The Nefarious Al Gore

Scalise, Sleaze, and the Nefarious Al Gore

Al Gore was on the Hill to endorse the House climate bill at an Energy and Commerce hearing. He was armed as always with the latest science, opening by announcing that new data shows the Artic ice cap may be about to completely disappear "if nothing is done to curb emissions of greenhouse gas pollution. For most of the last 3 million years, it has covered an area the size of the lower 48 states."

Republicans, no longer able to argue with Gore on the merits -- even the New York Times revealed that an association of Big Polluters buried its own scientific report affirming man-made global warming fourteen years ago -- desperately tried to cast aspersions on the Nobel Peace Prize-winning messenger.

"I think it's really important that no suspicion or shadow fall on the foremost advocates of climate change legislation," Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn told her fellow Tennessean. "So I wanted to give you the opportunity to kind of clear the air about your motives…." (see 2:38:45 of webcast)

Blackburn proceeded to ask Gore if he knew of "a capital firm called Kleiner Perkins", and feigned surprise when the Vice President called her bluff and said with a chuckle that he is a partner. She noted that the firm had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would benefit from cap-and-trade, and asked Gore whether he would "personally benefit" from the legislation.

Gore reassured her that all profits he receives from investments in a clean economy, his book, the documentary -- all go into his non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection to educate on this issue. "And Congresswoman, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me," he said.

"No sir, I'm not making accusations," she said, as -- to her dismay -- an audience that knew better laughed. "I'm asking questions…."

But it was Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise who honed in on a stunning conspiracy. (see 2:08:45) It seems Gore met with former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay in the White House back in his VP Days. Scalise charged that Gore "knew him well enough to help devise this trading scheme", and he accused Gore of having "interests with Goldman Sachs" (which Gore denied). Undeterred, Scalise defended his thesis: "When you see the types of people involved in wanting to set up this kind of scheme you can see why so many of us are concerned about turning our energy economy over to a scheme that was devised by companies like Enron and some of these Wall Street firms…."

Yes, Steve. We can see why so many of you are concerned. If there's one thing Republicans have proven time and again it's that you are determined to use government to keep our economy scheme-free. Thank goodness you are there to protect us from the nefarious Al Gore.

Comments (48)

1. al gore is completely irrelevant, and that is precisely why the republicans want the public and the media to focus on him. they want to talk about how much energy he uses; they want to talk about his past dealings; his relative hypocrisy; etc.

   republicans don't want to talk about reality. and specifically the reality that HUMAN BEINGS ARE CAUSING THE PLANET TO WARM.

   there's NO DOUBT about it, folks. none whatsoever. the science is on on it, and of the 3% of scientists who disagree, only 1 or 2 make good points. the rest of those 3% are funded by oil, gas and coal companies.

   Posted by darladoon at 04/26/2009 @ 10:17pm

2. al gore is completely irrelevant

   Posted by darladoon at 04/26/2009 @ 10:17pm

   well put, ms. darla.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2009 @ 10:29pm

3. al gore eats bacon; we've got nurdles to deal with:

   http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/05/where-plastics-go-kill

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2009 @ 10:39pm

4. speaking of bacon:

   SWINE-FLU OUTBREAK LINKED TO SMITHFIELD FACTORY FARMS

   The outbreak of a new flu strain--a nasty mash-up of swine, avian, and human viruses--has infected 1000 people in Mexico and the U.S., killing 68. The World Health Organization warned Saturday that the outbreak could reach global pandemic levels.

   Is Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork packer and hog producer, linked to the outbreak? Smithfield operates massive hog-raising operations Perote, Mexico, in the state of Vera Cruz, where the outbreak originated. The operations, grouped under a Smithfield subsidiary called Granjas Carrol, raise 950,000 hogs per year, according to the company Web site--a level nearly equal to Smithfield's total U.S. hog production.

   On Friday, the U.S. disease-tracking blog Biosurveillance published a timeline of the outbreak containing this nugget, dated April 6 (major tip of the hat to Paula Hay, who alerted me to the Smithfield link on the Comfood listserv and has written about it on her blog, Peak Oil Entrepreneur):

   Residents [of Perote] believed the outbreak had been caused by contamination from pig breeding farms located in the area. They believed that the farms, operated by Granjas Carroll, polluted the atmosphere and local water bodies, which in turn led to the disease outbreak. According to residents, the company denied responsibility for the outbreak and attributed the cases to "flu." However, a municipal health official stated that preliminary investigations indicated that the disease vector was a type of fly that reproduces in pig waste and that the outbreak was linked to the pig farms.....

