Whoops For Hypocrisy of Al Gore

[red states rule]

Of course you admit that the weather channel is pushing a liberal agenda. Just listen to yourself.

Isn't the weather channel representing itself as an unbiased and scientific-based medium? To insinuate a biased liberal agenda into its program is therefore underhanded and a form of lying to the public.



However, they haven't decided that....in fact there is no agreement about global warming within the scientific community. Yet, liberals jump to ostrasize anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint. This is fascism, pure and simple. Fascists will override the facts if it is in it their interest to do so and stamp out any opposition. Seeing this play out with a stupid weather channel is rather eye opening for you, don't you think?

A weather channel is supposedly representing scientific facts to the public; it does not represent itself as a political commentary show. The cigarette companies were sued because they hid the facts about cigarette smoking. Maybe we should sue the weather channel for misrepresenting the facts about global warming?

Libs support free speech as long as those speaking agree with them. If you dare to step out on kine, and tel the truth, you will become a target and you will be attacked

Remember Max Mayfield on the Weather Channel. He is now stepping out of line as well

How they dance around the point.
There is a chorous of officials denying global warming could be part of the story. Here's our director of the National Hurricane Center as quoted in USA Today (9/21/2005)
- - - - -
Max Mayfield told a congressional panel that he believes the Atlantic Ocean is in a cycle of increased hurricane activity that parallels an increase that started in the 1940s and ended in the 1960s.

The ensuing lull lasted until 1995, then "it's like somebody threw a switch," Mayfield said. The number and power of hurricanes increased dramatically.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Commerce subcommittee on disaster prevention and prediction, he shrugged off the notion that global warming played a role, saying instead it was a natural cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that fluctuates every 25 to 40 years.
- - - - -
Yes part, perhaps most, of it is a natural cycle, but what's this stuff about "throwing a switch?" And when he says "the Atlantic Ocean fluctuates" what the heck does he think is fluctuating? The sea level? The color of the ocean? Might it be the temperature?! The ocean warms and cools. Those fluctuations are natural. But if he admits that a half degree of ocean warming causes these natural cycles, that opens the door for the question of what effect half a degree of global warming would have.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Glassman: Dr. O’Brien, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina ... You are an expert on hurricanes: do you think that global warming has had an affect on the intensity of hurricanes?

Dr. James O’Brien: Absolutely not. All of the people who are hurricane scientists or teach about hurricanes at the graduate level that I’ve talked to agree with me.

Obviously, Dr. O'Brien talks only to those who agree with him. He could check this page on the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration web site to find lots of them. And of course the whole reason for this interview is that they've been been making news.
----
Dr. James J. O'Brien is Director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University, while James Glassman is an interviewer from TechCentral website, a "Free-Market" site that favors libertarian politics.

http://zfacts.com/p/223.html

 

[maineman]

Of course you admit that the weather channel is pushing a liberal agenda. Just listen to yourself.

no...you listen to me...where have I ever said that and what about holding to the belief that humans cause global warming - which the VAST majority of the scientific community also believes - is a LIBERAL agenda?

Isn't the weather channel representing itself as an unbiased and scientific-based medium? To insinuate a biased liberal agenda into its program is therefore underhanded and a form of lying to the public.

again... just because wacko conservatives want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the reasoned opinions of the vast majority of the scientific community does not, therefore, make global warming a LIBERAL agenda or a form of lying to anyone

However, they haven't decided that....in fact there is no agreement about global warming within the scientific community.

that is bullshit...there may not be unanymity, but there is certainly overwhelming consensus

Yet, liberals jump to ostrasize anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint. This is fascism, pure and simple. Fascists will override the facts if it is in it their interest to do so and stamp out any opposition.

you use the word fascism as a simple perjorative. There is nothing fascist about the owners of a network deciding that the network that they own will report a subject from a given scientific perspective

Seeing this play out with a stupid weather channel is rather eye opening for you, don't you think?
it's the weather channel. my God.... get a grip. The owners of a network want their subject matter portrayed in a given way. No one is silencing the renegade weathermen...no one is throwing them behind bars and forcing them into mandatory reprogamming and retraining. They are free to go work at whatever television station cares to hire them.

A weather channel is supposedly representing scientific facts to the public; it does not represent itself as a political commentary show. The cigarette companies were sued because they hid the facts about cigarette smoking. Maybe we should sue the weather channel for misrepresenting the facts about global warming.

h..by all means...you DO that. We have suffered 26K dead and wounded in Iraq, flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter, turned Iraq into a seething sectarian slaughter house, and not made ourselves one iota safer and you want to sue the weather channel? Yeah.... you're a guy whose priorities are really all together!

