Gore concedes on climate this year

squarejohn

Literotica Guru
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Posts
847
http://greenhellblog.com/


By Steve Milloy
GreenHellBlog, August 10, 2010

Speaking about the likelihood of climate bill being passed by Congress in 2010, Al Gore told a conference call of supporters tonight that, “this battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year.” Gore bitterly denounced the Senate and federal government stating several times, “The U.S. Senate has failed us” and “The federal government has failed us.” Gore even seemed to blame President Obama by emphasizing that “the government as a whole has failed us… although the House did its job. [emphasis added]”

Gored urged his listeners to take the “realistic view that they had failed badly.” Gore said that “Comprehensive legislation is not likely to be debated” and that a “lame duck debate” is a “very slim possibility indeed.” (N.B. We thought, because Gore told us, that “the debate” was over.)

Gore said “the government was not working “as our founders intended it to” and laid more blame at the feet of fossil fuel interests who conducted a “cynical coordinated campaign” with “unprecedented funding” and “who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars just on lobbying.” He criticized “polluters” for “dumping global warming pollution into the atmosphere like it was an open sewer.”

Gore blamed the skeptics for “attacking science and scientists.” “They [the skeptics] did damage and cast doubt,” Gore said.

Asked why the alarmists were ineffective in addressing Climategate, Gore bitterly blamed a “biased right-wing media… bolstered by professional deniers.” Gore claimed the Wall Street Journal published 30 editorial and news articles about Climategate and “not a single one presented [his] side of the science.”

Speaking about the post-2010 prospects for a climate bill, Gore tried to boost morale by stating that “the battle is not over” and that “we [alarmists] have no choice but to win the battle.” Gore said that “reality is [the alarmists] ally” and then, among other things, blamed recent flooding in Nashville and the Russian heatwave/forest fires on global warming.

He concluded by observing that “it is darkest before dawn” and “we have not yet begun to fight.”

In a warm-up discussion before Gore addressed the call, National Wildlife Federation chief Larry Schweiger referred to the skeptics as “enemies” and that he hoped the alarmists would “outlive the bastards.”

I hope to see a story in which Al Gore is indicted, prosecuted and convicted of fraud.
 
The actual article doesn't support either your headline slug assertion or the statement you put in at the bottom of your copyright violation posting.

Typical.
 
The actual article doesn't support either your headline slug assertion or the statement you put in at the bottom of your copyright violation posting.

Typical.

Typical of what? Me, or everyone with whom you disagree.
 
When the lights go out, as they will when Carbon licenses and other restrictions begin to close coal fired electric generators, people, finding themselves in the dark, with no boob toob to entertain them, will play hide the Salami more.

:)

The 'L' wing elite prosyletizer, Charlie Rose, noted that the GW alarmists have stopped using Global Warming and baited and switched to Climate Change as the key phrase. Secondly, the ploy to identify Global Warming science as, 'settled science', flopped big time and real actual climate science is indicating that there is no warming trend at all, in fact, the next Natural Ice Age may be underway.

GW propaganda is a transparent attempt at continued social engineering to modify the behavior of people through the use of government taxation and force.

A great many people are coming to understand that the 'L' direction that has guided government for a generation is not only failing but leading to global disaster.

Amicus
 
Last edited:

Somebody 'round heah needs to mind their own business and cease being a self-appointed arbiter.


Your pathetic efforts to impose censorship on others betray you for what you really are: a gargantuan hypocrite and a closet dictator.



 
Somebody 'round heah needs to mind their own business and cease being a self-appointed arbiter.


Your pathetic efforts to impose censorship on others betray you for what you really are: a gargantuan hypocrite and a closet dictator.
Talk dirty to me baby!

That's what we're here for.
 
Just to remind you all that the majority opinion among informed scientists remains that human-induced global warming is happening and represents a grave future danger.

The National Geographic, a notorious left-wing rag and exponent of force and coercion, thinks so:

http://environment.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html?source=sem_esv_G2300&esvcid=S1281647967_ADOGOE_AGI3900990_ADI5574556_TRMY2xpbWF0ZSUyMGNoYW5nZQ%3d%3d_RFDd3d3Lmdvb2dsZS5jby51aw%3d%3d_RAWY2xpbWF0ZSUyMGNoYW5nZQ%3d%3d&gclid=COjwtt7utKMCFchr4wod4Fm23Q

Just wanted to mention it.