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2009 @ 10:52pm

5. I missed the great green hulks performance theater, just how did he answer;

   1. You are a partner in the venture capital firm of Kleiner-Perkins and a co-founder of the United Kingdom-based investment firm of Generation Investment Management, each of which stands to gain financially from greenhouse gas regulation. Please describe any other financial interests that you have in any other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation.

   2. In October 2008, the New York Times Magazine featured a cover story on how Kleiner Perkins had invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations. What will be your share of any profits from these ventures?

   3. How much of your own money have you contributed to Kleiner-Perkins, Generation Investment Management and other businesses that stand to profit from greenhouse gas regulation? If you have not contributed significant amounts of your own capital to these businesses, what, then, is your role in them? Are you a lobbyist? Are you the face of their public relations efforts? Is your job to run around scaring politicians and the public into enacting greenhouse gas regulation?

   4. Is Kleiner-Perkins' business plan to have you press for legislation and regulation favorable to its clients in order to make them more attractive and available for sale to the public, at which time Kleiner-Perkins would cash out, leaving the public invested in not-ready-for-prime-time companies that have dubious financial prospects and that are dependent on taxpayer subsidies?

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/26/2009 @ 10:56pm

6. 5. Your co-founder with Generation Investment Management is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood. Goldman Sachs is lobbying for global warming legislation and is a part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap-and-trade legislation would be traded. Do you or Generation Investment Management stand to benefit in anyway from these relationships?

   6. Generation Investment Management's web site says the firm provides investment advice to clients. Who are Generation Investment Management's clients and how do they stand to profit from upcoming environmental and energy legislation and regulation? Will these clients share their profits with you and/or Generation Investment Management?

   7. When you left public service in January 2001, your personal net worth was perhaps $2 million. In 2007, your personal net worth was reported to be on the order of $100 million. How much of this fortune is related, directly or indirectly, to your advocacy of legislation to reduce "global warming"?

   8. When you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, why did you not disclose to the Committee and to the public your relationships with Kleiner-Perkins and Generation Investment Management? Generation Investment Management's web site says, "Integrity and honesty are the bedrock of our business. We demand the highest ethical standards in our work and in our personal lives." In light of this statement, how to you explain your failure to inform the Senate Committee of your financial conflicts of interest?

   9. You travel all over the world in jets and limos, own a houseboat, use 20 times more electricity than the average American, and stand to make a fortune that most millionaires would envy.

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/26/2009 @ 10:57pm

7. Yet you tell Americans to downsize their lives, such as by limiting their travel, using less heat and air conditioning, and drying their clothes outside on a clothesline. Describe for us, in detail, your personal "carbon footprint."

   10. If you are wrong about humans causing catastrophic global warming, will you give all the money you "earned" from your alarmism back?

   Wonder why this was all missed?

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/26/2009 @ 10:58pm

8. rio,

   don't be such a doofus!

   who cares about al gore?

   don't you care about the planet you are made from?

   AL GORE WILL TAKE AWAY EVERY AMERICAN'S RIGHT TO MAINLINE BACON!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2009 @ 11:05pm

9. Maybe he should lecture China and Asia on global warming! They have a special place reserved for people like Gore!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/26/2009 @ 11:15pm

10. don't you care about the planet you are made from?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2009 @ 11:21pm

11. rio,

    why don't you take a moment and study the american way of "life" in photos?

    simply remarkable:

    http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2009 @ 11:23pm

12. That is why he should go to China Asia Russia, you know places where there are NO efforts being made to stem CO2 production and air pollution!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/26/2009 @ 11:24pm

13. and rio,

    who buys the chinese products?

    you, for example?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2009 @ 11:34pm

14. When their production cost increas 500% thanks to Gore, hardly anybody will buy their products!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/26/2009 @ 11:51pm

15. comanche proves my original post exactly. the media has somehow convinced him that because al gore has a personal investment in the climate warming, obviously, al gore must be conspiring to deceive us all! it's all a hoax! despite even the INDUSTRY'S OWN SCIENTISTS finding no credible counter-argument to the claim that humans are causing the earth to warm.

    and then they lied about it for 14 years? and our very own comancheamerican takes the bait.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/27/2009 @ 12:05am

16. thanks to gore?!?!??

    hahahaha

    rio,

    did mr. gore cause u.s. production costs to soar?

    think hard now.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 12:06am

17. "you know places where there are NO efforts being made to stem CO2 production and air pollution!"

    the argument that, because china refuses to address the problem first, that nothing should be done to correct the problem is, how should i put it, extremely pathetic.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/27/2009 @ 12:07am

18. In 1991 there were only 200,000 hogs in the state of Oklahoma, but in the past decade their numbers have grown exponentially.1 Oklahoma amended its anti-corporate farming law seven years ago, allowing foreign and corporate ownership of agricultural land.2

    In 1993 Oklahoma passed a so-called "Right to Farm" law. This protects licensed concentrated animal feeding operations against nuisance suits from residents who live three miles or more outside an incorporated city limit and have fewer than ten occupied homes per square mile.3 These and other regulatory changes demonstrated the willingness of the state to weaken controls on factory farms. Additionally, these changes helped facilitate growth in industrial-sized hog operations. The state's hog population now stands at approximately two million head.4 And although the state now appears to many to be saturated with factory farms, hog populations in some of the counties may increase by 50 to 100 percent. For example, Tyson Foods has announced 40 new "projects" for Hughes, Okfuskee and Seminole counties.5

    Most of the water-hungry hog facilities are in the dry western half of the state where surface water is sparse. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture's database of licensed concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) shows that approximately 90 percent of the state's hogs in licensed feeding operations are raised in western Oklahoma. In the Oklahoma Panhandle, site of the most dense hog concentration, the Ogallala aquifer is a sole source water supply.6 While some parts of the aquifer still contain many years worth of water supply, other areas are running dry.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 12:07am

19. OINK!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 12:07am

20. the argument that, because china refuses to address the problem first, that nothing should be done to correct the problem is, how should i put it, extremely pathetic.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/27/2009 @ 12:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Again, you are an idiot, its clear! It does no good for soley the U.S.A to embark on the myopic plans of the environmentalist when the rising uncontrolled industrialization of China,S.E. Asia and Russia contribute NOTHING to stem the tide of global pollution!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/27/2009 @ 01:42am

21. Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 12:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Not sure what your point is?

    The expansion has slowed to a standstill because the large operators are now building units in Colorado and Texas. Stricter regulations in Oklahoma are holding them back also.

    Perhaps you should worry more about all the water LOST in the 1970s and 80s to secondary oil recovery in the Llano Escatado (almost all the texas panhandle) and in western kansas; both where irrigation as well as oil recovery in texas has done monumental irreplaceable damage to that same huge aquifer.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/27/2009 @ 01:56am

22. Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 12:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Did you also know that second only to the austrailian outback NW Okla. has the greatest lack of light pollution and is the best region for astronomy? Take a trip in S.E. Okla. along the Indidan Nations turnpike where some of the counties you named are, you've never seen a tollroad surrounded at night by pitch blackness for 100 miles! No rural homes, no cities, no light pollution!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/27/2009 @ 02:01am

23. THE only explanation is AL GORe is a part of a conspiracy to bring down modern capitalism. This conspiracy is run from...? Well, we don't know the HQ of these anti-Americans, but we know they consist of:

    Most climatologists

    most mainstream scientists

    NASA

    NOAA

    the head of BP

    Multiple leading scientific organizations.

    Whereas the critters questioning AL GORE have a fine record of reading the science correctly on:

    aluminum tubes

    Saddams wmd stockpiles

    connections to AQ

    the formation of liberal democracies in the ME

    the "mental recession" we may or may not be in

    the regulation of financial markets.

    Yes, who should we listen to?

    Phil Gramm?

    Graduates of Regency School of Law?

    The John Yoo's of the science world?

    Yep, AL GORe has a hidden agenda, but the scientists that work for Dupont, Ford, Exxon/Mobil are free from possible tainted science. THEY are the ones that do not have an agenda.

