Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?
We don't know what's more disheartening: The fact that the former veep is trying to keep a trade show talk private -- or that this isn't the first time he's been oddly press-shy.
When he was a guest lecturer at the Columbia University's journalism school in 2001, he tried imposed a gag order on his students, but eventually backed off. And in January 07, he banned the press from a speech he was giving in Sioux Falls, S.D.
We can sort of understand why Al wanted to keep junior journalists from writing about his chat in 2001 –- losing a presidential election can make you pretty grumpy. But now? He's Al the Great, winner of both a Nobel and an Oscar. Lighten up, Al! Or don't ask us to write about your next movie.
Update: We've found a report from Al's secret speech. Turns out it's the same one he always gives.
See Also:
Gore's Secret Speech - Revealed!
Al Gore's IPO Worry: About The Business Not The Veep
Gore To Kleiner Perkins: Cashing In on All That Green
Yes, some of this has to do with a sadly necessary aspect of politics, "managing" the press. Gore was bad, Bush (in 2000) was good.
Gore may be stuffy and pedantic (IMO), but he is very smart and doing crucial, important work on global warming. I think finally at this point in his life/career, he knows how to "work" the press.
Hey, koolaid drinker. How's your Friday going? You're getting that old AGW feeling again, right?
Makes you want to create a giant paper mache puppet head and chant something. I wonder if you've even considered the possibility that Gore is nothing more than a slimey politician who is using your fears to make a boatload of money. Has that thought even crossed your mind? The last thing he wants is unscripted scrutiny of his wild claims.
Your weekend might be better spent contemplating that possibility than buying poison lightbulbs and worrying about weather.
Or will they pull the "this is old news" tactic?
Of course, some of them will already be dead, so they won't ever have to answer for their dire predictions.
Of course, we shouldn't even dare to mention that this coordinated effort to deliver eyeballs to advertisers of consumer goods changed the history of the world by placing a total incompetent in the White House, who then proceeded to screw up everything he touched to the detriment of all of us, not to mention the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands.
Hey, it was all in good fun. He should be a good sport.
(* hint: it will never include statements such as : "Lighen (sic) up, Al! Or don't ask us to write about your next movie." )
Now, start reflecting.
fantasy?
dire predictions?
What planet are you people from?
The press isn't Gore's enemy.
Gore is Gore's enemy!
"What planet are you people from?"
Don't let it get to you. There are still a few foolish folk denying the hard science because it contradicts their political insensibilities. They make a lot of noise, but there aren't too many of them.
Sadly, I'm guessing your parents never had one of those "My Child is an honor student at . . . " stickers on their car.
Yikes!
The press isn't Gore's enemy.
Gore is Gore's enemy!
As for the idiotic global warming deniers above - actual science (rather than the made-up science paid for by big oil) says you're all wrong. But ya'll ain't much fer that dern book learnin', so ya probably ain't heerd about yet.
Yeah, and that's exactly why the polar caps & Greenland are melting.
I see the folks at 1.800.koolaid having been very successful at deprogramming you. Keep trying, it works!!!
As for "book learnin'"... At yesterday's faculty meeting (yes, I'm a phd), I was treated to very nice presentation from the chairs of two different science departments who ripped Al Gore
and company and their "the debate is over" rhetoric. Their point was not that the earth isn't warming (the temp changes constantly), but that the explanation that we have caused it is silly. Most scientists (and other grown ups) acknowledge that ALL major scientific theories take many decades to prove (if they can be proved at all).
No one is arguing that the earth is flat... but a simple glance in the morning paper on most days will provide anyone with a wealth of inconvenient data that muddies up Gore's rhetoric. I suggest you read BOTH sides of the arguments and avoid making decisions based on which messenger is sexier or perhaps a bigger fan of Castro.
Press corp, go drool over some real news like that polygamist compound story. Yeah, THAT'S by far the most important story of the new millennium.
Not allowing reporters to attend is very common practice for conferences which focus on privacy and security issues. These same reporters have a tendency to report legitimate security business as hacker claptrap. See the Defcon incident last year.
http://www.crn.com/security/201203092
They're so worried that they've renamed it "climate change". Now they can blame every single storm, flood, tornado, hurricane, cold winter, cool summer, drought, etc. etc. etc. (things that have been happening since time began) on "climate change".
By the way, the ice caps and Greenland are NOT currently melting. But, Al Gore's team will show them dripping just as soon as summer hits there. No mention, though, of how much the ice has built back up this winter. I haven't seen a fresh film of melting ice caps since, about, say, last summer! Hmmm...
