| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Al Gore: ‘Global warming’ prophet?
Check out this nauseatingly one-sided interview CBS Early Show anchor Harry Smith did with global warming alarmist extraordinaire Al Gore and Richard Branson, the Chairman of Virgin Group. Branson is the billionaire I mentioned in the comments section of this thread who has, as the WaPo reported, “offered a $25 million prize for anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Here’s a partial transcript (emphasis added):
Harry Smith: “There was an important conference in Paris just last week. Scientists came up with an idea that, because of global warming, and we feel like it’s basically caused by human beings and 90% sure it’s because of emissions. Do you think people in the United States understand that?”
Al Gore: “I think we’ve seen a big shift. We’re not there, yet. But we’re close to a political tipping point beyond which, I think you really are going to see a sea change in the way people demand that politicians in both parties make this their top priority.”
Harry Smith: “You have only known each other about a year or so as I understand it. Is Al Gore a prophet.”
Richard Branson: “How do you spell prophet? They — I think that Al Gore has been — has almost single handedly brought global warming to the forefront of the world. You know, outside America, he is perceived as a prophet spelled in the right way, and, you know, inside America I think a lot of people who have read well and know that, you know, know that he’s right and that something’s got to be done.”
Harry Smith: “Is this the right way to get your message across though? Because the question was asked in the press conference today, would you not be better off trying to affect this change from the White House as opposed to doing it in a sort of ‘Johnny Appleseed’ way, the way you’re doing it now.”
Translation: Harry Smith: “Man-made global warming is REAL and the American people need to understand that! Mr. Gore, you’re a prophet! Would you please run for president so you can take care of this?”
Nah, no agenda journalism there.
BTW, this isn’t the first time CBS has sounded the ‘gw’ alarm.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
25 Responses to “Al Gore: ‘Global warming’ prophet?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Between 2003 and 2006, the President committed nearly $3 billion annually–more than any other
country in the world – to climate change technology research and deployment programs. His
administration is carrying out dozens of federal programs, including partnerships, consumer
information campaigns, incentives, and mandatory regulations.
By the way, that IPCC report that the drive-by legacy media talks about as conclusionary is not the 1500 pages of data due out in a few months but a summary report not written by scientists but by executives who cater to politicians. Their interest (one even said) is in scaring people awake about the issue.
In that same article is:
You see – ire should be directed at the Canadians and EU not the responsible U.S. Leftists continue to focus their ire on the wrong people on every issue.
Unfortunately for all Americans the truth doesn’t matter to leftists or the drive-by legacy press – it is about how many conservatives we can smear with how many issues…. Then they wonder why the political tone has gotten more course.
If people want a way to combat Gore’s fanaticism, I’ve got a suggestion here.
“Global warming prophet”? Well, he sure can perform a miracle here, and walk on water; it’s frozen!
Interesting. I’m a Christian, one of those people accused of trying to ram our Religion down the throats of unbelievers. Gorites preach their global warming hell on earth,and Al help you if you don’t accept every word of their dogma. Gorites defend their Prophet as zealously as Muslims defend theirs. All to no avail.
Mention of only true global warming(aside from rhetoric-man it’s getting hot these days!) is found in 2 Peter 3:10-
“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.”
Not to worry, though:
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. and I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.”
Revelation 21:1-2
All of Global warming hysteria is based on the assumption that God is not in charge. Which is why I may someday figuratively or literally lose my head for rejecting their religion. The Emperor Weatherman has no clothes.
A false prophet is usually with honor, movies, books, and Oscar nominations in his own country.
Bye bye. –ST
FYI, we have multiple tom’s posting here, but the one that has been banned is the Tom with a capital T (not tom, and not TomTB).
I found this on the NYT site comments on an article about Greenland’s ice not melting now:
Al Gore, global warming profit!
Severian! That was my line! Sheesh!
For what shall it Profit Algore … ?
