By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Everything from the Internet to politics to climate that he has dabbled in, he has proclaimed himself an expert. What does that tell you? He certainly isn't a Leonardo DaVinci! Read up on his latest admission - on why he supported corn ethanol a decade ago.
Al Sr. helped run an oil company and a coal company. It would have been fun to hear father and son debate!
Meanwhile, the Cancun summit is heating up the GW talk.
Last decade warmest on record, review finds (MSNBC)
You can also add "hypocrite" for a person who utilizes more resources by far than the average person or family. Then he "redeems" himself by buying carbon credits through an endeavor he owns.
A few months later Congressman Albert Gore, Sr. (Father of former VP and 2000 Democratic candidate Al Gore, Jr., and subsequently a strong opponent of the Vietnam war) complained that "Korea has become a meat grinder of American manhood" and suggested "something cataclysmic" to end the war: a radiation belt dividing the Korean peninsula permanently into two.
Although Ridgway said nothing about a cobalt bomb, in May 1951, after replacing MacArthur as US commander in Korea, he renewed MacArthur's request of 24 December, this time for 38 atomic bombs. (13) The request was not approved.
If not for Truman we might have killed millions more and Al Gore was one of the proponents of using nuclear weapons in Korea.
http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html
Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Yoshito Sengoku, told reporters Monday in Cancun that Tokyo would "sternly oppose debate for extending the Kyoto Protocol into a second phase which is unfair and ineffective."
The Kyoto Protocol, the first phase of which expires in 2012, was adopted in 1997.
As of July 2010, 191 nations had ratified the protocol, which commits 37 industrialized countries to cut emissions by an average of 5 percent of 1990 levels by 2012. China and the United States, however, are not bound by the treaty, even though they have the highest rates of emissions.
191 nations have ratified. Have any lived up to the treaty to date? It is just another way for political hacks & fat cats to travel to exotic vacation destinations and waste tax payers money. How many $billions did we waste at Copenhagen? Let the climate change and spend the money to clean up the messes if there are any. If you really believe the AGW BS, don't buy a home on the sea coast like Al Gore.
Gary, I already clearly CLEARLY explained how just buying a big beach house does NOT automagically mean he does not believe that the sea levels are rising.
Gary, I already clearly CLEARLY explained how just buying a big beach house does NOT automagically mean he does not believe that the sea levels are rising.
Gary, I already clearly CLEARLY explained how just buying a big beach house does NOT automagically mean he does not believe that the sea levels are rising.
Did you not take my perfectly good list of reasons last time seriously?
I think rather than "pick a position and stick with if forever" people should be reasonable and look at things objectively and not bring prior bias into their decision making process.
Hate AlGore. Hate him for his lies, Hate him for his obvious hypocrisy. Hate him for Cap-N-Trade. Hate him for lying to school kids.
But just because he bought a house "near a beach" does NOT automagically mean he does not believe the ocean levels are rising.
It. Just. Doesn't.
Only in your mind... He does not believe the crap he is trying to sell the World. If he did he would be downsizing his carbon footprint. Not expanding it in a HUGE way. Buying luxury boats that burn carbon fuel. Buying luxury homes that use more energy and add more CO2 than many villages in the 3rd World. He is a charlatan pure and simple. Your trying to justify his motives does not wash. It is BUNK. And all the spin in the world from you will not cover up the truth about Al Gore. He is a menace to society.
"Al Gore, he says he's green, but he rented my Gulf Stream to fly alone to Los Angeles". It took me a minute to process this neatly delivered packet of information at a party recently. Obviously, the messenger didn't have a problem with his flying in a fuel guzzling machine since he routinely flew it alone, so I wondered whether it was Gore's campaigning for the earth to which he took offense or truly the two points combined.
I felt an instinctual reaction to defend Gore for waking up a large part of the country to the warming of our planet despite his less-than-exemplary personal life (see my post Hitler was a vegetarian), but the Gulf Stream owner had a point. Still stumbling for a response, I replied, "oh, how much fuel does that take?".
This must not have been the standard reaction to his bit of gossip as he fumbled for a moment before guessing, "maybe about 11 to 15 thousand gallons". That is a lot of fuel-- roughly equal to adding 15 to 20 Americans to the road for a year (while jet fuel isn't equal to gasoline it uses petroleum and gallon for gallon more petroleum than gas). Even if his calculation was off (I read that a mid-size Gulf Stream uses 2,400 to 3,000 for a roundtrip cross country flight though his jet could be much larger), we're still talking about the equivalent in fuel of several Americans for an entire year.