See ya, I'm off to sell some carbon credits and get rich...
Just as people who don't believe in AGW are seeing their careers ruined, I hope someone is keeping a list of the AGW Nazis, so we will not forget who they are when the story changes in a few short years.
I think the title of your piece ("Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?") and your sarcasm ("Al the Great") raises questions about your journalistic impartiality.
I'm no great fan of Gore's, I've never read you before, but I wouldn't admit you to an event I was hosting based on what I'm reading here. I think you need to decide whether you want to be a journalist or Drudge. Once you move yourself, your ego, to the side, and focus on the subject (which isn't Al Gore but the topic people are gathering to talk and listen to each other about), people like Al Gore might trust you to witness what they have to say.
Now why would he do that?
Could it be that he's tired of the constant, "Who are you backing, Obama or Clinton?" type questions.
You know, instead of asking about the issue he's there to talk about, they'd rather hear him talk down Hillary or Barack depending on who he backs.
So, yea, maybe he's just a bit tired of that.
Easy to hate. A little harder to find wisdom, eh?
Cooling? La Nina is reducing the temps from the super highs of the last 2 years, but look at the global averages- still way above normal. You never address what the impact of increased CO2 levels are.
In my opinion a substantial portion of what passes for news in the mainstream media is just enough "information" to keep people ignorant if not seriously ill-informed. The trend towards infotainment has made a mockery of the so-called serious news.
If the press got close enough to ask Al Gore a question I bet the sole focus would be his vote as a super delegate and shouldn't the party big wigs urge Clinton to drop-out -- irrespective of the substance of the conference Gore is conducting.
I don't blame him. I think mainstream media has done, is doing a serious disservice to our democracy. An informed public is the linchpen to a "meaningful" democracy.
We're just people who hate bullshitters and snakeoil peddlers.
By the way, who is causing the warming on Mars? I don't think it's me.
I think I'll blame you. You increased the co2 levels on Mars! Bad Mars warmer!
Now turn off that nasty nightlight and get back under the covers.
We're just people who hate bullshitters and snakeoil peddlers.
By the way, who is causing the warming on Mars? I don't think it's me.
I think I'll blame you. You increased the co2 levels on Mars! Bad Mars warmer!
Now turn off that nasty nightlight and get back under the covers.
Al Gore is not the strongest supporter of a free press. After his very special and shy appearance in Berlin for EnBW he shakes hands with german energy market lobbyists which are responsible for climate changes. Yes, he acts for them. The German EnBW made advertisings with Al Gore with the silly slogan: “Sie fragen. Al Gore antwortet.” (english translation: "You ask. Al Gore answers". This is not true. He writes letters to the press which forbid them even to use a single sentence of his speech (which does not fully comply with German law and idea of free press).
Why does he surpresses reporting? I suppose there are two main reasons. The first reason is that he wants to prevent us, the people, to see that he usually is giving the same speech. The market value of is speeches and - as here in Germany - the marketing value of his greenwash activities doesn't go well with a free press.
The second reason is: Al Gore is a control freak with difficulties to handle criticism.
Al Gore does not have psychic control over 99.99% of scientists.
That percentage of scientists - and I'm being generous, it's probably 100% - have studied the facts and have come to the conclusion that the Earth is warming up due to human behavior.
I understand that this makes many of you ideologically uncomfortable. But the facts are what they are. Just as, in previous eras, people resisted the knowledge that the Earth is round and that Earth is not the center of the Solar System.
We are obliged to save all your lives with ours, in this case, because we can do something to solve a problem that you're resisting even acknowledging. So be it. Just remember this argument 40 years from now, and don't tell your grandchildren you were actually for what saved their future.
Bush/cheney aren't even 1/10th of the Person Al'gore is... All the Right wingers can say is Global Warming is a hoax and is bullshit and is just stirring fear without looking at their own lovely George .W.bush who in 2003's presidential campaign was throwing Fear messages left and right as if the whole world was on the edge of oblivion...Anthrax, Terrorist, WMD's, Islamo-facism, Terrorists in schools, buses cities blah blah blah Bullshit.. The Right wingers are the biggest hypocritical bullshitters i have seen... Wonder where all those fear messages went when bush became president again...So much for Fox news.
Remind me never to even look at Republican Candidates unless they are true Libertarians
Al Gore is a pathetic joke of a man. Even sadder are the sheeple that follow this charlaton and fill his piggybank on the anthropogenic global warming hoax.