 

[roadhouse158]

h..by all means...you DO that. We have suffered 26K dead and wounded in Iraq, flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter, turned Iraq into a seething sectarian slaughter house, and not made ourselves one iota safer and you want to sue the weather channel? Yeah.... you're a guy whose priorities are really all together![/B]

Give me proof that we are not safer. You can't...Because we haven't been attacked since we invaded Iraq....And we also didn't turn Iraq into a sectarian slaughter house. I believe that is the Sunnis and Shiites, with a little help from Syria and Iran....Na....We're the only bad ones. All the evil is caused by Bush....Flushed trillions down the shitter....I agree...Let's never....EVER...help another country period. No more AIDS research, no more supplying food, and medicines, and supplies to other countries...Let's just put a nice ole fence up around ourselves. That way, everyone in America can be at least Middle Class; That is until all the other countries get jealous and join up and attack. I'm all for it. Let's completely ignore the rest of the world. I mean...They truly have no affect on us....We're so much above them commoners

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Of course you admit that the weather channel is pushing a liberal agenda. Just listen to yourself.

no...you listen to me...where have I ever said that and what about holding to the belief that humans cause global warming - which the VAST majority of the scientific community also believes - is a LIBERAL agenda?

Right here:
"Last I knew, the weather channel was not a government run entity. If the owners of that channel want to maintain a certain unanimity of meteorlogical philosophy, it would seem to me that the free market boys of the right would not complain about that, and would reserve their complaints to situations where tax dollars are involved in some form of coercion.

If you don't agree with the meteorological philosophy of the weather channel, my guess is that your local network affiliate has a weatherman on each of their local newscasts and you could get all the weather information you need from that source."

Since you obviously buy into the "meteorological philosophy" that is global warming, I'd like to inform you that there are VAST numbers of scientists who do not support the theory of man-made global warming. You just don't hear about them in the liberal media very much. Of course it is a LIBERAL agenda. The big ole global warming report comes directly from the UN….need I say more?

Isn't the weather channel representing itself as an unbiased and scientific-based medium? To insinuate a biased liberal agenda into its program is therefore underhanded and a form of lying to the public.

again... just because wacko conservatives want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the reasoned opinions of the vast majority of the scientific community does not, therefore, make global warming a LIBERAL agenda or a form of lying to anyone

I'm not a wacko conservative. I believe the earth is in a warming phase. I also believe that man contributes some to the warming. However, I do not believe that man is the primary cause of global warming. I don't believe man can stop global warming, even IF we shut down every factory, stopped driving every gas-guzzling vehicle, stopped heating every house and building, and eliminated every farting animal on the planet. Just for kicks, how do you explain how the last ice age MELTED when there were NO humans around to cause any "global warming"?

It's very obvious how global warming fits into the LIBERAL agenda which is pretty much against capitalism and the high standards of living in America. The liberal solution to "stop" global warming is to cut way down on heat use, vehicle use, and "carbon footprints". In other words, "go back to third world living like the rest of world does, you fat ass Americans". I do support responsible treatment of the environment but I do not support a political philosophy that is bent on destroying capitalism and democracy and building a "global" community at the expense of the United States.

However, they haven't decided that....in fact there is no agreement about global warming within the scientific community.

that is bullshit...there may not be unanymity, but there is certainly overwhelming consensus

Contrary to liberal beliefs, "consensus" is not scientific fact.

Yet, liberals jump to ostrasize anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint. This is fascism, pure and simple. Fascists will override the facts if it is in it their interest to do so and stamp out any opposition.

you use the word fascism as a simple perjorative. There is nothing fascist about the owners of a network deciding that the network that they own will report a subject from a given scientific perspective

Yes, fascism is a nasty word, isn't it? There is nothing fascist about the owners of a network to report things as they see it, however it is fascistic for representatives of that network to call for the suppression of someone who has an equally valid "scientific perspective".

Seeing this play out with a stupid weather channel is rather eye opening for you, don't you think?
it's the weather channel. my God.... get a grip. The owners of a network want their subject matter portrayed in a given way. No one is silencing the renegade weathermen...no one is throwing them behind bars and forcing them into mandatory reprogamming and retraining. They are free to go work at whatever television station cares to hire them.

You don't see how that pro-global warming liberal is attempting to silence the "renegade" weather guy who has his own opinions? The same guy who points out that most other weatherman also are of the same opinion as his? It is time for you to wake up to what today's "liberalism" actually does to people. It's not truly "liberalism" but a form of socialistic fascism.