Notice how many billionaires and billionaire wannabes are trying to ram this garbage down our throat?? I think the 1st new law that needs to be created is no air flights under 3 hours long. 9/11 proved that most of our global warming is being caused by the amount of jet travel in this country. The next law can be no private jets to global warming speeches. Ride a bike doorknobs. Amazing how some on the left still don’t believe this is all about the money when the rich are setting themselves up to be the leaders of this movement. – Lorica
I knew there was a reason I enjoyed the Czech Republic and Prague so much:
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’ – Questions Gore’s Sanity
Here is an editorial that I wrote to the Standard Examiner published last Monday:
I am tired of the political maneuvering and mass hysteria global warming alarmism is causing.
Students in elementary school are taught that science involves the scientific method consisting of hypothesis, objective gathering of empirical data over appropriate periods, and peer review before a theory is propounded.
In their rush to preach the global warming theory, proponents have violated every tenant of this method, and worst of all, the subjective acceptance of this so called theory with out careful independent evaluation.
The fact is that the theory as we now have it has been derived from hastily programmed computer models using spurious data from satellite that can be effected by moisture, reflective surfaces, solar activity, the earths natural magnetic field etc, weather balloons subject to temperature changes aloft, air currents, humidity, and drift, and historical records that are subject to non-calibrated instruments placed in unknown locations such as shade or on the shady side of a wall. One can see the supposed accuracy of these computer models in predicting the current weather on any news channel much less trust them to accurately delineate temperature trends over decades.
Have we traded religion for a cult in trusting these environmental fanatics that pose as scientists? I am not a skeptic because I have not been presented with a properly researched hypothesis. Until then I will continue to rely on my subjective insight and say it is colder this year than last.
As was pointed out to me in another thread, President Bush has publicly acknowledged that global warming is a “serious challenge” and that humans are contributing to the problem. The following quote is from an official White House document called “Open Letter on the President’s Position on Climate Change.”
Roy, you say that those who support the theory of man-made global warming are part of a “cult” of “fanatics.” Do you then think that the president is also part of this cult? You say that climatologists who support this theory have “violated every tenant” (did you mean tenet?) of the scientific method, and imply that they have somehow not formulated and tested any hypotheses or published in peer reviewed journals. In fact, there are hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed papers that support this theory, with many testable hypotheses. How can you seriously make such claims? Care to back up your assertions with some proof?
Bob, why do you continuously equate the President’s position on global warming with that of Al Gore’s and other gw alarmists, especially considering that the administration won’t have anything to do with the Kyoto treaty and Democrats slam the president at every opportunity for not signing on to the Kyoto treaty, and not ‘doing more’ to ‘help the environment’?
gw alarmists think if we sign on and adhere to the Kyoto treaty, that we can have a big impact on global warming, and supporters of it have criticized the admin often for not wanting anything to do with it. The President is obviously concerned about global warming, but not to the degree that the gw crowd is, so for you to try to morally equate the President’s position as anything remotely close to Gore’s, and other gw fanatics is either dishonest on your part or shows that you are extremely gullible in wanting to believe anything you think fits your world view. Which is it?
Clinton/Gore really believed Kyoto was the thing to do, that’s why they submitted it to Congress for ratification. What, they never did? Hmmm….
is either dishonest on your part or shows that you are extremely gullible in wanting to believe anything you think fits your world view. Which is it?
The two are not mutually exclusive Sister…
Actually, Sister, I think it’s unfair to dismiss people who are concerned about GW as either “alarmists” or “fanatics” just as perhaps it’s unfair to dismiss those on the other side as “deniers” (I’ve tried to stop using that term because I agree with some posters who chided me for using it that it’s disrespectful).
