Al Gore, the Kook, blows it on Daily Show

F

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Al Gore Discusses Global Warming With 'The Daily Show's' Jon Stewart
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 30, 2006 - 01:58.
http://newsbusters.org/node/6195

As most of you will read this first thing in the morning, I not only suggest you not have a coffee cup near your computer, but also highly recommend that you remove all fragile objects from the room.

Yes, this is that hysterical, for Wednesday evening, comedian and faux-scientist Al Gore was Jon Stewart’s guest on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.” In reality, this was the perfect venue for Dr. Gore to discuss his absurd ideas if you think about it, for as the subject was Gore’s new romantic comedy, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the yucks were aplenty.

As this was a long segment, I will highlight only a few of the finer moments, and then encourage you to watch the video (courtesy of Expose the Left) for the full effect, as this one doesn’t disappoint.

The first guffaw came quite early on when Stewart asked Dr. Gore when he first started doing this slide show about global warming. Now, bear in mind that in the movie, Gore claims that America has only ten years to avert a major environmental crisis. Yet, obviously having forgotten this, Gore first answered, “Oh, eight years…a long time.” Then, much like he did on the campaign trail, he changed his position: “Actually, since before I became vice president.”

Okay. So, assuming the second answer is the right one, that means that he’s been doing this presentation for at least fourteen years…which means the end of the world happened four years ago, and we all missed it!

Maybe even more beautiful, much later in the discussion, Dr. Gore changed his position once again claiming “I’ve been trying to tell this story for 30 years.” This is kind of like that recent Associated Press report that first claimed the earth is currently the hottest it’s been in 400 years, then changed it to 1,000 years, and changed it again to 2,000 years.

Ain’t junk science wonderful?

Later, Dr. Gore made the bold assertion that global warming “is the only crisis we've ever faced that has the capacity to completely end human civilization.” Stewart correctly pointed out: “Nuclear's got a shot. The bomb's got a shot.”

Dr. Gore fired back (better put down your coffee cups!): “Well, when we had the prospect of an all-out nuclear exchange, yes, but even that would not have necessarily caused the kind of radical transformation of the whole planet's environment in a way that was unstoppable.”

Don’t believe me? Well, watch the video, show it to your children, and thank your lucky stars for the Supreme Court.

(Encore of Video Link for those who are laughing so hard they can't find it in the text.)
 
I thought Gore came off very well on the show, and even on his worst day sounds more intelligent than the 1/100th wit we have in office now!!!:)
 
97silverlsc said:
I thought Gore came off very well on the show, and even on his worst day sounds more intelligent than the 1/100th wit we have in office now!!!:)
Click to expand...

Of course you would. Your leaders are liars and flip-floppers.

"Sounds more intelligent" as opposed to "Is more intelligent." Says it all for you - you're so gullible it's pathetic. :eek:
 
You have to give Jon Stewart credit. He knew how to get on T.V. Just be a huge lib and they'll give you lots of face time. Doesn't matter what you say as long as it follows the 'hate Bush' playbook, you'll get to play.
 
These guys are going to get their comeuppance. It will take decades. Probably won't see it in our lifetimes, because it's so gradual, but one day it will all be over.

I know it sounds alarmist, but I can envision a civil war between libs and cons one day. Blue states vs. Red states. Scary thought.

I just hope we have a country left by then.
 
fossten said:
I know it sounds alarmist, but I can envision a civil war between libs and cons one day. Blue states vs. Red states. Scary thought.

I just hope we have a country left by then.
Click to expand...


Be a quick war. Conservative have more guns. And Rednecks shoot better than abortion rights activists. :D
 
If only I could post what my friend has in his arsenal. A couple of them scared me just picking them up.:eek:
 
MonsterMark said:
If only I could post what my friend has in his arsenal. A couple of them scared me just picking them up.:eek:
Click to expand...


Gotta get me a couple of these.

xm8[1].jpg

And a couple dozen of these to put around my house.

Redback_Mount_Firing_web[1].jpg

xm8[1].jpg


Redback_Mount_Firing_web[1].jpg
 
fossten said:
Of course you would. Your leaders are liars and flip-floppers.

"Sounds more intelligent" as opposed to "Is more intelligent." Says it all for you - you're so gullible it's pathetic. :eek:
Click to expand...

Actually, considering ‘we’ do not know neither Bush’s or Gore’s intelligence level, 97Silver saying that Gore sounded (came off as being) more intelligent would make sense in reference to a television interview. :eek:

Regardless though, is that your new stich, pointing out grammar/spelling errors? Beecuase ef so, Eye kan qadroopel my missteaks too gibe u sumting two doo.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Actually, considering ‘we’ do not know neither Bush’s or Gore’s intelligence level, 97Silver saying that Gore sounded (came off as being) more intelligent would make sense in reference to a television interview. :eek:

Regardless though, is that your new stich, pointing out grammar/spelling errors? Beecuase ef so, Eye kan qadroopel my missteaks too gibe u sumting two doo.
Click to expand...