A weather channel is supposedly representing scientific facts to the public; it does not represent itself as a political commentary show. The cigarette companies were sued because they hid the facts about cigarette smoking. Maybe we should sue the weather channel for misrepresenting the facts about global warming.

h..by all means...you DO that. We have suffered 26K dead and wounded in Iraq, flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter, turned Iraq into a seething sectarian slaughter house, and not made ourselves one iota safer and you want to sue the weather channel? Yeah.... you're a guy whose priorities are really all together!

Don't try to derail the subject. Liberals sued the cigarette companies for not informing the public the whole truth about cigarettes. Is misrepresenting and hiding the whole truth about global warming any different? Since the cost of stopping man-made global warming is just as terrible as someone getting lung cancer, legal damages could be extensive…

 

[Bern80]

no...you listen to me...where have I ever said that and what about holding to the belief that humans cause global warming - which the VAST majority of the scientific community also believes - is a LIBERAL agenda?

again... just because wacko conservatives want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the reasoned opinions of the vast majority of the scientific community does not, therefore, make global warming a LIBERAL agenda or a form of lying to anyone

that is bullshit...there may not be unanymity, but there is certainly overwhelming consensus

to use your words, Bullshit

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q10


I keep hearing consensus, consenus or majority viewpoint, but I have yet to actually see said consensus.

 

[MissileMan]

so.... let's glorify people who post personal and private information about citizens in the press - AND REPOST IT! - as long as it suits OUR political agenda?

How droll.

What could be next? hidden camera telefoto lens videos of the Bush's having nasty butt sex? Maybe we could post the names of the presciption medications YOU are taking? That would be appropriate too.

I work for the power industry and customer usage data is confidential information, Methinks this is bullshit, but regardless, it is really tacky.

You don't think it's tacky for someone to preach that we all need to reduce our energy consumption to save the planet while consuming 20 times what the average person uses?

 

[Annie]

You don't think it's tacky for someone to preach that we all need to reduce our energy consumption to save the planet while consuming 20 times what the average person uses?

He's a *cough, cough* 'green' capitalist:

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=532909#post532909

 

[MissileMan]

no.... if Gore uses more electricity than I do, does that mean his message is any less valid?

When you couple the fact that it's 20 times the average with the fact that he has set himself up to profit from the sale of carbon credits, I'd say his message isn't just invalid, it's a pure con.

 

[red states rule]

When you couple the fact that it's 20 times the average with the fact that he has set himself up to profit from the sale of carbon credits, I'd say his message isn't just invalid, it's a pure con.

Libs will continue to play the gullible masses that vote for them until they wise up and see they have been played for suckers

 

[MissileMan]

Libs will continue to play the gullible masses that vote for them until they wise up and see they have been played for suckers

If you think that conservative politicians are any different, you're mistaken.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The whole of the furor by conservatives over Al Gore can be boiled down to one...simple...concept. They don't like the message, so they attack the messenger. But they're not ones to let things like facts stand in the way of ideology. Sad, but true.

 

[red states rule]

The whole of the furor by conservatives over Al Gore can be boiled down to one...simple...concept. They don't like the message, so they attack the messenger. But they're not ones to let things like facts stand in the way of ideology. Sad, but true.

So when Fat Albert goes around the world in a private jet - we have to listen to him when he bellows how we need to cut back on aour traveling

When Fat Albert tells us to cut back on our use of energy - we have to ignore his four mansions and how just one of his modest mansions burns 20 times the energy we use

This is what libs call being a devoted liberal sheep. Follow orders from the master libs and never think for yourself. Hell, you might think to much and become a conservative

 

[Merlin]

The whole of the furor by conservatives over Al Gore can be boiled down to one...simple...concept. They don't like the message, so they attack the messenger. But they're not ones to let things like facts stand in the way of ideology. Sad, but true.

Yes Bullypulpit, we are attacking the messenger, but only because he is in the limelight and his "FACTS" aren't facts at all, just theory. There are just as many "FACTS" saying man doesn't impact the change. Nobody is saying we aren't having a climate change, but we are saying that if you compare climate change, say to the size of an ocean, man don't have as much as one drop of water in that ocean. If we got rid of every human on earth, it would still be exactly the same climate change. If it changes for the better or for the worse, we don't have an impact on it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yes Bullypulpit, we are attacking the messenger, but only because he is in the limelight and his "FACTS" aren't facts at all, just theory. There are just as many "FACTS" saying man doesn't impact the change. Nobody is saying we aren't having a climate change, but we are saying that if you compare climate change, say to the size of an ocean, man don't have as much as one drop of water in that ocean. If we got rid of every human on earth, it would still be exactly the same climate change. If it changes for the better or for the worse, we don't have an impact on it.