History will not be kind to this man.
Want to back your bull with a link? Here's NOAA, currently part of the Bush Administration, directly contradicting your buddy IDON'TWORKFORBIGOIL who states:
"Man-made global warming alarmists are getting more and more worried each day that goes by when the temperature is below "normal". "
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/feb08.html
Temps are still way above normal, even in a la nina period. Truth is, temps would have to be way BELOW normal for decades just to make the last for decades average.
Put up or shut up, Plankton! SHOW ME THE MONEY! WHERE'S THE BEEF? In other words, can you back up your claims that global warming is a hoax? Use a gov't website. You know, from the Bush Administration. How about it? Oh, look, you got nothing!!
Since you won't click on the link, I'll provide the beef from NOAA:
.S. Winter Temperature Highlights
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.
Winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.
With higher-than-average temperatures in the Northeast and South, the contiguous U.S. winter temperature-related energy demand was approximately 1.7 percent lower than average, based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index
"AGW is a farce. It is "Secular Religion." It posits that the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature is causal, when in fact it is not."
Duh, gee, Tennessee (or should I say Senator James Inhofe), let's not let facts get in the way of our Global Warming Contrarian arguments. It must be nice living on your own planet these days.
'We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.'
'Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature.'
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Gore's movie is an oversimplification of a basic fact: The earth is warming and we humans are spurring it on--in spades.
The only people whose careers are being ruined are the ones who have benefited from our own gasoline-buying largess. Let's all shed some tears now for their poor widdle oil stock portfolios while we still have some water to spare.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Please, PLEASE, save that comment, and look back at it in 5 years.
"
And? So they say CO2 lags temp increases? How does that support CO2 causing temperature increases?
I don't want to just give you one source. Oh no, you have to now own up to your crap, whether you are posting under 1 or many names here. I'm still waiting for ANY proof you have that global warming is indeed bunk. In the mean time, here's the Bush Administration, again, on climate change, from EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html
Since the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), human activities have substantially added to the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels and biomass (living matter such as vegetation) has also resulted in emissions of aerosols that absorb and emit heat, and reflect light.
The addition of greenhouse gases and aerosols has changed the composition of the atmosphere. The changes in the atmosphere have likely influenced temperature, precipitation, storms and sea level (IPCC, 2007). However, these features of the climate also vary naturally, so determining what fraction of climate changes are due to natural variability versus human activities is challenging.
The following pages provide a summary of the atmosphere and climate changes observed during the Industrial Era and, where possible, current understanding of why the changes have occurred:
Atmosphere Changes
Temperature Changes
Precipitation and Storm Changes
Sea Level Changes
I know what you're thinking, Greenpeace narco leftists have infiltrated EPA and NOAA. How about a manly agency- you know, one that doesn't have a bunch of dumb PHDs in climatology or biology, but engineers and real guys. How about DOT-- you know, truck drivers, railroads and big boats:
http://www.climate.dot.gov/trans.html
Transportation contributes to global warming through the burning of gasoline and diesel fuel. Any process that burns fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air. Based on global warming potential, carbon dioxide accounts for over 80 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In 1998, transportation sources accounted for approximately one quarter of total U.S. greenhouse gases emissions.
In contrast with trends in other air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation continue to rise, in large part because travel growth has outpaced improvements in vehicle energy efficiency.
--
DOH! Damn, these leftist are like cockaroaches! Everywhere!
So, it was all a big conspiracy? Man..thousands of people in powerful positions mocvng the levers of society to control us! Scary!
Make no mistake, people (mostly) are not denying "global warming" exists. They are arguing that it is not manmade - not AGW.
Look up in the sky. See that giant burning orb? Sometimes it is more active than others, and global temperature reflects that.
Sung to the tune of "Delta Dawn"
Delta Gore
What's that butterfly ballot for?
Could it be a dimpled chad from days gone by?
Well, didn't I hear you say
You were gonna beat that Bush some day
And slither into the Whitehouse by and by!!
Glowbull Gore
What's that karbon kredit for?
Maybe Paul Shanklin or Capitol Steps can do something with this...
Back up your crap.
Here's the Bush Administration, in my 4th link in this conversation, is the U.S. Global Change Research Program which has links to all of the research products on climate change. None of them support your claims.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/new.php#usgcrp
What do you have? Lay it down, bro, why are you hiding the evidence>?
