything else) will cause the decline to be only about 0.13°C per decade.

    This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through July, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 23.2% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 23.2% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.

    ReplyReply
  23. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 24

    Excuse me Pangburn but “1895 average global temperature (agt)” would be a copyright property owned by some recognized climate research institute and the statistics would be subject to peer review approval and analyses. Something else is that there is no such animal known as “agt”; ergo, that that thing was made up on someone’s keyboard.

    ReplyReply
  24. Greg says: 25

    @anticsrocks, #19:

    What? You too afraid to provide a link to your source?

    It’s on the National Academy of Sciences press website as a free PDF download. You can click on the individual chapter headers here: America’s Climate Choices–2011.

    Re: #14

    People seem to blow by the unstated assumption that this particular argument is based upon: That the importance of any individual component to the stability of a complex dynamic system is in direct proportion to its volume relative to that of the whole. That’s one of those common sense assumption that often isn’t true in the real world.

    Carbon monoxide–another naturally occurring gas–normally occurs in the atmosphere at around 1 part per million. It might go unnoticed at a level of 15 parts per million, but if that concentration is raised to only 200 parts per million–another .2% “trace”–the dynamic system that is a living human body will be noticeably disrupted within an hour. This is an obvious example of a small change to a trace component having consequences totally out of proportion with the degree of change.

    Common sense might suggest that increasing trace levels of manufactured fluorocarbon gases in the upper atmosphere would likely be totally irrelevant. Unfortunately that isn’t true.

    ReplyReply
  25. Mr. Irons says: 26

    Greg, why do you KEEP going back to two inert non-thermal gases that are a lagging indicator of previous heat increases? Why? They don’t inulate heat in, and used as industry coolant systems for server systems to prevent electronic fires in mainframe systems. Methane and H2o Have far greater and heavier impacts in Thermal dynamics in an athmosphere. Then again, you keep refusing to read standard anything but bullshit that comes from people who were PROVEN to have faked data and failed to follow standard practices of Scientific research.

    ReplyReply
  26. anticsrocks says: 27

    @Greggie: And yet you once again fail to address what I posted in #14.

    Your stubbornness is only outweighed by your refusal to honestly debate this issue.

    ReplyReply
  27. NYGino says: 28

    Lithium Al, ask your doctor if lithium would be right for you. Don’t worry about any side effects, anything is better than what you have now.

    ReplyReply
  28. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  29. Dan Pangburn says: 29

    Sooth,
    You got the quote wrong. It’s “average global temperatures (agt) since 1895”. If it was copyrighted it would be by me since I used it first. It is not copyrighted.

    The ‘statistics’ are freely available on line. The links are provided in the pdf made public 3/10/11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. They are provided by various government agencies and include both surface and satellite measurements. I graph them all and compare them with each other for validity. I average them to avoid bias. Use of these sources avoids the delay, bias and de facto censoring of ‘peer review’.

    It is hard to believe that someone would not grasp from the context that agt is short for Average Global Temperature.

    As to ‘peer review’ there is this quote in http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet “But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

    ReplyReply
  30. Greg says: 30

    @Mr. Irons, #26:

    It hasn’t been proven that data was faked, nor have any of the conclusions based on that data been overturned. At least so far as the vast majority of recognized climate scientists are concerned. The general public has been duped by way of a deliberate disinformation campaign.

    @anticsrocks, #27:

    I addressed #14 in post #25 by asserting that an unstated premise underlying the argument is total bullsh-t. Which it is. The premise that the importance of a component is directly proportional to its relative weight or volume is completely absurd.

    ReplyReply
  31. Aqua says: 31

    @ Greg

    The head of CERN says that new climate models will need to be substantially revised based on their CLOUD testing.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
    That’s what science is all about. Just because someone says it’s so doesn’t mean you stop looking. There are people that are still trying to disprove some of Einstein’s theories, and one day they might.

    ReplyReply
  32. Evil Otto says: 32

    Y’know, Greg, your reaction to this is odd. You’re so utterly adamant in dismissing ANY evidence that mankind isn’t the cause of global climate change… are you sure this really is a scientific matter to you? Your reaction is that of a religious believer hearing heresy.

    One would think that the news that climate models are wrong and that mankind isn’t responsible would be treated as good news. It is, Greg, it really is. But then, that would require you and your fellow true believers to admit that you were wrong, and hell will freeze solid before that happens. So, instead, you’ll keep showing up here and defending a dying theory to your last breath. Anthropogenic global warming/climate change has been the greatest tool in decades for progressives, socialists, and various nanny-statists like you to change society to fit your ideals, and you’re not about to let that go without a fight.