Nearly 1,000 peer reviewed studies and articles present the fact that human activity does impact on climate change. Can't find one peer reviewed study or article that doesn't.

 

[red states rule]

Nearly 1,000 peer reviewed studies and articles present the fact that human activity does impact on climate change. Can't find one peer reviewed study or article that doesn't.

While that statement has more holes in it then a slice of swiss cheese - Fat Albert continues to laugh his oversized ass off as you libs defend him against the truth and facts

 

[Merlin]

Nearly 1,000 peer reviewed studies and articles present the fact that human activity does impact on climate change. Can't find one peer reviewed study or article that doesn't.

There has been at least a hundred posted on this board. When you turn on the TV it is on there continuously. People are arguing just like we are doing, and each one of them has as many credentials as the other one does.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Yes. A divorced fundamentalist Christian is a hypocrite, as is Ted Haggard and Dr. Phil. I'm not sure about the animal rights activist on chemo, though - that'd have even more ethical dimsensions to it. The difference is that none of these aforementioned just won an Oscar.

Without medical tests on animals we probably wouldn't have chemo, so by using the treatment PETA members are essentially giving in.

Ah, but to the contrary. Al Gore did not win an Oscar. The film an Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar. The message and production values of the film, not the man, won the award.

Paramount Classics practices what Gore preaches, so Gore doesn't have to.

I've gotta say one thing about Paramount footing the bill for the film/book promotion. Honestly, I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about this thing. It's standard business practice for the publisher to pay the publicity costs. In this particular case the nature of the project demanded that the publicity tour be as environmentally friendly as possible. That includes paying the carbon bill so of course Paramount is going to cover it if it helps sell tickets. Plus, remember people, this isn't just Al Gore bouncing around the country by himself. Undoubtedly he's also bringing along publicists, security, Paramount representatives, etc. that they attach to high profile tours such as this one. These people, including Al Gore (and regardless of his status as a former VP/public figure), are on contract with the company working to promote the film so naturally Paramount will pay necessary expenses. People have got to remember that there is a world outside of politics.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Well, I'm all for animal testing if it can save someone's life, even if that someone happens to be a (former) PETA member. They shouldn't be denied the chemo just because they got involved in some nutty group.

And I know Al Gore isn't a walking movie, but it was based on his book and he did accept the Oscar, so it's "his".

I'm really happy for him that he's got nice houses. There's nothing with Paramount flying him around, but they're still footing his bill to promote his book and his agenda. Again, Gore looks hypocritical.

If there's a documentary to rebut a documentary, is one of the documentaries NOT really a documentary?

"Al Gore might have won an Oscar for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."

One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?...ine=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary

He should go ahead and run for the presidency to avoid the fate of Michael Moore after he won an Oscar for his film, time makes these kind of things worse:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1466668.ece

Yet, I still think he's politically salvagable - he will need to lose weight and lower his electric bills both.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Well, I'm all for animal testing if it can save someone's life, even if that someone happens to be a (former) PETA member. They shouldn't be denied the chemo just because they got involved in some nutty group.

Exactly, it's hypocritical, but that doesn't mean it isn't right.

And I know Al Gore isn't a walking movie, but it was based on his book and he did accept the Oscar, so it's "his".

Al Gore accepted the award on behalf of the movie. He's just a representative, it's not his.

Analogy: If I grant my lawyer power of attorney and allow him to represent me in legal discussions that just means that he is working at by bequest. He doesn't become me.

I'm really happy for him that he's got nice houses. There's nothing with Paramount flying him around, but they're still footing his bill to promote his book and his agenda. Again, Gore looks hypocritical.

It's not just his book and his agenda; it's also Paramounts's. They're the distributor, and they probably financed the movie. They're probably getting a bigger cut of the revenues than he is, and, in case you forget, Paramount is a business, which means they're attempting to maximise profits. Paramount believes that maximising profits includes a publicity tour, so unless Paramount hates being profitiable they're going to pay for the tour. It's not hypocritical on Al Gore's part. It's more Al Gore not being a moron. If you're into cars and someone offers to buy you a bunch of Ferrari's for free what are you going to say? No? Because somehow it's hypocritical? That doesn't make sense.