"5 years and food is scarce then the dummies will finally be concerned."
Interesting. Actually food is already becoming scarce or at least more expensive (which would suggest scarcity.) And it is because of global warming or at least the fear of global warming. Land that was once being used to grow wheat is now being used to grow crops for alternate fuel sources. How ironic that we don't need to wait until global warming kills people sometime in the future. We may begin killing them NOW through starvation as a result of a supposed solution to global warming.
We are living in Jonestown on a global scale.
Yet, even if they are all different, why can't they supply a Bush Administration link that supports their claims? I guess those commie liberal environmentalists own the Bush Administration, huh? The Big Conspiracy has the torture-promoting Bush Administration by the balls, huh?
hmm, what else could the answer be?
"By the way, who is causing the warming on Mars? I don't think it's me.
I think I'll blame you. You increased the co2 levels on Mars! Bad Mars warmer!
Now turn off that nasty nightlight and get back under the covers."
Look, it says so on Free Republic so it must be true!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488731/posts
Alas, no:
'As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I'm aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years).'
'Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth's glacial cycles.'
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
More:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015927&contentId=7029021
The likely effects of global warming include a greater frequency of extreme weather conditions: droughts; heat waves; and floods caused by rising sea levels.
Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from an estimated 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution, to over 380 ppm today. During the last century, the earth’s surface temperature rose by about 0.6°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects further warming of about 0.2°C per decade and that it is very likely that heatwaves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.
I suspect Gore has had simply enough of the press writing out political talking points, in the face of everything to the contrary, and calling it journalism.
How about the U.S. Military?
Speakers:
Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
General Paul J. Kern, U.S. Army (Ret.)
General Charles F. Wald, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
Sherri Goodman, Executive Director, Military Advisory Board, The CNA Corporation
David Thomas, First Secretary, Energy and Environment, British Embassy
Sherwood Boehlert, (Chair) Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center, and former Chair, House Committee on Science and Technology
Climate change’s anticipated impacts such as sea level rise and forced migration can have multiplier effects, accelerating traditional security threats. This concern is the conclusion of 11 retired flag officers in a new report from the CNA Corporation, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. The report recommends defining climate change as a national security threat, and integrating the consequences of such a threat into military planning. At an event sponsored by the Environmental Change and Security Program on May 14, 2007, three of the retired generals joined representatives from CNA and the British Embassy to discuss the report’s findings and recommendations.
--
it continues here: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=236344
Who cares if Al Gore denied the press access? Articles like this don't exactly generate sympathy for journalists. The press hasn't done its "job" in decades. I doubt access to one of his talks will change that, and so, I don't care.
Where's the great proclamations? Where are you? Hello????
I want to see what evidence supports your claims. I've offered 4 Bush Administration agencies plus a panel of retired military leaders, plus a leading oil company that climate change is real and is going to be a problem. So far, you folks have provided ziltch.
Can I go to bed now?
I'm trying to get the skeptics to give up their hidden evidence they so strongly attach themselves too. Really. I want to see it.
"And? So they say CO2 lags temp increases? How does that support CO2 causing temperature increases?"
The article continues:
(from Lorius et al., 1990) "changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"
'What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures).'
'Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.'
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Their pants are around their ankles, and low and behold, their weenies are tiny.
Al Gore is a pathetic joke of a man. Even sadder are the sheeple that follow this charlaton and fill his piggybank on the anthropogenic global warming hoax.
History will not be kind to this man.
America is so screwed because of the ignorance of liberals.
As far as the GW deniers in the comment section - your still idiots.
Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".
Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.
It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?
That would be ONE answer...if Gore did not have a history of banning the press at whim.
Al Gore doesn't like the press because he cannot tolerate any questions about his Global Warming alarmism or his business dealings. He talks TO the press or AT them, but never WITH them. He takes adulation...not questions. He received awards, not quesitons. He is very much anti-free speech and anti-free press.
Look around people. Nothing but bad news and junk journalism. No wonder the world is totally flummoxed. And the "media" gets paid for every story, however stupid or inaccurate.
Gore doesn't want reporters because he wants to control his content and not give it away to the "media" leeches. Way to go Al!
By the way Realclimate is paid for entirely by Enviromental Media Service (EMS) which is a supposed non profit media manipulator which specializes in sending phony science storys to the press. to prop up otherwise unviable businesses. You know, like for instance, the carbon credit business.
Al's former campaign secretary, Arlie Schardt, is the chairman of the board of EMS. You think that might have something to do with the onesided monotone support of AGW coming from Realclimate?
