Sorry, Al Gore, but your scam has been exposed. For those of you who haven’t been following the story, it appears some scientists involved in building the Global Warming movement have admitted to fudging the data to bolster their claims… and to weed out data that would contradict the very premise of the Global Warming religious movement.
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
…and increase your energy consumption. That’s right, increase. Apparently since embarking on his globetrotting tour in jumbo jets and private SUVs to tell everyone else how they should live and advising everyone else to cut down on energy consumption, the Goracle has been offsetting everyone else’s energy conservation:
In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Sure, the Goracle thinks climate change is a serious problem… because if everyone else doesn’t buy into his climate change fraud, it will cease being a money-making venture for him. And that’s a serious problem… for him.
“For this generation, climate change is our space race,” said Clinton, speaking in a cavernous factory with giant wind turbines in the background.
Clinton, who is pursuing the Democratic presidential nomination, is calling for creation of a $50 billion strategic energy fund, coupled with tougher fuel efficiency standards financed in part by $20 billion in “green vehicle bonds.” It’s part of a package she calls the most comprehensive offered to tackle global warming.
[…] Global warming hits particularly hard at the poor, she said.
“One in four low-income families have already missed a mortgage or rent payment because of rising energy costs,” Clinton said.
And somehow she thinks more regulations on our existing energy infrastructure will make energy costs go down?
I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.
My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit “global warming.”
Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.
I guess it’s just a matter of perspective as to who one considers “poor”. Is it someone who’s borrowed beyond their means for a home to live in, or someone who struggles each day to find water clean enough to drink for survival? Perhaps the definition depends on who can put money in your bank account and vote for you.
Hillary did have a moment of lucidity, however, whether she realized it or not, during this speech in Iowa when she said:
“The climate crisis is also one of the greatest economic opportunities in the history of our country,” she said.
Everytime Democrats want to implement bad policy, they have to trot out some phoney victim to make their case. Whether it’s opposition to the war using phoney soldiers, or using kids, elderly or poor people (who aren’t quite the victims the Democrats paint them to be) to peddle government-run healthcare.
In 1996, Hillary Clinton propped up young Jennifer Bush, a seven-year-old with mystery ailments whose mother coached her to lobby for universal health care Jennifer was trotted out to present the Clintons a lucky silver dollar “to bring you good luck so everyone can have good insurance.” Jennifer’s mother was later convicted of aggravated child abuse and welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000 in assets on Medicaid forms.
In 2000, Al Gore propped up elderly widow Winifred Skinner to lambaste high drug prices. Gore repeated her claim that she had to pick up cans on the side of the road to pay for medicine. Dan Rather bemoaned: “She’s no child, but she belongs on a poster about high drug costs.” One problem: Winifred’s own well-to-do son, businessman Earl King, debunked those claims.
In 2004, John Kerry propped up Mary Ann Knowles, a breast cancer patient who he claimed “had to keep working day after day right through her chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of losing her family’s health insurance?” The conservative Manchester Union Leader editorial page reported: “Knowles chose to work through most, but not all, of her chemotherapy because her husband was out of a job…She and husband John did not want to take the pay cut that would have come with disability leave, so Mary Ann kept working.”
Democrats have to sell their policies on emotion… they won’t get any traction otherwise. But in this day and age of instant access to information and the ability for average citizens to easily disseminate the facts to a large audience, that tactic just ain’t gonna cut it anymore.
…that they’re just rock stars. Famous for the ability to carry a tune or play an instrument. They understand that this God-given talent doesn’t translate into a significant knowledge of complex environmental issues.
Rock group Arctic Monkeys have become the latest music industry stars to question whether the performers taking part in Live Earth on Saturday are suitable climate change activists.
“It’s a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world,” said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore’s charity concerts.
Large parts of the band’s hometown of Sheffield were flooded at the end of last month after a deluge of mid-summer rain that some blamed on global warming. Two people were killed.
But the band wonder why anyone would be interested in the opinion of rock stars on a complex scientific issue like climate change.
“Someone asked us to give a quote about what was happening in Sheffield and it’s like ‘who cares what we think about what’s happening’?” added Helders.
“There’s more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we’re in a band?”
Not only does he understand that, but he highlights the hypocrisy of the concert itself:
“Especially when we’re using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It’d be a bit hypocritical,” he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.
And what about the resources being consumed by this gigantic, one-day party?
Fans are being encouraged to share cars or use public transport to attend, all lightbulbs will be energy-efficient and the food will be sourced locally where possible.