I think that there are two separate issues here: One is answering the scientific question about the nature and extent of GW—is it really happening, are humans a major contributor, etc. The other issue is what (if anything) to do about it. The most hard-line GW skeptics reject the idea that GW is a real phenomenon, and they also argue that since it’s not a real phenomenon, then nothing needs to be done about it. I think it’s very significant, though, that the Bush administration appears to acknowledge the first part, which seems to put them at odds with a significant bloc of the skeptic crowd (most of the posters around here, for example). In making that acknowledgement, they do seem to agree with the gist of Gore’s position—i.e. that global warming is a significant threat, and that humans are unquestionably one of the causes of it. Moreover, the administration seems to be proposing that we need to do something about it, which is indicated by the statement about how America needs to be set “on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.” Sure, the administration doesn’t endorse Kyoto, but I wasn’t trying to imply that they did.
So I think my question is fair. How does the president’s position differ in principle from what Gore is saying, aside from the specific part about Kyoto? Given that they both appear to agree that GW is a problem and that something needs to be done about it, why is one called a fanatic by people who find no fault with the other?
The Politics of Global Warming
You’re still doing it: equating Gore’s position to Bush’s, when you know they aren’t remotely the same. If they were, the Democrats wouldn’t give him nearly the grief they do over it, and the President would be inviting Gore over to the WH routinely and make gw his number one priority. This is one of the reasons gw “deniers” complain so much about the other side of this argument: even after you are informed that your position is flawed, you still keep on going acting as though it’s not, without actually answering the question directly. It’s a cult-like mentality that I can’t identify with, which makes me so reluctant to take anything you say on the issue seriously, Bob.
And save the bit about how you try to view both sides of the debate openly. You’ve made it very clear what you think here of people who don’t agree with what you say on gw, whether or not you classify them as “deniers” or not is immaterial to your position.
OK, Sister, you say their positions “aren’t remotely the same.” But it’s clear from Bush’s statement that, just like Gore, he thinks that GW is a serious problem, that he agrees with the NAS that humans are a significant cause of it, and that something needs to be done to remediate it. So if the president’s position and Gore’s position are not remotely the same, then how are they different? It’s there in black and white that they seem to agree on the basic principles.
And, you know, it seems to me, given the preponderance of the scientific evidence that supports man-made GW, that a person is perfectly within reason to take that side in the debate. We may disagree about which bits of evidence, or which side in the debate, has the most credibility. But I think it really is silly and unfair to accuse people of being “cultists” when the vast majority of data and a far greater part of the scientific community are on their side.
Bob, you don’t have any credibilty on the issue of ‘name-calling’ at this blog since you’ve engaged in it yourself. So save your faux outrage for someone who’s naive enough to feel guilty about it, ok? I still see you’re trying to claim the President’s and Gore’s positions are the same even though I’ve explained to you repeatedly how they can’t possibly be. So I guess the answer to my earlier question I asked you is a combo of “dishonesty” and “you are extremely gullible in wanting to believe anything you think fits your world view.”
If I wanted a ride on a merry-go-round, I’d have gone to the state fair.
Because of this, I’m done with this conversation with you, Bob, and don’t have the slightest interest in anything else you say have to about it.
Sister, you say, “I still see you’re trying to claim the President’s and Gore’s positions are the same even though I’ve explained to you repeatedly how they can’t possibly be.” But you’ve never explained it to me. You just keep repeating that “it can’t possibly be” without offering any examples or facts to back up your assertion.
How could it be any more plain—it’s there in writing—that president Bush accepts the basic principles of man-made global warming, thinks that it’s a problem and that something should be done about it. Nobody here, not you, Severian, or anyone, has offered an explanation for this remarkable coincidence of Gore and Bush agreeing on the basic principles, when all of you are still in refusing to admit it. It’s actually kind of funny.
No Bob, what’s funny is your cult-like ignorance on the issue.
I take that back. It’s not funny. It’s rather sad.
Because I can see you’re hell-bent on repeating a question and acting like it’s not been answered when it has already been answered numerous times, I’m closing this thread, because I’m simply not in the mood for your silly game-playing.