Patrick
 
The actual article doesn't support either your headline slug assertion or the statement you put in at the bottom of your copyright violation posting.

Typical.

The article does support the headline. It says Gore has conceded there will be no laws passed this year on his personal bugbear. :eek:

I wonder if Gore is aware that, with his private jets and his big homes, he produces as much pollution as maybe as many as a hundred average persons. I don't know just what the actual number of average people would be, but it is high. I'm not complaining about his carbon footprint; I'm just commenting on his hypocrisy. :eek:
 
Just to remind you all that the majority opinion among informed scientists remains that human-induced global warming is happening and represents a grave future danger.

The National Geographic, a notorious left-wing rag and exponent of force and coercion, thinks so:

http://environment.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html?source=sem_esv_G2300&esvcid=S1281647967_ADOGOE_AGI3900990_ADI5574556_TRMY2xpbWF0ZSUyMGNoYW5nZQ%3d%3d_RFDd3d3Lmdvb2dsZS5jby51aw%3d%3d_RAWY2xpbWF0ZSUyMGNoYW5nZQ%3d%3d&gclid=COjwtt7utKMCFchr4wod4Fm23Q

Just wanted to mention it.

Patrick


With little-to-no scientific proof of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and with the demolition of the data underlying Michael Mann's so-called "hockey stick" temperature graph ( by Messrs. McIntyre & McKitrick and the subsequent confirmation by Wegman http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf ), one cannot help but wonder why anyone would continue the unquestioning and wholesale advocacy of the hypothesis.


There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide has a major effect on temperatures. The paleoclimatological record strongly suggests that it is the reverse that is, in fact, the truth— i.e., that IT IS TEMPERATURE THAT CAUSES CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS?


The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past century is largely attributable to natural sources. The atmospheric residence time for CO2 is substantially lower than that assumed by the impossibly complex mathematical models that are the only so-called "proof" of the hypothesis offered up by the proselytizers of imminent climatic catastrophe.
http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/forschung/groups/kk/en/CO2_html


Climate science is unable to locate an enormous amount of heat that— according to the hypothesis— has to have been trapped if the hypothesis is accurate.
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-change


Those who have claimed "the science is settled" are ( to be polite ) either disingenuous or deluded.


Climate science's actual understanding of climate is, at best, modest if not downright primitive.


In fact, the so-called "science" of climatology is in such a primitive state that it boggles the mind that anyone could seriously contemplate taking precipitate action based solely on the forecasts of computer models that require the accurate simultaneous solution of a score of nonlinear equations.


Even one of the foremost proponents of the AGW hypothesis, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's CRU publicly admitted on the BBC this year that there is no statistically significant warming.




Q:
“Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”

A: “the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. ”

Q: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

A: “Yes”

Q: “Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?”

A: “No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. ”

BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones of CRU – 13 February 2010



 
The article does support the headline. It says Gore has conceded there will be no laws passed this year on his personal bugbear. :eek:

I wonder if Gore is aware that, with his private jets and his big homes, he produces as much pollution as maybe as many as a hundred average persons. I don't know just what the actual number of average people would be, but it is high. I'm not complaining about his carbon footprint; I'm just commenting on his hypocrisy. :eek:

Umm, no. the article says Gore conceded on the nonpassage of a law, not that he conceded anything on the climate itself. I would guess you've never had responsibility for writing accurate headlines before.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
The article does support the headline. It says Gore has conceded there will be no laws passed this year on his personal bugbear.

I wonder if Gore is aware that, with his private jets and his big homes, he produces as much pollution as maybe as many as a hundred average persons. I don't know just what the actual number of average people would be, but it is high. I'm not complaining about his carbon footprint; I'm just commenting on his hypocrisy.


Umm, no. the article says Gore conceded on the nonpassage of a law, not that he conceded anything on the climate itself. I would guess you've never had responsibility for writing accurate headlines before.

I still say the headline is not inaccurate, because Gore has conceded on at least one aspect of climate, that there will be no legislation this year. The headline is somewhat misleading, because people might see it and think it is about Gore changing his mind about Climate Change, but that would be their problem.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
The article does support the headline. It says Gore has conceded there will be no laws passed this year on his personal bugbear.

I wonder if Gore is aware that, with his private jets and his big homes, he produces as much pollution as maybe as many as a hundred average persons. I don't know just what the actual number of average people would be, but it is high. I'm not complaining about his carbon footprint; I'm just commenting on his hypocrisy.