There you go again, with your knee-jerk reaction/correction.
 
Just how smart does Algore sound now?

MIT Professor Declares Gore’s Global Warming Crusade a ‘Bait-and-Switch Scam’Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 2, 2006 - 13:51.

Pardon the pun, but the concept of global warming came under some more heat today from the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen. Some of you might be familiar with the name Lindzen. He has been a strong antagonist to global warmingists – especially Al Gore – and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal back in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles, but avowed that exactly the opposite is the case: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”

Well, Lindzen wrote another WSJ op-ed published on Sunday entitled “Don't Believe the Hype,” with a subheading – “Al Gore is wrong. There's no ‘consensus’ on global warming.” This one further attacked the junk science involved in this theory, as well as the preposterous claim being made by Al Gore that there is actually a consensus in the scientific community about the issue:

“Mr. Gore assures us that ‘the debate in the scientific community is over.’

“That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this ‘debate’ actually is in the first place.”

Lindzen then went through a meticulous examination of just how little consensus actually exists, and that any suggestion to the contrary is just a gaseous emission:

“When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists ‘don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence’ one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists ‘don't know. . . . They just don't know.’

“So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the ‘consensus.’"

Lindzen offered several examples of how preposterous these assertions of a consensus are, including:

“More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words ‘global climate change’ produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”

Thus, it appears quite simple to identify a consensus with data about those whose views are falsely depicted as part of such consensus.

Lindzen marvelously concluded his piece (emphasis mine):

“So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

“First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade.

“Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.”

I guess it’s safe to say that Professor Lindzen is not part of the consensus that people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the overwhelming majority of the drive-by media are continually telling the citizenry – despite all the evidence to the contrary – exists.
 
I think it’s time for Gore to name all the scientists that support his theory. Has he ever produced names of respected knowledgeable scientist that support his theory? I haven’t heard him mention names but he certainly does talk about global warming as though he’s a scientist with intimate knowledge on the topic.
 
MAC1 said:
I think it’s time for Gore to name all the scientists that support his theory. Has he ever produced names of respected knowledgeable scientist that support his theory? I haven’t heard him mention names but he certainly does talk about global warming as though he’s a scientist with intimate knowledge on the topic.
Click to expand...

"My name is Al Gore. I'm not really a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."
 
What kind of animal has the highest worldwide output of flatus?
Believe it or not, the animal that wins this honor is the humble termite. Because of their diet and digestive processes (with more than the usual microbial assistance), they produce as much methane as human industry. Termite farts are believed to be a major contributor towards global warming. :rolleyes:
 
stang99x said:
Now that was funny!

What gets me, is the planet is 1 degree hotter than what they *think* it should be. Pardon me, but science in inexact and 20,000 years ago is a guess, so what if their *scientific guess* about 20,000 years ago is off by 2 degrees and it was really warmer then and colder now?
Click to expand...

That's what all these computer models are: total guesswork. Exactly like evolution.
 
The Inconvenient Truth About Hurricanes and Global Warming

Posted by Noel Sheppard on August 2, 2006 - 09:29.

Since Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans last summer, there has been a lot of media and left-wing speculation that the apparition called global warming is responsible for an upsurge in hurricane activity and intensity. Fortunately, for those seeking sanity amidst the hysteria, a new study written by a group that includes two members of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration published in this week’s Science Magazine refutes this contention (hat tip to Gary Hall).

Since this phantom meteorological nexus was first introduced to the public, it has become almost commonplace in the lexicon of the new religious cult known as the Global Warmingists, and is a mainstay of the sect’s leader, famed political scientist sans climatology degree Dr. Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. In fact, this is a central tenet in Gore’s recent schlockumentary, An Inconvenient Truth, as evidenced by the following passages at the movie’s website:

• With 2005, the worst storm season ever experienced in America just behind us, it seems we may be reaching a tipping point – and Gore pulls no punches in explaining the dire situation.

• The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.

Yet, as first reported by Martin Merzer of the Miami Herald on June 27, not all scientists are drinking Gore’s Kool-Aid:

Studies that link global warming to an increase in hurricane ferocity might be full of hot air, according to a research paper that will be published Friday in a major scientific journal.

The paper, co-written by Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center in West Miami-Dade, challenges earlier findings that hurricanes have grown more powerful in the last 30 years.