    In the case of Mr. Gore, there’s also the dump trucks full of money he’s made, the awards he’s won (everything except the Stanley Cup and the Miss America pageant), the praise, the fawning interviews, the cameos on Futurama, the moral superiority, and did I mention the money? Yeah, I should probably mention the money. As the theory dies, Gore has gotten more and more shrill, more and more angry. It’s understandable… who wants to see their gravy train destroyed? AGW has been very, very good to Al Gore. So I understand his actions… he’s going to go down with that ship. What’s your excuse?

    Give it up, Greg. It’s over. Let it go, man.

    ReplyReply
  33. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 33

    ee cummings opined people with no faith will create a faith of their own which is exactly what happened with the algoreasaurus; a god stu at vandy, “the harvard of the south” which he did creating a “god given” long-term strategy; which, coinsidentially conforms perfectly with his own strategic plans. steven spielberg scripted and directed a great sci-fi drama “close encounters of a third kind” and there are many intelligent people that can count to ten know the basic alphabet and have drivers licences that convincingly believe in close encounters of a third kind. michael crighton (d: 2009) ph’d, md wrote “the andromeda strain” (bacteria from outer space) and inspite of the author’s rational reasoning and explanation many same intelligent people convincingly believe there exists a medical malady, known “secretly” except to the privileged few, as the andromeda strain. the online internet is not a laboratory and postings by climatereason.com is not scientific. the medical journal “lancet” is the publication of the rcps (royal college of physicians & surgeons) is closely aligned with the government in the house of commons. currently, until the entire white paper project goes broke, all parties in commons plan a series of offshore windmills and windmill farms in rural areas. relying on available statistics, including the crap from univ of east anglia, the projects continue on paper. to my knowledge there does not exist any credible beta test, conducted by a credible independent third-party, that confirms the cost-benefit profitability of any one or series of offshore windmills. a boughy with a twirler on top i fail to believe will recharge a single laptop. this, hopefully, remains a free country so if you want to adhere to space creatures, alien abductions, climate change-global warming, scientology or obama’s brain be my guest the shrinks wont electric shock your brain into submission, but when energy expenses, across the board, as are happening now in the uk, explode due to crony capitalism that will pay for and assure the grand and great-grand children of thomas ayers (bill ayers commonwealth edison ceo billionaire father) paid tuition trust funds to harvard or northwestern out of my pants pocket i get po’ed.

    ReplyReply
  34. Brother Bob says: 34

    I’m amazed that nobody caught why Gore is throwing out charges of racism. It’s the final shot in the gun that a liberal has to use on realization that the facts and reality are not on their side. Gore realizes that more people are onto the fact that he’s a liar and a hypocrite so he’s throwing the Hail Mary pass.

    Guys, don’t bother responding to Greg or any of the other Global Warmmongers – debating religion with a true believer is pointless. Whenever a disciple of the Church of Gore tries to start a debate I tell them I won’t unless they can answer three simple questions (and I wrote a post on this that appeared here at FA a while back). The first two come courtesy of Wizbang’s Jay Tea:

    http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/12/21/a-little-morning-heresy.php

    And my third, is that every seven or eight years we hear of another environmental catastrophe that will destroy us all and we must take drastic action and it’s already too late – overpopulation, running out of oil, global cooling, the hole in the ozone layer, etc. The leftie Chickens Little have been wrong every time before. Why do we trust them this time?

    I’ve only met one warmmonger who was even willing to meet the challenge, although he kept sending me BS responses that completely ignored the questions until he finally said that the Church of Gore transcends the scientific methodology that I outlined.

    Bottom line, if you choose to not use these questions and still find yourself getting aggravated by a warmmonger you have nobody to blame but yourself.

    ReplyReply
  35. anticsrocks says: 35

    @Greggie: Sorry Greggie, but you still missed the point. The stat I pointed in #14 was that the US Dept. of Energy has shown that even if man were not on the planet, 97% of all CO2 released into the atmosphere would STILL OCCUR!!!

    What does that have to do with CO2 being a trace element?

    If you conclude that AGW comes from man increasing CO2, then showing that he only contributes 0.12% of any greenhouse effect, it just blows your argument out of the water.