    CLassic neo-con pontiFLogic.

    up is Hugo Chavez, blue is the end of capitalism, Goldman Sachs are Marxist stooges.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/27/2009 @ 06:19am

24. Gore made Blackburn look like a gossipy twit. I was amused.

    But the whole scenario, like the troll excretions here, is typical, predictable wingnuttery. Once it becomes flamingly insane to attack the message, fall back on attacking the messenger.

    Embrace your irrelevance.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/27/2009 @ 07:09am

25. republicans don't want to talk about reality. and specifically the reality that HUMAN BEINGS ARE CAUSING THE PLANET TO WARM.

    there's NO DOUBT about it, folks. none whatsoever. the science is on on it, and of the 3% of scientists who disagree, only 1 or 2 make good points. the rest of those 3% are funded by oil, gas and coal companies.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/26/2009 @ 10:17pm

    Darla, you and Frosty appear to be twins of ignorance on this subject.

    there is no manmade global warming. Any anthropogenic increase in CO2 (which does not increase global temperatures) is approx 2-3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere.

    We are in the seventh year of global cooling.

    Try watching this video which contains interviews with dissenting members of the IPCC

    http://tinyurl.com/2c4fr6

    there are many scientists throughout the world who have never received a dime of support from the energy industry who dispute manmade GW. Such as Dr Roy Spencer of NASA

    "Dr. Spencer's research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 09:30am

26. "there are many scientists throughout the world who have never received a dime of support from the energy industry who dispute manmade GW. Such as Dr Roy Spencer of NASA "

    And there are many scientists who dispute with those scientists. So for you to speak with such certainty is belying the same ignorance you are insulting. You are just CHOOSING one set of scientific data over another. You have no actual clue about what you are talking about. I am on the fence about global warming because there is compelling evidence on both sides. There is a definite shrinking of the polar ice caps so I think that refutes you theory that we are in midst of a cooling, but don't even begin to try to act like you somehow now more than them. Your evidence is no more valid, you are just choosing to agree with one set of scientists rather than another because there are fully legitimate scientists on both sides of the argument.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 09:39am

27. "there is no manmade global warming. Any anthropogenic increase in CO2 (which does not increase global temperatures) is approx 2-3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. "

    You know your internal core temperature only has to change about 3-5% for you to die. That's the thing about life on this planet, it's precariously balanced. There is a point of homeostasis and if you disrupt that even by a minute number like 5% you can't tip it entirely in the wrong direction. The temperature of the oceans only has to rise by a few degrees to trigger an irreversible cycle. So for you to quote what you seem to think are small numbers is more proof that you are buying into scientific research that you don't know much about.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 09:44am

28. Color me a global warming skeptic - thanks to Alexander Cockburn - but on the swine flu and pig farm issues, frosty's posts have been great, and scary as hell.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/27/2009 @ 09:51am

29. Oh and if number means anything MOST scientists and all major scientific bodies agree that global warming is happening. INDIVIDUAL scientists disagree but all the organizations of scientists agree and the majority of scientists agree.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 09:54am

30. "A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:"

    Statements like that can't just be written. 90% of scientists in the field agreeing on the same thing is a bit odd.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 09:57am

31. The most powerful argument I've heard in favor of a strong anthropogenic component of climate change is this: When both natural and anthropogenic factors are taken into account, then computer models can approximate quite closely actual observed climate change. If either factor is removed, the models are much less accurate. Therefore, if you accept that anthropogenic factors are negligible, you not only have to introduce additional (as yet unidentified) factors into the model to account for the discrepancy, you also have to explain why the greenhouse gasses emitted by humans have no significant effect on climate change, as basic physics tells us they should. A much simpler hypothesis(and one with much greater explanatory power, since it doesn't require the introduction of two major as-yet-unanswered questions) is that the discrepancy is made up for by the anthropogenic factors already identified.