Jet-setting greens
Gore isn't the only celebrity to be nailed for his choice of aircraft, there are both "Gulfstream liberals" (even HuffPo's Ariana Huffington and Laurie David have received the moniker) and "Learjet liberals" (like activist RFK, Jr. or the hybrid-driving, solar-panel-owning producer of the eco-film 11th Hour Leonardo DiCaprio).
Just about every celebrity has flown in a private jet at some point, but once they start speaking out for the planet, their jet setting ways become an easy target.
When Madonna headlined London's Live Earth concert in 2007, environmental consultant John Buckley took a look at the flights and car trips of the Material Girl and her entourage and calculated her carbon footprint for the year. "Madonna produces the same amount of carbon as 102 average Britons," Buckley concluded, "even though she runs a global business she's also set herself up as some sort of ambassador for the environment. Therefore she needs to be seen to be walking the walk as well as singing the song.". The rest of the story to justify their opulent lifestyles is on Huff n Puff....
I live a fairly good lifestyle. I could afford to spend more and use more energy. I could probably cut back and use less. The difference is I am not preaching to get those with less than I have to buck it up and save energy. Why would I? Just so those fat cat Lear Jet Eco Nut Liberals have more fuel to burn. Not a chance. I say to those struggling don't give up hope for a better way of life on account of the propaganda you see from the fat cat eco nuts.
But the act of buying a home near a beach does NOT MEAN that he does not believe the ocean levels are rising.
He might indeed believe they are rising. Or not.
But the act of buying the house tells us NOTHING about his opinions.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I believe I read in The Gulag Archipelago that Ol' Alexandre described the Soviet courts worked like that.
I think gagrice has reported many times that the official temperatures being reported don't jive with many other temperature sources. Now if that's typical at all ...
Gary is on this tangent that "because AlGore bought a beach mansion" that obviously means he does not believe the ocean levels are rising.
I'm just saying that connection is not necessarily true.
He's OLD. He knows that even IF ocean levels are rising, he will be dead and gone long before the waves are lapping at his patio doors.
There is no contradiction between thinking that ocean levels are rising and buying a beach house if you are a man in your 60s.
I think my statements on the subject are more far reaching than just the small issue of supposed rising oceans. If Al Gore believes that our impact on the climate is for real, he would not expand his carbon footprint. The beach mansion does generate a lot of CO2. I would imagine the climate control is quite energy dependent.
It is all probably moot as Tipper may get it in the divorce. Or maybe their children. You want to believe that Al Gore believes the bunk he preaches. I think he could have started out with good intentions back in the 1970s. When he realized the potential for personal gain, it was go for it without any solid data to back up his claims. The $100 million he has made selling lies, pretty much backs up my claim.
No, that is not a true statement. In any shape, form, or fashion.
You know how I feel about AlGore. I'm NOT a fan.
I just disagree that just because he bought a beach property that he automatically is removed from the pool of people who might believe the ocean levels are rising. I just don't think they are related.
"Solar scientists are finally overcoming their fears and going public about the Sun-climate connection"
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/its-the-sun-stupid/#ixzz179fJIvl7-
Quite frankly I think you are confusing pollution of the planet with AGW. They are not even close to the same. One is being dealt with the other is a scam to extort money from the US and pass it to dictators in 3rd World countries for political favors.
By Juliet Eilperin
With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it's no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you -- because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools."
This bunch are more desperate than the ones in Copenhagen.
I could care less what AlGore says or does, as it relates to my own beliefs. I'm not listening to anything he says, and never have.
But If I were 60, and knew I had only 20-30 years left, and had the money, and wanted a beach house, I would NOT CARE if there was a theory around that says ocean levels are rising. I would just become one of probably millions of other people around the world with a beach house. And I would enjoy the heck out of it.
At some point later while I were still alive, if science proved the ocean levels were rising in my area enough to disrupt my house, I would sell. Or tear down the portion closest to the ocean. Or build a giant sea wall. Whatever.
But I can assure you there are other people besides AlGore who think ocean levels might be rising and STILL own beach homes. That belief does not disqualify you from enjoying a beach property.
I'm not "confusing" pollution and climate change at all. They are very closely tied issues. Pollution comes from human activity - which is what the AGW people preach is also causing AGW. So they are inexorably tied together. Cut one down, you impact the other, if there even IS an other.