    Again, let me quote the article I cited:

    The U.S. Department of Energy has released estimates that nearly 97% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth and that, because of the overwhelming presence of water vapor, manmade CO2 causes less than 0.12% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. To attribute so much power to affect the earth’s climate to a man-made gas so minor in amount would appear to defy common sense.

    What say you, Greggie?

    ReplyReply
  36. Greg says: 36

    @anticsrocks, #35:

    What say you, Greggie?

    That I’ve wasted enough of my time arguing about climate change.

    ReplyReply
  37. Evil Otto says: 37

    That I’ve wasted enough of my time arguing about climate change.

    What’s the matter, Greggie? Are the heretics not open to the One True Faith?

    More proof that you’re not acting like someone arguing a scientific theory… you’re arguing like a believer. When the infidels won’t accept your faith, when they dare to challenge you, you petulantly decide that you’ve finally had enough and won’t argue any more.

    I don’t suppose this means you’re going to spare us your witty and insightful comments the next time climate change comes up in a blog post here. Is there a way to get you to take the same attitude towards other subjects?

    ReplyReply
  38. LB Hagen says: 38

    Al Gore Calls Man-made Global Warming Skeptics Racist
    The Alarmist Army of taxpayer supported pseudo-experts and charlatans have reached a new level of panic and they are now left with vile name-calling as their consensus action plan. How pathetic is that!
    See blog Item:
    http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2011/08/al-gore-calls-man-made-global-warming.html
    -

    ReplyReply
  39. Mr. Irons says: 39

    @Greg:

    I recommend you stop living in Ignorance and realize that the final, “data” for AGW existed before any form of testing existed. That is not how Science is done, it is how politics are done. You want to cling to a lie keep at it.

    ReplyReply
  40. Hard Right says: 40

    Global warming religionists MIGHT be better able to convince others if their “leaders” would start acting like it was true. Instead they are some of the biggest “offenders”.
    A good example would be al bore who owns several large homes that consume huge amounts of energy. Then there are his repeated jet flights all over the world and his gas guzzling SUVs. Those must be soooo good for the environment.

    ReplyReply
  41. johngalt says: 41

    @Greg:

    It hasn’t been proven that data was faked, nor have any of the conclusions based on that data been overturned.

    No, Greg, I’m sure the data itself, at least the data that was used, wasn’t exactly “faked”. However, the charges against Mann and the others has never been that they “faked” the data. The charge has always been that they cherry-picked the data they did use, ignoring other data gathered, and then massaged the conclusion in order to fit their pre-conceived theory. And Al Gore, and people such as yourself, have bought their theory hook, line, and sinker.

    And overturning their “theory”? When a bunch of academics and politicians, all with their hand in the till as well, are the ones who are presenting the “reviews” of that work, it is questionable at best. No skeptic ever gets a chance to present their findings within the MSM. No, they just get labeled as a “denier” or some worse, derogatory term who is being funded by Big Oil or some other non-existent corporate group.

    Don’t you find it the least bit intriguing that any who deny AGW theory gets labeled and categorized negatively, without any rebuttals or serious look into their work? Skeptics get labeled and categorized negatively, and their work, or findings, dismissed out of hand, simply for questioning the theory Al Gore promotes. The faithful continue to level charges of corporate funding at deniers, saying they are shills for the big corporations, however, who stands to make money if AGW is accepted as gospel? Why no charges of being in the pocket of corporate science? You would have people “follow the money” to discredit the skeptics, but you won’t do the same for those pushing the theory?

    ReplyReply
  42. anticsrocks says: 42

    @Greggie: ROFLMAO!!

    I hear ya man! It probably does get tiresome when you try to debate an indefensible position against someone who throws pesky facts at you.

    That you cannot even admit that you are wrong speaks so loudly to the drone that you are.

    Have a nice day and thanks for playing. :lol:

    ReplyReply
  43. Alan T says: 43

    The article has a very misleading title. Gore in absolutely no way said global warming skeptics are racists. He simply said skeptics are in denial and that talking about global warming is as difficult to them as it was for racists to talk about evils of discrimination. He’s talking about human propensity to deny things one doesn’t believe . What’s inflammatory is to accuse Gore of making a statement implied in the article’s title.

    ReplyReply
  44. anticsrocks says: 44

    @Alan T: Not really Alan. The interviewer asked Gore about equating climate “deniers” with racists and he actually confirmed the analogy.

    When Bogusky questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.

    “I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>