Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Al Gore’

The media promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil – while giving a free pass to Al Gore (a/k/a The Goracle), who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets.

Brit journalist Christopher Booker makes the claim that 2008 is the year “man-made global warming was disproved”. His three reasons are:

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare.
[…]
Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a “scientific consensus” in favour of man-made global warming collapsed.
[…]
Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world.

While a good read Christopher Booker only hits around the edges of the AGW death sentence.

Australian scientist, and consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office, David Evans makes a better more complete case:

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? It turns out we can learn a lot simply by observing where the warming occurred: each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere differently, heating some parts before others. The pattern of warming is the cause’s “signature”.

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming. The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. These signatures are theoretically derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are integral to our understanding of how the atmosphere works. [1]

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes – weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. [2]

Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. (Either that or the signatures from the IPCC are wrong, so its climate models and predictions are rubbish anyway.)

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming. So AGW is wrong, and carbon is innocent. Suspect exonerated – wrong signature.

Even the most simple-minded should comprehend that picture.

If the signature for the greenhouse effect includes X,Y and Z and only X and Z are present, whatever is going on isn’t the greenhouse effect.

Evans documents the machinations the warmists go through to ignore this fact, but there it is.

Evens, to my great amusement, takes The Goracle to task as well claiming he knew the new data (produced by new technology) about ice core samples and released in 2003 didn’t support his theory. So he used the old data instead.

To everyone but the enviro-whackos, that’s called a bald-faced lie.

Evans provides a timeline to demonstrate how the AGW myth gained favor with the media and general public:

Governments have spent over $50 billion on climate research since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence for AGW. [5]

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW. The old ice core data provided support from 1985, the IPCC was established by the UN in 1988 to look into human changes to climate, and the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 to limit carbon emissions. By 1999 the western political class were doing something, the western media were rallying behind “saving the planet”, and scientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming.

But then the evidence took science off in a different direction: the new ice core data in 2003, the missing hotspot in 2007, and the global temperature has stopped trending up since 2001 [6]. Governments, the media, and many scientists did not notice.

The remainder of the answer for the current belief in AGW is darker and more political. An offbeat theory in the 1970s, AGW was adopted by a group of about 45 atmospheric modelers and physicists. That group dominated climate science journals, peer reviewed each others papers, and hindered competing ideas by underhand methods [7]. AGW gained political support from proponents of nuclear power, and vice-president Gore appointed AGW supporters to science positions in the USA.

Damning charges to be sure, but believable to the sane among us.

The problem was exacerbated by a second one, government funding of research:

AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries. Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom – protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades. Skeptics are mainly scientists who are retired or who have moved on to other areas – their funding no longer depends on allegiance to AGW. The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

Evans then delves into the evidence presented as “proof” by AGW supporters and why it fails the test. However, near the end, he talks about the real problem we face.

Politics:

Among non-scientists, AGW appeals strongly to two groups. Those who support big government love the idea of carbon regulations – if you control carbon emissions then you control most human activity. And those who like to feel morally superior to the bulk of their fellow citizens by virtue of a belief (the “warm inner glow” and moral vanity of the politically correct) are firmly attached to AGW. These groups are politically adept, are planning to spend your money and tell you how to eat, travel and how to live, and they are strenuously avoiding the evidence.

Too bad science has become all about the money on both sides. I guess the belief I used to have in the scientific debate was based on a myth.

It appears that science is just a tool and where it isn’t, you can’t distinguish it from the balderdash.

Al Gore, a leader of the scientific method? How low have we stooped?

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Irony MeterIs it the water in Washington D.C. or the water in Sen, Harkin’s home state of Iowa that causes extreme dementia that manafests itself when near a microphone and members of the media?

I can’t answer the question posed, but one thing I do know, Harkin is a full-on nutcase, and no better example of that is in this piece of trash spoken during a conference call with Iowa reporters.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, “and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

“I think he’s trapped in that,” Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

Harkin said that “it’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”

I’m really confused here, just what is it the Democrats believe about the military?

During the Bush/Kerry campaign military service was of great import to the extent Kerry used his mostly phony record as a brickbat tossed at the “AWOL” Bush.

Al Gore, um excuse me, The Goracle as he’s now known used the same tactic against Bush. Military service was important, and Gore served in Vietnam while Bush just flew around in airplanes in the National Guard stateside.

So yea, I’m confused as to just what these nimrods at the head of the Party of Democrats think.

Not only that, in Harkin’s case, he’s now claiming military service, at least those that volunteer and those with long family histories of service are somehow “dangerous.” MeThinks Harkin needs to shut his piehole considering he at one time felt military service so important to lie has ass off about his record.

Harkin made a 1984 boast that he had flown F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions in Vietnam. Or was was combat sorties over Cuba when he corrected himself when challenged by Senator Berry Goldwater.

Harkin finally acknowledged that he had never seen combat — that his military experience consisted of ferrying damaged aircraft for repairs from Japan to the Philippines.

Now THAT’s dangerous, not that he’d give one wit in the midst of a political campaign pitting two flawed Dem. candidates against one Rep. flawed candidate. And if he can get his “side” into the WH it’s all for the “better.”

As it is for Harkin to go to the mat in full support of the Ethanol scam for his states corn growers that has contributed to the current food shortage chronicled nearly daily in the world’s media. You want dangerous Harkin, that’s it, all for the sake of expensive subsidies for shifting corn from the food chain for a use as a fuel source.

Harkin, you’re a despicable asshat. And DANGEROUS to boot.

Read Full Post »

The Goracle:

“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

Didn’t the zealots and followers of the Cult of Gore say the same thing when Katrina hit New Orleans?