Why do the authors believe the assertions of the Global Warmingists are all wet?

It says those studies failed to account for technological improvements that now produce more accurate—and often higher—estimates of a storm’s power than were available in the past.

This seems quite logical; Landsea, one of the leading hurricane researchers and experts in the nation, asked a pivotal question to drive home the point:

“If you say, `Hey, the number of Category 4 and 5 storms has doubled since 1970,’ you have to ask where is that coming from and can we accept that as true.’’

In reality, this part of the global warming debate began about a month before Hurricane Katrina made landfall last year when Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote a paper for Nature magazine entitled “Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 Years.” As Merzer observed:

[Emanuel] analyzed historical wind-speed reports by the hurricane center and concluded that the accumulated power of hurricanes in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico more than doubled since 1970.

‘’The large upswing in the last decade is unprecedented and probably reflects the effect of global warming,’’ Emanuel wrote.

As one can imagine, for such statements, Emanuel became almost a pop hero to the mainstream media after Hurricane Katrina hit. He was even named to Time magazine’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World” list with an article about him entitled “The Man Who Saw Katrina Coming” that amazingly concluded:

According to a TIME/ABC News/Stanford University poll, 85% of Americans now agree—about as close to unanimity as a fractious population like the U.S.’s ever reaches—that the earth is growing warmer. Emanuel alone did not drive us to that understanding. But just as nature has its trigger points, so does public opinion, and Emanuel was clearly one of the forces that nudged us across an important line.

Yet, according to Merzer, Landsea and his team don’t agree with Emanuel’s findings:

No connection has been found between global warming and the number of hurricanes. Many scientists believe that the current period of hyperactivity is caused mostly by long-term natural cycles unrelated to global warming.

In fact, many meteorologists and climatologists have been warning for a number of years that hurricane activity is indeed cyclical, and that after a sub-normal period that began in the ’70s, some increase in activity was to be expected:

Landsea agreed that the accumulated power of Atlantic hurricanes has increased, but said that was largely because the natural cycle has produced more storms. He said the accumulated power of hurricanes has remained constant elsewhere in the world, casting doubt on global warming as a cause in the Atlantic.

However, the crux of the debate rests with technological enhancements to science and instrumentation in the past couple of decades that Emanuel appears to have ignored:

More to the point, Landsea said, scientists who do not account for vast improvements in technology since the 1970s can produce flawed studies.

Landsea and his team offered as an example a 1970 storm in Bangladesh that killed over 300,000 people:

Using the technology available at that time and place, forecasters were unable to estimate that storm’s intensity. Now, with improved technology, that storm likely would be rated as the equivalent of a Category 4 or 5 hurricane.

Yet, using 1970 technology, this devastating natural disaster wasn’t even considered a hurricane at the time. As Landsea astutely pointed out:

``If you miss that one, it shouldn’t be shocking if you’re missing a whole bunch of others that didn’t even hit land.’‘

How vast has the improvement to meteorological technology been?

In 1975, only two geostationary satellites monitored hurricanes. Now, eight more powerful satellites serve in that capacity, often prompting forecasters to produce higher wind estimates than might have been reported for a similar storm in the past.

“’More satellites with improved imagery mean that you get `stronger’ hurricanes without the hurricanes changing at all,’’ Landsea said.

That is no less than a threefold increase in hurricane measurement capability. Might this be responsible for the detection of more storms today of greater magnitude? Obviously, Landsea et al believe so.

To put this in proper perspective, in 1975, Americans weren’t walking around with cellular phones in their pockets, or sitting in their dens with computers on their laps possessing the processing power of many buildings worth of IBM mainframes. Consider, too, how technology has advanced medicine in the past 30 years, and what C-T scans and MRIs can detect today versus back then. Such tools now can tell a pregnant mother that all of the vital organs within her fetus have formed, and can identify fingers, toes, and ribs. Eighteen years ago when my wife was pregnant with our first child, ultrasounds barely showed a mass of cells with a heart beating.

Unfortunately, though every member of the media today directly benefits from such technological enhancements in their professional and private lives, few seem willing to consider how this is impacting the fields of meteorology and climatology.

Since Merzer filed his report last Thursday, with Landsea et al’s full article published the following day, virtually no mainstream media outlet has paid much attention. A LexisNexis search identified absolutely no television coverage of this study on any of the broadcast networks or cable news channels. And, America’s leading dailies have either not reported the findings, or have completely buried it as indicated by the following Google news search.

I guess it’s safe to say that the legacy media will only report studies that support their Global Warmingist philosophies, and that Landsea certainly won’t be one of Time’s “Top 100 People Who Shape Our World” next year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 97 (members: 0, guests: 97)
Back
Top