My position is this: because we KNOW the ills of pollution, and regardless of the climate effects of pollution it IS awful, that we should work to cut pollution.
IF we end up killing two birds with one stone, then great.
But the one bird we are killing is a nasty one when we cut pollution.
We need to study the effects of CO2 on global climate. Find out for sure if CO2 levels rising leads to rising temperatures across the globe.
Right now, you have battling views on each side. That needs to get settled.
These folks want pollution cut for sure:
IRAN: Nightmarish blanket of brown smog continues to choke Tehran
That is a big assumption on your part. If they did would they continue to expand the city as they are? Would people continue to drive old vehicles spewing black smoke? That haze will be nothing compared to the nuclear fallout when they start the next world war. Building a subway will not fix their pollution problems. That smog looks much like the current smog up against the San Bernardino Mts East of Los Angeles. It only clears out when it rains, which is not very often. It is the result of too many people living in too small of an area. The cleanest vehicles built cause pollution sometime in their life. We choose to push it elsewhere. It will get around to US sooner or later.
With all the problems in the world, GW is so far down the list that it doesn't even register. Do all the studies you want, just pay for them with private funds and keep your hands out of my pocket. If these leeches could not get tax dollars, you would find out how committed they are.
Hopefully our new Congress will give these crooks at the U.N. a dose of reality.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So in the future when larsb goes on his vacation cruise the social director will have him dumping iron power over the rail in between shuffleboard contests.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
With all the autos, homes, factories, and utility companies producing CO2, imagine the size of the project that would be needed just to keep the CO2 level from increasing! Such an effort would bankrupt the world; meaning the already shortage of resources for 6+ billion people would be much worse. We'd probably all have a lifestyle like the N. Koreans!
By David Rose
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010
Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.
Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.
Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.
But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.
Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Tha- - ts-happened-warmest-year-record.html
WMO says 2010 to be third warmest year on record
The continuing mantra has to be perpetuated: We're all melting; We're all melting..
These are nothing more than a new cabal of 21st Century Robber Barons; nothing more; nothing less.
The total irony and farce of it all is that China and other countries repeatedly say tthat they will not participate in this scam. Which pretty much says it all now doesn't it!
I wonder what the NWO proponents are going to do with China when everybody else has been swept into the fold. HA! I don't think they'll cooperate. Now that presents a conundrum doesn't it!
Irony alert: The unusually chilly global-warming summit
Cancun is hosting the U.N. conference on man-made climate change — amid record cold temperatures
Climate-change skeptics are gleefully calling Cancun's weather the latest example of the "Gore Effect" — a plunge in temperature they say occurs wherever former Vice President Al Gore, now a Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist, makes a speech about the climate. Although Gore is not scheduled to speak in Cancun, "it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival," jokes former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer.
The reaction: ClimateGate was "bad enough," says Duncan Davidson in Wall Street Pit, but Cancun's weather is particularly "inconvenient" for global-warming alarmists. It's a reminder that global temperatures have "flatlined" despite rising carbon dioxide levels, "which is decidedly chilling against the concept of hampering economic growth to limit Co2 emissions.
Gavin has emailed me a correction on the CET temperatures... Apparently the records only exist into the 1700s for the month, so we can't be sure it's the coldest week since the 1600s.
Here is what he said...
It's been pointed out to me that one of the facts I have given you is wrong.
When I said it's been the second 1st-8th December on CET record, with records starting in 1659, that was wrong. Whilst monthly CET records do indeed begin in 1659, the daily data only begins in 1772."
So it appears that we can only confirm this was the coldest since 1772. I am sure that will warm the cockles of all your hearts.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/12/winter.weather/index.html?hpt=T1
How arm is it in Florida or Cancun for that matter? Obviously the world is not too warm; winter has not even arrived yet, and we've had 1+ month of snowy weather all over the U.S.
You've got to be near-brainwashed into believeing whatever an authority figure tells you is the truth, as the evidence is right in front of us, year-after-year.
Now that we've been postin weather for several years, I would say we are prettyy close to having enough weather to say we're talking climate. It's cold, miserable, snowy, and icy.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/10/news/economy/oil_demand_prices/index.htm
Not sure about India. Just read that Suzuki sold 30,000 of one model in November. So India will be using more oil also I don't think all the praying the AGW cult did to their pagan god in Cancun will change the dynamics of World growth and industry.
I hope all the data collector's aren't losing this information on record low temperatures across the Northern hemisphere.
I don't get how people can be in favor of hoping the climate stays as it is. At 59F average the Earth is too cold, and we spend too much energy trying to stay warm for too much of the year. If the average temperature of Earth increased to 75F, I'd be happy. I have my sights set on moving to Nevada or Hawaii in the next 10 years.
Suffering through two in a row (and three in the last week)
RECORD
HIGH
TEMPERATURE
days in the PHX.
All smiles
P.S. Not really SUFFERING though. 82 and 76 are not bad this time of year.....:)
Just a word about the erroneous figures being pushed by the NWS and the media for the SW. Yes it was very warm IN THE SUN those days. Temps should be ambient not direct sun figures. When it was being posted as 85.5 degrees on Monday it was actually only 71 degrees out of the sun. So more skewed worthless data from our worthless guvmint. More facts that are skewed to push an agenda. I think the massive explosion on the sun's surface is probably responsible for the strange record temps both high and low. Of course the AGW cult do not want to consider the sun in any of their theories.
http://www.google.com/search?q=sun+explosion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firef- ox-a&rlz=1R1GGIC_en___US345
BUT:
EVEN if the Sun IS involved in SOME of the heating,
We
Still
Can't
Rule
Out
Other
Contributing
Factors.
Thus, saying "it's JUST the SUN, People!" solves nothing and proves nothing.
And what do phony temperature readings from the NWS prove? Other than there is an agenda to be pushed? The sun explosion is a provable fact. Its effect on our weather is UNKNOWN. That does not mean it is not a factor in our climate. The Sun is the major factor in our climate and will be till it shuts itself off and we die a slow death in the dark.
I think that's a total crock.
The NWS existed before AGW was even a baby thought in AlGore's little brain.
To think there is a "grand conspiracy" to falsify weather records is totally ludicrous.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Please don't answer Climategate.
Because that stuff has been cleared by 5 independent reviews already.
What makes you think (and how could anyone possibly know?) that ANY employee of the NWS, much less the "thousands" of them, are AGW believers and AlGore disciples?
Do they have that on the employee application? Does it say something like:
Check this box if you love AlGore. If this box not checked, we will not call you back.
That takes a grand assumption, and is an incorrect one.
You keep intimating that I am the brainwashed one. I think maybe the mirror is a good place to look for that.
P.S. You can no more prove the "cooling" than I can prove the "warming." So neither of us has anything to stand on in that regard. If either side was "proven" then the debate would be over, and we both know it's not.
You know as well as anyone here those 5 studies were proven to be political BS. All linked back to CRS and East Anglia University. Those involved in Climategate are mostly out of the picture. They were disgraced by their lies and dubious data manipulation. The UN IPCC is even less credible than the people from EACRU. They will keep hanging on as long as they get their countries to foot the bill on fancy vacations to great places. CC and Greed go hand in hand. Take away the funding and the rhetoric will die in minutes.
Did you actually read the CLIMATEGATE emails? I did, and I think I have the intellect to understand what I was reading. I also know an attempted whitewash when I see one.
No one is disputing that man has a very small impact on local weather, etc. No need to spend money on something everyone already knows. Man's effect is so small it is beyond meaningless.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I said many of them. Not all I am sure. Many are just there to collect a pay check. I would bet money there are a lot of Warmers in the agencies involved. That is how they got their jobs back 20 years ago under the Clinton Gore administration. Some have left in disgust over the lies and half truths used to push the agenda. If buying and selling Carbon Credits was taken out of the equation and it was strictly scientists wanting to know whatsup, I could agree with you. As long as big money is involved, I call BS. And you are being used to push a phony agenda.
That's the problem with AGW - there are VALID DATA for both sides of the discussion.
There we agree. There is probably a lot of valid data that backs up GW. Just not data that can accurately be projected out a hundred years or even a couple years. When Katrina hit the leaders of the AGW crowd said we will get even worse hurricanes as a result of man's burning fossil fuel. The years since Katrina have been some of the mildest hurricane seasons on record. That is just one little example of the proponents of AGW trying to use fear to get people behind their agenda. And their agenda is very clear. Extort money from the rich countries and distribute it through private hands such as the CC companies Al Gore was so involved in. AGW is all about money and nothing else.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gI- A03DqU_3d
Of course SA is trying to do damage control as you might suspect as they get a lot of government money by extorting huge amounts of money for their liberal rags to universities.