It didn’t work out so well then which only proves one thing. The Goracle is a shameless purveyor of lies, deceit and environmental propaganda. Not to mention not having clue #1 about ocean temperatures.

And in this case advancing his climate change religion while thousands of corpses float off the shores of Myanmar and the tens of thousands are reported missing.

It doesn’t get more despicable than that.

Related articles

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Read Full Post »

The GoracleIn an exclusive interview with the British newspaper The Sun, Al Gore finally revealed what many had long been hoping for: a proper sequel to his game-changing 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Lamenting that relatively little – aside from a more receptive public mindset – had changed since the release of his first film, Gore said that only concerted action from the world community could now prevent the worst excesses of global warming.

So The Goracle wants a “proper” sequel.

Don’t we all.

One that corrects the bald-faced lies of the first one.

I won’t hold me breath waiting for that to happen.

But I will fire up the 8 mpg Mitsu Pajero and let it run at idle in the driveway for a couple hours just for the hell of it.

UPDATE: And I forgot to add phony Antarctic ice shelves.

UPDATE II: I guess The Goracle has been caught in another of a long line of lies. A spokeswoman for Paramount, the production company behind Al Gore’s *cough* Oscar-winning *cough* 2006 film said that no movie sequel is in the works. “There are no plans for a sequel,” Lehrer said. “That is the official word.”

Read Full Post »

Timber!

Read Full Post »

Chevy MalibuIn “honor” of Earth Day I give you an example of what it has wrought on the general public.

The (mild) hybrid Chevrolet Malibu pictured left.

Handsome little devil isn’t it? Although it being Earth Day Eve and all I’d much prefer something in an “Earthy Tan,” or “Climate Change Chartreuse,” but I can work with what’s given to me.

There’s one slight problem, it’s a piece of shit thought up by someone who’s overdosed on the Kool-Aid “dr.” Albert Gore is selling.

Seems this little “gem” is only a “mild” hybrid, as GM calls it, for the simple fact it’s designed so it’s pathetic little four-cylinder combustion chambers shut down when the car is stopped.

Not stopped as in say, at the local Quicky-Mart to purchase the latest issue of “Save the Planet NOW” and “Rednecks in an Ecco-Friendly World.’

Stopped as in each and every time it stops in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the interstate heading to Barstow. So you lurch forward a few feet, stop, and the engine shuts down like your wife after seven years of marriage. (you 7 year guys get it doncha?)

Traffic moves, and as if by “magic” this little marvel to modern ecco-friendly ingenuity “promptly restarts the engine when the brake is released.”

So as not to be confused lets recap. Stop, engine shuts down. Traffic moves, brake is released and engine re-fires and you lurch forward all of 35 feet and stop. Engine shuts down. Again.

Wash, rinse and repeat… for the next 25 miles of stop-and-go traffic. (wonder if it has a fission powered starter motor to withstand this abuse for 100,000 miles!?)

And all this for a gain of exactly 2MPG at an extra cost of $1,800 over a non-hybrid four-cylinder Malibu.

The marketing jackhole that forced this piece of shit into the showrooms should be relegated to Dantes Seventh Level of Hell.

And BTW, have a happy earth day (lower case intentional)

Read Full Post »

Time CoverFurious World War II veterans called for a boycott of one of America’s most influential and respected magazines today over a controversial picture on its front cover.

Next week’s Time magazine cover is based on the famous photograph of marines raising the US flag on Iwo Jima during the bloody battle in the Pacific. But artists have replaced the flag with a tree to illustrate an article about global warming. As well as the angry veterans, the image provoked a huge backlash among younger Americans who have been brought up to honour their flag.

Iwo Jim veteran Donald Mates, 81, said: “It’s an absolute disgrace. Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.” Mr Mates was badly wounded and saw his best friend die beside him during the 35-day battle in February and March, 1945. He suffered 30 years of operations to remove all the shrapnel from his body.

Former platoon leader Lt John Wells, 84, said: “We’ll stick a dadgum tree up somebody’s rear if they think that magazine cover is going to cure anything.” Tim Holbert, spokesman for the American Veterans Centre, said: “This photo trivializes the most recognizable moment of one of the bloodiest battles in US history.”
Iwo Jima Flag Raising
Time managing editor Richard Stengel said: “Our story says there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change.”

And “mr.” managing editor, that couldn’t have been done by using another image, one that doesn’t denigrate the sacrifice of tens of thousands, both Japanese and Americans, that lost their lives in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific Theater?

Joe Rosenthal photographed five Marines, Ira Hayes, Mike Strank, Franklin Sousley, Rene Gagnon, Harlon Block, and a U.S. Navy corpsman, John Bradley, raising the U.S. flag atop Mount Suribachi. The photograph records what was actually the second flag-raising on the mountain, which took place on the fifth day of the 35-day battle. The picture became the iconic image of the battle and some claim it to be the most reproduced photograph of all time.

“mr. managing editor” of time magazine (lower case intentional) take a good look at it and tell me which is more important. It DAMN sure isn’t praying at the altar of The Goracle sipping his Kool-Aid of Inconvenient Bullshit.

MorganWrites notes Stengel also appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on April 17 where, no surprise, he displayed what a blithering idiot he is:

“I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let’s just say so.”

Um no, asshat. Time is, or I should say was, a news magazine.

News, as in reporting of it without bias or preconceived notions by its writers or any other member of the editorial staff.

And these fuckwits wonder why circulation of all the legacy media outlets are tanking.

If you possess Photoshop mad skills and have a desire to counter what these jack holes have done this is the place for any images you may produce.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »