This is what a visionary looks like.
No wonder deniers hate him. If Gore’s been right for 30 years – then what are they?
This is what a visionary looks like.
No wonder deniers hate him. If Gore’s been right for 30 years – then what are they?
Take the MONEY and run what a joke, he is take your blinders off and look around next you’ll say John Cooker of numbers is a great scientist :>( but I mite be 97% wrong on that one ;>)
yeah, yew jus mite be.
Peter, I can’t believe some of the comments these same people leave here over and over. I’ve served on a comment jury for a blog and not only would comments like these be deleted for rudeness and being inflammatory, these guys would have been banned for repeated offenses.
I’ve banned some folks, but I always hesitate, as this blog is known for having an open door policy.
If I allow some sketchy stuff, its because there is value to illustrating the stupid and abusive nature of most climate deniers.
when someone crosses the line, I give a warning – usually just one.
Why would anybody hate Gore? A few million degrees today, a tv station sell off tomorrow, a jet fueled lifestyle the day after tomorrow, he’s a dream come true
Do you know what an ad hominem is?
I’ve read similar personal attacks (by similar mindsets) on Neil Young, Richard Branson and Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio (and of couse Al Gore), explain where it says that to believe in climate science you need to be poor, humble or meek.
Do you think they deserve disqualification for frequent flying (possibly on private jets) ?
It is the lowest form of attack, especially where there are even better examples in the denial camp.
As Omnorhea proves himself a WUWT fan!
Gosh, that’s a surprise from the fink who has been claiming to care about global warming, from the weasel who holds his breath until blue in the face when confronted with his own website which claims AGW is impossible.
The forum doesn’t have an “Ignore” option, right? Please ban this guy already!
For the weak minded idiots like gjngerine here who still haven’t got the joke. Agw isn’t “impossible” -if it were I wouldn’t have joked about it. What’s impossible is the caricature of science often mispresented as Agw, eg always killing off only the cute animals.
Gore like Branson and Leo are just representations of the same fashion like bandwagon effect that’s burying all serious talk wrt Agw under a million silly reports and grand claims.
But that’s the way you like it and I’m all for personal freedom.
“Agw isn’t “impossible” -if it were I wouldn’t have joked about it. “
I’ll let those interested read your own words on the topic to decide who is being honest about “joking” here:
http://omnologos.com/why-agw-is-logically-impossible/
FFS I mixed the argumentum ad providentiam with Douglas Adams’ Babel Fish deduction that God does not exist. What else would you need…a smily face???
The number of people getting the irony without an explanation is vanishingly small. I don’t think I’ll ever be better than I was then.
The more people who get rich on green energy and climate change, the better the planet will be off I say. In a world where money talks, perhaps its the only way to beat this problem. There is a large portion of the big company CEO’s who also agree on this, and they can fly as many jets as they want as long as they try to knock the facts of AGW into the heads of everyone they speak to and do business with. Hopefully they also divest in fossil fuel related companies too so they loose any power they have over media and less money to smear politicians and “think” (anti-science propaganda) tanks.
https://thedarkglobe.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/kneejerk_small.jpg
Startling to think that the interview was from 30 years ago, it is as relevant to day as it was then and only recently has a serving U.S president actually admitted that it was a problem.
During the 30 years much has happened:
The smoking gun of atmospheric CO2 density has risen (NOAA Mt Mauna) from Nov 1983 (341.53 ppm) to Nov 2013 (395.11 ppm).
Temperatures have responded to the known physics (NASA Global Av.) Nov 1983 (+.27°C ) Nov 2013 (+.70 °C).
Yet the dull bovine denial continues, I have nothing but disgust and contempt for those who refuse to look at the facts, cannot bother to see what is happening and will allow future generations to suffer through greed, inaction and apathy.
“only recently has a serving U.S president actually admitted that it was a problem.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So2_NxQLGxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jnu09xQ4lk
That’s just two – I could pull up a bunch more.
Speaking of which, these don’t mention global warming, but they’re fascinating when viewed together and are still relevant to the problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bUA-uFNAYc
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RryjQgSwXNs
Basically, we had a taste of “discipline, self-restraint, and unity”, and didn’t much like it.
For comic relief, here’s the “rational path”:
“Yet the dull bovine denial continues, I have nothing but disgust and contempt for those who refuse to look at the facts, cannot bother to see what is happening and will allow future generations to suffer through greed, inaction and apathy.”
I could not have said it better myself.
I listened to a lecture by Professor Stevens of UNSW Chemistry School in 1975 as part of my second year chemistry course. He explained how the Greenhouse effect worked showed where the Keeling Curve was up to and that in his students life times we would need to change societies power source from carbon from fossil fuels to non carbon energies as the build up of CO2 was going to inevitably cause global warming. I felt a bit set back in my seat but it was rational so I started to think about it.
He gave examples of wind, hydro, solar and nuclear as possible sources of energy.
In 1980 my Professor Trimm then head of the school of Chemical Engineering and Industrial Chemistry at UNSW would say that there was enough coal to bake the planet from the green house effect. A frank man, he would call it as he saw it.
The reason that I discuss it here is that it was standard science then. It still is standard science now.
In 1979 as an honors student with my first research project I discussed how it was for one of my class mates with his professor. He replied that he had almost sunk his research career by talking with enthusiasm about one day cricket. His Professor was so outraged that anyone would enjoy such bastardry of the fine game of cricket that should run for days, that it took weeks for the matter to calm down. A change to the game of cricket was very close to treason!!!
These were very conservative chemists that I learned chemistry from.
To hear the crocodile tears from the deniers carry on about the intrusion of politics into science as if climate science has stray out of the realm of true science is just false plane and simple.
To have the loony tune deniers make out that Al Gore invented the greenhouse effect for his political purposes is like wise just over blown fabrication.
It’s been known for a very long time and now that CO2 levels are so high it has come to matter for our future as we have been warned now by scientists for over 100 years, the deniers are acting like some radical Maoist cell has invaded and taken over science.
All that has happened is that finally more and more scientists have found their gonads and have the front to call it as it is. We are running out of time to de-carbonise our energy source.
I learned the same things as Paul, but much later in life, at 3 different open universities after completing a full (non related) career, until then I kept an open mind and did not converse on the subject (as I had no education in the field).
I understand that Mr Gore gained his enthusiasm on the topic from attending class tutored by Roger Revelle (one of the early scientists that studied global warming.)
In science you don’t have to like the individuals who communicate facts (although it helps), you just need an appreciation of the discipline.
Gore might be right but I wouldn’t know… his obscenely dishonest and manipulative performance in a presidential debate with Bill Bradley totally and forever turned me off to him and I’ve never read his book or seen his movie. Nor will I.
Nevertheless, whenever a fake skeptic brings up Gore as a supposed argument against AGW I’m quick to remind him/her that Gore is, in fact, totally irrelevant to the science.
Gore didn’t invent global warming but surely has tried his best to run it aground
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/sep/15/al-gore-climate-change-reality
Funnily enough, my own experience with The Man himself has been in Sydney in Sep 2006 (IIRC) where I stayed one week and he came by to present AIT. Of course we were in the middle of a drought in the middle of the dry season, so it rained all the time 🙂
Sydney has two wet seasons per year, though the winter southern or summer northern one sometimes doesn’t arrive due to ENSO etc. Frequency of rainfall is nearly equal in all months of the year. When is this ‘dry season’ of which you speak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Sydney
Omno left a smilie, which means he was joking, and therefore not responsible for any interpretations by readers that he was sliming Gore, or was being dismissive of the seriousness of AGW, or Michael Mann, or climate “alarmists”.
Because, you, see, Omno is an entertainer, not a propagandist. (Much like Rush Limbaugh). He is a serious commentator, not a troll.
PDFTT
Very nice gingery – you accused me of something but cannot back it up, especially not now that you’ve realised you just could not get the joke. So instead you are opting to write meaningless sentences, as if your inability to include any quote would somehow strengthen your argument.
As I repeatedly said, in fact since 2007 at least, the issue is not much if AGW exists or doesn’t (it most likely does) but the enormous baggage of bandwagonery it is being saddled with, of which my list is only a short example. There is no dick and there is harriet who haven’t managed to link their pet hate or worry to AGW. This of course distracts and detracts from the issue, but then the Dicks and the Harriets don’t actually care about climate change do they. And so they don’t care at the natural reaction to their sleights of hand, that is the entrenchment of positions as far away from any practical solution as possible.
Likewise in months and months of commenting the main goal of too many of you has been to get cheap self entertainment by finding the “denier” and vomiting in his or her direction (and no I am not referring to myself). This may warm some sick hearts, but as sure as hell it does nothing to solve the AGW issue.
John – you are correct. I should have spoken of the “driest” season. I was myself counting on some sunshine, but alas it was mostly a matter of pushing a pram in the rain.
Gore was there. The Gore Effect does not exist (I have to state this explicitly for the slowest brains in the audience) but it was just funny that I had to go through it < —joke
This is a good video clip to show the “Al Gore invented Global Warming” whackjobs.
A warning about CC from a TV show in 1958.