Al Gore typical lib: do as I say not as I do

[tinydancer]

So the old sex crazed poodle had a speaking engagement in Sweden and he pigged out on energy again.

He leaves such a huge carbon footprint just by existing on the planet but his adoring fans don't seem to care.

This proves one more time that this new breed of pseudo environmentalists are frauds.

Delingpole is quite correct when he refers to the AGW fans as watermelons.

Green supposedly on the outside but red commie thru and thru on the inside.

Gore leaves car idling for one hour during speech; Opts for Swedish government jet over public transportation

'Local legislation prohibits any car engine running for more than 60 seconds' -- But Gore Not Fined
Thursday, October 28, 2010By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Reprinted from CFACT.EU

Frankly Sir, You Are an Embarrassment

Posted: 27 Oct 2010 10:35 AM PDT
By Einar Du Rietz



Al Gore -- He did it again.

Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore toured again. Or maybe he does that all the time. This time, he turned up in Gothenburg (Sweden) for the usual alarmist talk. In advance, all distinguished guests were politely advised to – if possible – use any form of public transportation to go to the event, in order to minimize CO2 emissions.

Intriguingly, the Master of World Climate himself arrived in a rental car (with or without driver is unclear), from the airport, and subsequently left the engine running for the entire lecture. That is to say, about one hour. Incidentally, local legislation prohibits – for very good environmental reasons, i e pollution – any car engine running on empty for more than 60 seconds. Fines are severe. As far as I know, he was not fined.

It starts to form a pattern.

After the ceremony in the Norwegian capital Oslo, it is customary that the laureate is invited to the Swedish capital Stockholm, for a cordial visit. The train ride, supposedly the environmental choice according to Mr. Gore, is approximately four hours. However, he opted for the cosier ride with one of the Swedish government aircrafts. As these can, according to the rules, only be used when a cabinet member is on board – and as the Swedish government after a short ceremonial visit – offered to fly him to Frankfurt (Germany) for his flight to the US, you can calculate both the manpower and the fuel used for this grand tour against man's destruction of the planet.

Stupidity and hypocracy – as well as vanity – are, like it or not common human traits. I admit to some of them occasionally, but I don't demand taxpayers to finance my stupid talks at dinner (yes, I love doing that). Here's the deal Mr Gore: get out of my way, and I will keep out of yours.

[About the Author: Einar Du Rietz is a journalist and communications consultant based in Europe. He has authored several environmental reports for the Electrolux Group and loads of blogs for the Center for the New Europe at CNE Environment.]



http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/...ish-government-jet-over-public-transportation

 

[jillian]

link?

 

[RadiomanATL]

link?

Googles turn up blogosphere posts and reposts.

 

[tinydancer]

link?

Whoopsies. I thought I put it in the OP.

I picked this up at Climate Depot.

Gore leaves car idling for one hour during speech; Opts for Swedish government jet over public transportation | Climate Depot

 

[konradv]

Those that know the topic, dicuss it. Those that don't, discuss Gore. DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

 

[Sallow]

link?

Whoopsies. I thought I put it in the OP.

I picked this up at Climate Depot.

Gore leaves car idling for one hour during speech; Opts for Swedish government jet over public transportation | Climate Depot

Hmm..right wing blog..

 

[Old Rocks]

Dancer, do you deny that the climate is warming? That GHGs are the primary cause of it warming? That we produce those GHGs?

If you deny any of the above, what is your evidence? Is that evidence from reputable scientists, or from blogs making statements with no attribution of sources for those statements?

This is a scientific subject. Al Gore made a film in which he, with a few minor mistakes, translated what the climatologists, geologists, and biologists are telling us into layman's terms. So if you disagree with the science, present science that states the evidence is incorrect.

 

[RadiomanATL]

While I think the story is unsourced smear, it doesn't change the fact that Gore is a hypocrite and an opportunist IMO.

 

[Truthmatters]

You dolts will believe anything that spews hate and lies to cling to your failed ideas huh?

 

[Old Rocks]

Doesn't matter if every bit of it was true. It just doesn't change what science is telling us.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Sallow]

While I think the story is unsourced smear, it doesn't change the fact that Gore is a hypocrite and an opportunist IMO.

Really?

How so?

The guy has enough money..that if he sat on his butt for the rest of his life..he still couldn't spend it all.

 

[RadiomanATL]

While I think the story is unsourced smear, it doesn't change the fact that Gore is a hypocrite and an opportunist IMO.

Really?

How so?

The guy has enough money..that if he sat on his butt for the rest of his life..he still couldn't spend it all.

You are assuming wealth is the motivating factor.

In Gores case, I think it is ego.

 

[westwall]

Dancer, do you deny that the climate is warming? That GHGs are the primary cause of it warming? That we produce those GHGs?