I still say the headline is not inaccurate, because Gore has conceded on at least one aspect of climate, that there will be no legislation this year. The headline is somewhat misleading, because people might see it and think it is about Gore changing his mind about Climate Change, but that would be their problem.


I'm sure you still think the headline is accurate. You're dumb as a rock. :D

Gore conceded nothing about his belief in the state of the climate in this article. Nor, as SJ charged in the OP, does the article point to anything illegal he's done.

I'm not reacting from your opposition to either Gore or the climate change argument. I'm reacting as a journalist who sees that both you and SJ have your heads up your asses on reading media reporting.

You guys are just a bunch of politically impotent dumb ranters with scrambled eggs for brains. The very fact that you have to come to an erotica writer's site to do your political ranting demonstrates your irrelevance and impotence. :D

Watching you performing your misinformation dance on this forum is like watching monkeys in a cage at the zoo.

Bottom line: who cares what you think or post on partisan politics? Posting anything partisan on poitics is a purposeful intent to be divisive rather than collaborative here. It's just amusing that you don't have the wit or power to do this anywhere relevant--or to actually do anything but whine on an Internet porn board.
 
Last edited:
Just to remind you all that the majority opinion among informed scientists remains that human-induced global warming is happening and represents a grave future danger.

The National Geographic, a notorious left-wing rag and exponent of force and coercion, thinks so:


http://environment.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html?source=sem_esv_G2300&esvcid=S1281647967_ADOGOE_AGI3900990_ADI5574556_TRMY2xpbWF0ZSUyMGNoYW5nZQ%3d%3d_RFDd3d3Lmdvb2dsZS5jby51aw%3d%3d_RAWY2xpbWF0ZSUyMGNoYW5nZQ%3d%3d&gclid=COjwtt7utKMCFchr4wod4Fm23Q

Just wanted to mention it.

Patrick
~~~

You must not watch NatGeo at all as they are a blatant conveyor belt for left wing causes, equalled only by the Histerical Channel and their puppydog History International channel.

Since when does a majority opinion in the world of science trump truth?

Climate Science is not 'settled' science, not in the least, but more important than that, the GW effort has been shown to be riddled with fraud, unsupportable thesis' and unrepeatable experiments and corrupt from top to bottom with government scientists being coached on what and where to take temperature readings and glacial degradation.

I sense from most of your Posts that you strive to be fair and just and seek truth, I hope you will look into GW a little more, with an open mind.

Amicus
 
Bottom line: who cares what you think or post on partisan politics? Posting anything partisan on poitics is a purposeful intent to be divisive rather than collaborative here. It's just amusing that you don't have the wit or power to do this anywhere relevant--or to actually do anything but whine on an Internet porn board.

Apparently you care. Otherwise why all the insults and venom?
 
Apparently you care. Otherwise why all the insults and venom?

One gets tired from time to time at you political partisan folks stinking up the forum.

If you had anything more than words (or any brains), this isn't the place you'd be doing this.

This is devisive. and on something that's totally irrelevant to this section of the forum. You're only doing it here because you're too much of a whimp to face the folks in the GB.
 
Based on the current list of thread titles ( see below ), I'd say there was some very selective criteria being applied. In fact, I'm almost certain there were highly partisan and subjective processes at work.


RIGHT versus…(wait for it…) WRONG!
Gore concedes on climate this year
What Are You Listening To Now?
Word Chains game
Controversial topic!!!!!!!!!!
Twelve Words You Didn't Know You Were Mispronouncing
Inception: Movie Review
What do all fiction writers have in common?
OMG! Gays Can Marry Again In CA!
The Naked Party Thread
BBC News...Anti American Edition...
The Musical Alphabet Game
A Chilling Tale from France
Body Image in medicine?
Free association thread
Why are austerity measures failing worldwide?
Meeting point for translations
The last person to post here wins...
 
I'm sure you still think the headline is accurate. You're dumb as a rock. :D

I still say the headline is not inaccurate, although I will concede it is misleading. It is about Gore conceding something that is related to alleged Global Warming (or Climate Change.) It's certainly nice to keep the debate on such a high level of civility. :rolleyes:
Gore conceded nothing about his belief in the state of the climate in this article. Nor, as SJ charged in the OP, does the article point to anything illegal he's done.

You're quite right. For one thing, there's a lot of money in it for him. SJ didn't accuse anybody of anything. The article did mention the possibility of Gore committing fraud, but went into no real details.
I'm not reacting from your opposition to either Gore or the climate change argument. I'm reacting as a journalist who sees that both you and SJ have your heads up your asses on reading media reporting.

You guys are just a bunch of politically impotent dumb ranters with scrambled eggs for brains. The very fact that you have to come to an erotica writer's site to do your political ranting demonstrates your irrelevance and impotence. :D

As I said, I like to see the debate kept on such a high level of civility. :rolleyes: My reasons for coming to this site are to post dirty stories I have written and to interact with other writers of smut. I also like to show pictures of my grandchildren and to discuss political subjects. So, what are you doing here?
Watching you performing your misinformation dance on this forum is like watching monkeys in a cage at the zoo.

Oh. Okay, have fun. :)

Bottom line: who cares what you think or post on partisan politics? Posting anything partisan on poitics is a purposeful intent to be divisive rather than collaborative here. It's just amusing that you don't have the wit or power to do this anywhere relevant--or to actually do anything but whine on an Internet porn board.

Well, you must care, because you certainly respond in a most emphatic way. I must say, you post about as much on political threads as I do, and your posts are more divisive than those of most. At least I don't stoop to personal insults the way you do.

How do you know what else I do? I might be extremely prominent in local politics, for all you know. :eek:

ETA: BTW, I pointed out Gore's hypocrisy, since he is such a major polluter, with his private jets and his big houses. What do you think of that?
 
Last edited:
Boxlicker

The very excitable sr71plt, confesses to being a journalist. Given the state of news reporting these days, and the tone of his/her (who knows?) posts, I am inclined to believe him.
 
Gore concedes that the rightwing have stymied this years efforts to save this planet from stupid human cupidity.

Fixed your title for you.
 