“Where we can’t use biodegradable materials, there’ll be comprehensive recycling programmes,” said Robb, who says the Live Earth gigs will set new green standards for the events industry.
Even the organizers of a “green” concert acknowledge it’s not always feasible or possible to “be green”. C’mon guys, it’s always possible, isn’t it? Even if you have to sell all your worldly possessions and work for free for the next 50 years, sure you can come up with a few extra billion dollars to source the food locally or insure 100% biodegradability for this venture. Think of the planet… think of the poor grandchildren with sad, puppy dog eyes… (UPDATE:Doug Heye has more on the event’s “footprint”)
But never fear, organizers of Al Gore’s concert will “offset” all of their glutonous consumption needs…
After the shows, the organisers, with the help of accountancy group PricewaterhouseCoopers and an army of consultants, will calculate the volume of carbon emissions created and will then “offset” the difference.
It’s bumped Al Gore and his ridiculous money-making scam of global warming off the front pages… and has him whining like a little girl about it.
AL GORE is a man on a mission to save the planet – and is enraged that everyone else seems more interested in saving Paris Hilton.
But he struggles to get his message across when TV networks are donating the majority of their airtime to American socialite Paris Hilton’s stint behind bars.
“The planet is in distress and all of the attention is on Paris Hilton. We have to ask ourselves what is going on here?”
It’s because as lame as coverage of a delinquent Hollywood slut is, it still beats hearing a robot drone on about a trendy cause, simply so he can pad his bank account.
“it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom”
“the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille-Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance“
“the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs”
“[Saddam Hussein] was not only promoting terrorism, but was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program“
“Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors”
“Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly”
“Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children”
And Gore reminds us about the tough stand he took regarding Iraq:
“I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action”
It’s clear why a tough stance would be needed against Iraq, afterall…
“…the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not, because in the midst of this flood of highly alarming information from the CIA, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the State Department, other agencies throughout the government, on October 2nd, 1989, President Bush signed a document known as NSD 26, which established the policy toward Iraq under his administration.
…and the money quote of the day:
Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter what he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way. Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible.
Ok, so it was 1992 and Gore was blasting the first President Bush…
So for those of you keeping score at home:
The first President Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Iraq despite mountains of evidence of its ties to terrorism and involvement in WMD programs while the second President Bush not only deserves blame for taking action, but is also now accused of making up the evidence, much of which existed a decade before he became President.
Just more proof that Democrats don’t really stand for anything and will always campaign on the “whatever the Republican did is bad” strategy.
By the way, if President George H.W. Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Saddam Hussein, how much blame shall we unload on the Clinton-Gore administration that had 8 years after this speech to do it… yet failed to.
Afterall, “Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible”, right Al?
Global warming has obviously become the latest fashion trend for the liberal elite. Limousine liberals keep telling us how we should live, while completely ignoring said advice themselves. It’s either because they can afford the negative consequences of bad treaties like Kyoto or they just don’t buy into their own hype… or both.
“I think that everyone can do their bit, but I’m wondering if we have to start thinking about other planets and also domed cities, because I don’t know if there’s a way to repair these holes in the sky.”
If you had residences in California, Florida and Maine, a growing family, and a collection of relatives on the East Coast, plus work that required you to travel great distances, live on location and only get back periodically, you’d probably want a fleet of private vehicles to take some home comforts along with you…
The actor owns a Gulfstream II luxury jet and has had a DC3 Dakota airliner, as well as a Lockheed Constellation. The crown jewel of his air force, however, is his 1964 Boeing 707-138B…
“And we fly in and out a lot. Last year when Johnny was in Tampa, he flew to and from work every day. Each night the kids and I would go out in the golf cart, watch the landing, then bring Johnny to the house while the plane taxied in.” - Travolta’s wife Kelly Preston
In response to criticism, he casually replies:
Despite his concerns, the 53-year-old actor - who owns and flies his own Boeing 707 - doesn’t plan to cut down on his own carbon emissions by flying less.
He said: “The thing is, I use them as a business tool. Maybe aviation will move into not contributing to those factors, but for the next 50 years, at least, that will be a fact.”
And of course, there’s the Godfather of the fashion trend, Al Gore, who preaches:
The world must embrace a “carbon-neutral lifestyle.” To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. “Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb,” warns the Web site for his film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” “We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin.”
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
And thus we see the flaw in Sheryl Crow’s proposal… crap like this will always require more than just one square.