    Posted by richcarl at 04/27/2009 @ 10:18am

32. Posted by richcarl at 04/27/2009 @ 10:18am

    I forget the name of the scientific law but it basically says that all things being equal the simplest solution is generally the right one.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 10:39am

33. Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 09:30am

    i have never said i believe in global climate fuck up.

    i'm not a climatologist.

    however, oil is poison and is a finite resource.

    i see beaches covered in plastic.

    i see rivers of grey.

    i see frogs with seven legs.

    i see aquifers contaminated beyond repair.

    i see my countrymen succumbing to rare cancers.

    oil is poison.

    we must stop.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 11:18am

34. I forget the name of the scientific law but it basically says that all things being equal the simplest solution is generally the right one.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 10:39am | ignore this person | warn this person

    You're probably thinking of Ockham's Razor, or the law of parsimony. I'm not sure if it really counts as a scientific law, but it's certainly a good guiding principle.

    Posted by richcarl at 04/27/2009 @ 11:35am

35. i will say this, however:

    if the MAJORITY of scientist are wrong and we do something then we won't have to fight wars for oil and poison our landscape.

    if the MAJORITY of scientist are wrong and we do nothing then we will have to fight wars for oil and poison our landscape.

    if the MAJORITY of scientist are right and we do something then we won't have to fight wars for oil and poison our landscape and our children won't hate us (as much).

    if the MAJORITY of scientist are right and we do nothing then we will fight wars for oil and poison our landscape and our descendants (and quite possibly us) will be fucked.

    your choice.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 11:41am

36. Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 09:30am

    There were once folks and scientists, who thought the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that DDT was harmless, and that evolution did not occur. Anti falls into this category.

    Posted by Extraneous at 04/27/2009 @ 11:50am

37. I am on the fence about global warming because there is compelling evidence on both sides. There is a definite shrinking of the polar ice caps so I think that refutes you theory that we are in midst of a cooling, but don't even begin to try to act like you somehow now more than them. Your evidence is no more valid, you are just choosing to agree with one set of scientists rather than another because there are fully legitimate scientists on both sides of the argument. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 09:39am

    Oh and if number means anything MOST scientists and all major scientific bodies agree that global warming is happening. INDIVIDUAL scientists disagree but all the organizations of scientists agree and the majority of scientists agree. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 09:54am

    You portray yourself as an objective poster who is still undecided on this issue. Yet the only people who you attack are conservatives like myself who disagree with anthropogenic GW. You don't question those like Darla on the left who are equally adamant that they are correct. You subsequently post that the issue is settled with all but a few scientists agree that anthropogenic GW is real. If that is the case, why would you be "on the fence" which your posts actually show you are not.

    Let me remind you that in debate, those who are not certain of their position have no business debating. Even in scientific debate, opposing positions should and do engage with a level of certainty of their position; otherwise they refrain from debate. For you to continue to denigrate only conservatives for holding our views with conviction simply shows that contrary to your statements, you are very much biased in your own views. You do not tolerate conservatives having firm convictions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 12:46pm

38. The temperature of the oceans only has to rise by a few degrees to trigger an irreversible cycle. So for you to quote what you seem to think are small numbers is more proof that you are buying into scientific research that you don't know much about.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 09:44am

    This comment reveals that at least on ocean warming and cooling, you have no idea what you are talking about. The oceans have regularly gone through both warming and cooling cycles. In fact, the science even by GW enthusiasts show that the oceans are cooling not warming.

    http://tinyurl.com/d4ml4b

    http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/index.html

    http://tinyurl.com/2kh86c

    On this one, you can quibble about the source that lists these studies, but I don't believe an objective person can question the studies themselves that show cooling in the Northern Pacific waters.

    http://tinyurl.com/dl6k2d

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 1:07pm

39. larry,

    CO2 is turning the oceans to acid.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2009 @ 1:30pm

40. I'm an avid backpacker, hiker and nature enthusiast. Preserving our planets environment and ecosystems are of extreme importance and interest to me. However, I've never been one to jump on extreme "chicken Little", Armageddon bandwagons. I'm skeptical of "computer" models. The results tend to magically turn out to be what you believe; especially "forecasts". I'm a fan of "physical" science. But even physical science has its controversial battles for what the truths and facts are. Statistics and surveys make my head spin and are easily manipulated. I think Homo sapiens have a tremendous amount of room for improvement and conscientious effort toward our planets environmental best interests. I'm all for researching and creating alternative forms of man-made energy, finding ways to reduce, as much as possible, unnecessary pollution and the elimination of the destruction of biomass solely for profit sake. Having said all that, I simply don't trust Al Gore and his feigned motives. People need to step back and "follow the money" when it comes to Al Gore. Remember, his primary occupation was that of a politician and now as a businessman. I don't care what your political philosophy is; I don't trust politicians (generally speaking) to do what's in the best interest of the people or the planet. They are ALL bought, sold and owned by special interest groups to some degree. Carbon swaps are truly a business and economic disaster waiting to happen and will have zero benefit on or for the environment (as much as I'd like to believe and trust that it would). It truly is a pure tax to take your money and do whatever they (congress) want to do with it. I thought this article was interesting: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/03-big-business-of-carbon-trading/