Oh maybe.
By the way Realclimate is paid for entirely by Enviromental Media Service (EMS) which is a supposed non profit media manipulator which specializes in sending phony science storys to the press. to prop up otherwise unviable businesses. You know, like for instance, the carbon credit business.
Al's former campaign secretary, Arlie Schardt, is the chairman of the board of EMS. You think that might have something to do with the onesided monotone support of AGW coming from Realclimate?
Oh maybe.
Listen up 10 percenters, Al Gore is not obligated to let the press in on every speech he makes. He is a private citizen and has every right to talk to the press when and if he choses or not, as the case may be.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Again, how about some facts from a reliable source (such as it is, how about the U.S. Federal Government??) that support your claims?
Again, how about some facts from a reliable source (such as it is, how about the U.S. Federal Government??) that support your claims?
"
DJ Monet, you are playing a tired old Internet game. You post links to sites with selected quotes, and challenge others to counter you. If/when they do, you will siply ignore them and move the line. Net vets know this, and won't play.
The sites are there. You know it, I know it. There are many, many contra-AGW sites out there, but you will find one way or another to ignore them. That's why I won't play that game. It's a waste of time.
You believe AGW all you want, but my challenge to you is to give us a time when a specific outcome (negative, I suppose) will have been reached. Say 5 or 10 years, and name that outcome.
Then we will see.
The polar ice caps will not have melted, we will not be out of food, and you will have long since seen the tide of AGW alarmism wane. (There is my 5 year prediction: AGW will be at least halfway discredited within 5 years)
But you can relax; there will be another crackpot theory to take its place. You can jump on that bandwagon and post links and quote excerpts, and pretend none of this happened.
Now go out and read some anti-AGW sites.
typical liberal hypocrite -
Al Gore's Mansion Described As Energy Hog
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
February 27, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Former Vice President (and global warming aficionado) Al Gore deserves an award for hypocrisy, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
The group, which studied Gore's electric and natural gas consumption, says his mansion in Belle Meade area of Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."
In his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore urges Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home, the group noted.
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) a year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh-more than 20 times the national average," the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said in a news release.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh -- consuming more than twice as much electricity in one month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359, the research group said.
Likewise, the natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 a month last year.
"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said.
He is a "private citizen" who has told the press not to report on dissent, and who has scores of times kept the press from reporting on his speeches. He is a "private citizen" who is trying to foist policies on the whole world that can affect economies, but he will not engage in debate over the issue of "manmade" global warming.
Please. Al Gore is a charlatan and a phoney. Don't worry about the "ten-precenters" (more like 70%) - worry about yourselves. You're so willing to believe anything as long as the "right person" says it to you.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html
Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming's impact
You've been sold a bill of goods.
CO2 DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS ANTEDATED TEMPERATURE.
CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE INCREASES BY AS MUCH AS 800 YEARS YET ALGORE CLAIMS THE OPPOSITE IS THE TRUTH.
TEMPERATURES HAVE FLAT LINED OR FALLEN SINCE 1998 YET CO2 CONCENTRATIONS HAVE INCREASED, ERGO THE + CO2 FEEDBACK LOOP THEORY IS FALSE.
SOLOAR FLUX DRIVES TEMPS, PERIOD. SOLAR CYCLES 24 AND 25 ARE AND WILL BE AT NEAR MINIMUMS.
SO THE NEXT MAUNDER MINIMUM WILL BE CALLED THE 'ALGORE MINIMUM' WHEN TEMPS KEEP FALLING.
Particulalry funny are the posts about "he's in it for the money." This shows that many people are simply unable to tel those who authentically believe in their causes, vs those who are proxies for others and largely self serving. The fact that Bush was elected is proof of this at even a cursory examination of his life shows that he had only a political agnda to further the causes of the Cheney's of the world and is clearly intent on bankrupting social causes while encrhiching himself and friends. He doesn't even try to hide it via promption of tax cuts for the rich, welfare for coporations, ignoring corporate crime such as Enron while it was in process despite the 911 from California when it was happening... all of this in the name of what exactly?
Those who made the jugement that his man would be a good Presdient have not earned the credibility to stand in judegment of others in the public eye.
The media spin completely determines how we see the candidates & they are still doing the same old same olde. Basically people can't or don't want to bother to figure out things for themselves. Gore doesn't need them since he isn't running for office.
humoungous ice sheet breaking up earlier than expected.