~~~

You must not watch NatGeo at all as they are a blatant conveyor belt for left wing causes, equalled only by the Histerical Channel and their puppydog History International channel.

Since when does a majority opinion in the world of science trump truth?

Climate Science is not 'settled' science, not in the least, but more important than that, the GW effort has been shown to be riddled with fraud, unsupportable thesis' and unrepeatable experiments and corrupt from top to bottom with government scientists being coached on what and where to take temperature readings and glacial degradation.

I sense from most of your Posts that you strive to be fair and just and seek truth, I hope you will look into GW a little more, with an open mind.

Amicus

No, I don't watch these television channels I'm afraid.

The vehemence on either side of this debate does seem to me to get in the way of fairness, justice and truth, and some of the language used including yours is puzzlingly angry to me. People's desire for there to be a particular outcome to a debate can overwhelm their reason.

What I'm interested in examining is the big picture. To discredit something one needs more than a list of its failings, which people on the Net so often finish with, as if that proves it; beyond that, one then needs an overall assessment of what is left, once the failings in an argument have been accepted or refuted.

Climate science will never be 'settled' one way or the other because it's based on modelling, and on real-time events which can't be replicated. In that case I don't regard a majority view among scientists as in any way conclusive, but I do think that if a majority of those studying in depth a particular topic think one way rather than another, that's persuasive but not conclusive.

I don't feel 'the gw effort' has been shown to be 'riddled with fraud' nor 'corrupt from top to bottom'. I see that instances of fraud and corruption have been demonstrated, but they don't seem to me at all pervasive. Most of the people I read, behind the flashy news headlines. seem like honest hard-working scientists, not earning a great deal by professional standards, and interested in getting at the truth of the matter. I think the criticism they've been subjected to has exposed that scientists in general have not come to terms with freedom of information very well, and they are having to adjust their future practices as a result.

At present therefore I'm happy with the view as presented, for instance, by the UK Meteorological Office, whose slightly patronising but informative guide is here. But I'm always open to other views, as I hope you are.

Patrick
 
Patrick1, have you ever seen or heard of two boys fighting over a girl?

Ever read or heard of Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet? I am sure you have, both...

There is passion in all of life and in all professions. I sigh with empathy at a group of JPL or NASA scientists who spent ten years on a project and their only reward is a distant radio signal that indicates their success...or failure.

Sorting out emotional passions and rational, logical, objective endeavors is the name of the game, and we, here, writers, thinkers, who observe and attempt to sift the emotional from the objective, have a heady task indeed.

You may not follow this line of reasoning, or if you do, reject it, nonetheless, I offer it...when the first Atomic bomb was tested in the US on July 16th, 1945, the world changed forever.