    Posted by newman61 at 04/27/2009 @ 1:35pm

41. Posted by newman61 at 04/27/2009 @ 1:35pm

    thx for a reasoned post.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 2:55pm

42. Glaciers growing, not shrinking

    http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 2:56pm

43. Glaciers growing, not shrinking

    http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009

    GOOD GRIEF! I took a look at your site, what a joke, comments about the EPA get your hands out our pockets and how Global warming is a hoax. Anti if you can't see through that false agenda your truly blind. Here is a link to a little more reputable site, but I doubt you'll look because it makes statements that go against your chosen belief system and ideologies.

    Glaciers around globe continuing to shrink at hight rates.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090129090002.htm

    Posted by Extraneous at 04/27/2009 @ 3:59pm

44. Posted by newman61 at 04/27/2009 @ 1:35pm

    I was totally with you until about half way when you went on that anti Gore and carbon swap kick. I don't know much about carbon swaps, but I do know about climate change and GW. It is not just Al Gore, he is just the one getting the publicity. So if you don't like him. Take the time to look into what he is saying, look at the international science reports, check their source of funding. Look into Gore's sources or info, not funding. Then decide. I think in this case your letting your bias against a man sway your ability to understand an issue.

    Posted by Extraneous at 04/27/2009 @ 4:16pm

45. You portray yourself as an objective poster who is still undecided on this issue. Yet the only people who you attack are conservatives like myself who disagree with anthropogenic GW. You don't question those like Darla on the left who are equally adamant that they are correct. You subsequently post that the issue is settled with all but a few scientists agree that anthropogenic GW is real. If that is the case, why would you be "on the fence" which your posts actually show you are not.

    Let me remind you that in debate, those who are not certain of their position have no business debating. Even in scientific debate, opposing positions should and do engage with a level of certainty of their position; otherwise they refrain from debate. For you to continue to denigrate only conservatives for holding our views with conviction simply shows that contrary to your statements, you are very much biased in your own views. You do not tolerate conservatives having firm convictions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 12:46p

    No I don't denigrate conservatives. I denigrate pompous arrogant and obviously ignorant people who choose to insult instead of debate and paint their views as the only right ones when it comes to a science that has no actual agreeance. I rarely read frosty and darla so I don't really know what they are saying either way. I argue YOU not all conservatives because you paint yourself as an expert and everyone else as ignorant.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 7:35pm

46. Glaciers growing, not shrinking

    http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/27/2009 @ 2:56pm

    Again, for every piece of evidence you give I can give the contrary. So what makes you any more right?

    "This comment reveals that at least on ocean warming and cooling, you have no idea what you are talking about."

    Same here. You act as if anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant. This is science not religion this is not faith based this is fact based and there are enough facts on BOTH sides of the fence that you can't proclaim one or the other to be all right. At least anyone intelligence based and not ideology based can't

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 7:41pm

47. Yes, I can quibble about data extrapolated by marine biologists from seal pups, Anti (do you even READ what you link?!).

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/27/2009 @ 6:21pm

    I doubt it. Considering the man seems to think that it's ok for the oceans to massively change temperatures ignoring the fact that that will entirely change the jet stream causing havoc in the oceanic environments which will then change our atmosphere causing extra strength hurricanes, Katrina and massive droughts.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/27/2009 @ 10:04pm

48. Gore is too much of a boob to be involved in a conspiracy. Suffice it to say we were spared eight years of his nonsense. If Bush did nothing else, he at least prevented that.

    What a price though!

    Posted by william.harry13 at 04/28/2009 @ 10:58am