If you deny any of the above, what is your evidence? Is that evidence from reputable scientists, or from blogs making statements with no attribution of sources for those statements?

This is a scientific subject. Al Gore made a film in which he, with a few minor mistakes, translated what the climatologists, geologists, and biologists are telling us into layman's terms. So if you disagree with the science, present science that states the evidence is incorrect.

Yes the world is warming. The Sun is the prime candidate. No man is not the proximal cause. My evidence is all that is happening now has repeatedly happened in the past without mans influence, thereby relying on the geologic principle of uniformitarianism, the foundational bedrock of modern geology.

Al Gores movie has 35 errors of fact, few of them minor.

Prove uniformitarianism wrong.

 

[daveman]

You have angered the Goracle! Prepare to feel his wrath!

 

[The Infidel]

You dolts will believe anything that spews hate and lies to cling to your failed ideas huh?

Yep.... I just cant wait to get home so I can dump a quart of oil in my ditch and then go club another one of those baby seals in my backyard.

 

[konradv]

Dancer, do you deny that the climate is warming? That GHGs are the primary cause of it warming? That we produce those GHGs?

If you deny any of the above, what is your evidence? Is that evidence from reputable scientists, or from blogs making statements with no attribution of sources for those statements?

This is a scientific subject. Al Gore made a film in which he, with a few minor mistakes, translated what the climatologists, geologists, and biologists are telling us into layman's terms. So if you disagree with the science, present science that states the evidence is incorrect.

Yes the world is warming. The Sun is the prime candidate. No man is not the proximal cause. My evidence is all that is happening now has repeatedly happened in the past without mans influence, thereby relying on the geologic principle of uniformitarianism, the foundational bedrock of modern geology.

Al Gores movie has 35 errors of fact, few of them minor.

Prove uniformitarianism wrong.

Simple, when major climate changes occurred in the past, man was either not around or wasn't putting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly. The parameters between then and now are, therefore, not uniform. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

 

[westwall]

Dancer, do you deny that the climate is warming? That GHGs are the primary cause of it warming? That we produce those GHGs?

If you deny any of the above, what is your evidence? Is that evidence from reputable scientists, or from blogs making statements with no attribution of sources for those statements?

This is a scientific subject. Al Gore made a film in which he, with a few minor mistakes, translated what the climatologists, geologists, and biologists are telling us into layman's terms. So if you disagree with the science, present science that states the evidence is incorrect.

Yes the world is warming. The Sun is the prime candidate. No man is not the proximal cause. My evidence is all that is happening now has repeatedly happened in the past without mans influence, thereby relying on the geologic principle of uniformitarianism, the foundational bedrock of modern geology.

Al Gores movie has 35 errors of fact, few of them minor.

Prove uniformitarianism wrong.

Simple, when major climate changes occurred in the past, man was either not around or wasn't putting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly. The parameters between then and now are, therefore, not uniform. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

Simpler, it happened in the past without mans influence. It is happening now, without mans influence. YOU are the people who has to prove that what is occuring now is man caused. YOU are the people who have to prove your theory. YOU are the people who have had to manipulate, alter, change, massage, manufacture and otherwise distort the true facts to make your theory hold together. CO2 was proveably higher in the past with no discernable impact on temperatures.

YOU ARE WRONG

 

[westwall]

Here is a Swedish newspaper account of Gores hypocrisy.

Google Translate

 

[konradv]

You haven't proven I'm wrong, westwall. You're the one making the declaration now. At least place the same onus on yourself that you put on others. You haven't explained where any extra trapped energy due to added GHGs would be going, if not to heat the earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes the world is warming. The Sun is the prime candidate. No man is not the proximal cause. My evidence is all that is happening now has repeatedly happened in the past without mans influence, thereby relying on the geologic principle of uniformitarianism, the foundational bedrock of modern geology.

Al Gores movie has 35 errors of fact, few of them minor.

Prove uniformitarianism wrong.

Simple, when major climate changes occurred in the past, man was either not around or wasn't putting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly. The parameters between then and now are, therefore, not uniform. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed.

Simpler, it happened in the past without mans influence. It is happening now, without mans influence. YOU are the people who has to prove that what is occuring now is man caused. YOU are the people who have to prove your theory. YOU are the people who have had to manipulate, alter, change, massage, manufacture and otherwise distort the true facts to make your theory hold together. CO2 was proveably higher in the past with no discernable impact on temperatures.

YOU ARE WRONG

Hey Walleyes, you know damned well that is not what the evidence indicates. And that evidence is presented in this lecture from last years American Geophyical Union Conferance;

A23A

Now, since you claim that this is wrong, we can expect your lecture, with evidence supporting your contention, in the upcoming meeting? Surely, Professor, you have such evidence? You would not just by giving us a line of yap-yap, now would you?