All of a sudden the earth became a fragile thing, nestled in our calloused hands and, 'what hath God wrought', burbled from the lips of scientists all over the world. Science had finally come of age and realized and recognized that they, scientists, had the power to destroy mankind and alter the future.

Intellectually, this devastated an entire generation of philosophers, writers of all kinds, poets and artists alike...

Now flash forward to the space age and the Blue Planet starkly contrasted to the blackness of space and the realization that man, the species, and all of human history, existed in an extremely fragile balance.

Most people are not in the one or two percent of the intelligence quotient to independently observe and draw conclusions of a metaphysical nature; they depend of those who can emcompass the totality of existence and interpret it for them, quite like the Priests of old, who were the only ones to interpret the word of God to the masses and direct their piety.

The entire environmental movement that began in the sixties, is an extension of the anti industrial revolution that began in the mid 1800's, when man began to fashion nature and the natural environment to suit his own needs and desires.

It is an emotional and irrational response to the intellect of man and his conquest of nature that elicits a visceral response to those who must depend only on faith and belief to guide their world view or sense of life.

Global Warming, Climate Science, is an emotional rebellion against the artificial life modern man has created in his search for comfort and security. The Flower Children were a pathetic attempt to return to the Elysian Fields of literary fiction that was never a reality.

If you are serious about knowing the 'truth' of the matter, research, on this forum, the many Posts of TrySail who has documented the falsities of the entire Global Warming political movement to de-industrialize the western world and return nature to a pristine state.

This is an Author's Hangout for those who have posted stories on Literotica; not all of us are Pornographers, some of us are real writers who deal with the mainstream of human experiences and not the Bohemian, aberrant extremes that a small contingent insist upon heralding as a 'porn site'.

In doing so, we deal with real world issues, real time events and we attempt to comprehend the moral implications of such issues such as global warming, climate change and how, true or false, it might affect or effect future human conditions.

Amicus
 
No, I don't watch these television channels I'm afraid.

The vehemence on either side of this debate does seem to me to get in the way of fairness, justice and truth, and some of the language used including yours is puzzlingly angry to me. People's desire for there to be a particular outcome to a debate can overwhelm their reason.

What I'm interested in examining is the big picture. To discredit something one needs more than a list of its failings, which people on the Net so often finish with, as if that proves it; beyond that, one then needs an overall assessment of what is left, once the failings in an argument have been accepted or refuted.

Climate science will never be 'settled' one way or the other because it's based on modelling, and on real-time events which can't be replicated. In that case I don't regard a majority view among scientists as in any way conclusive, but I do think that if a majority of those studying in depth a particular topic think one way rather than another, that's persuasive but not conclusive.

I don't feel 'the gw effort' has been shown to be 'riddled with fraud' nor 'corrupt from top to bottom'. I see that instances of fraud and corruption have been demonstrated, but they don't seem to me at all pervasive. Most of the people I read, behind the flashy news headlines. seem like honest hard-working scientists, not earning a great deal by professional standards, and interested in getting at the truth of the matter. I think the criticism they've been subjected to has exposed that scientists in general have not come to terms with freedom of information very well, and they are having to adjust their future practices as a result.

At present therefore I'm happy with the view as presented, for instance, by the UK Meteorological Office, whose slightly patronising but informative guide is here. But I'm always open to other views, as I hope you are.

Patrick

It's refreshing to see a sane and rational post such as yours, Patrick.

You are correct when you say that climate science will never be settled. There is a large but unknown number of constantly changing and interacting variables in our weather system. There is also the constantly changing intensity of radiation from the sun as well as thermal radiation from beneath the Earth's surface. A simple list of the variables to factor into the equation would be miles long. And then you have the massive task of formulating the equation. I do think it is an impossible dream to try to predict anything about the future, but that is not the same as saying it shouldn't be tried.

As for scientists, they have to make a living like anybody else. Their money comes from grants, which makes it possible for those doing the granting to pressure scientists to interpret their findings in a certain way. This is nothing new. Look what happened to Galileo.

Nowadays, we have a gang of crooked businessmen, using Al Gore as their front-man and pied piper, seeking to promote a gigantic hoax that will fill their pockets with our money. The idea was to scare everybody and get absurd "Green" legislation passed. It almost worked. It just happened that ordinary folks are not as stupid as Al Gore and his friends thought.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top