 |
 |
 October 15, 2007
PLANET GORE...Paul Krugman on conservatives and Gore Derangement Syndrome:
As Krugman notes, the extent to which conservatives have turned opposition to global warming science into a personal jihad against Al Gore is breathtaking. He's "hectoring." He's "lecturing us." He's "holier than thou." Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming, but as the childish campaign against Gore shows, they also oppose any effort to simply persuade people as well. Their excuse? Gore and other campaigners are hypocrites unless they themselves live in caves and cut their own carbon footprints to zero. It's the kind of argument you'd expect to hear from a six-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. For more on this, see pretty much any Bob Somerby post from the past seven or eight years. —Kevin Drum 12:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (120)Comments
The sheer stupidity and just rancid hate for Gore was on fine display this morning on Fox Crap On Sunday Morning. Bill "Sue me if I'm ever right" Kristol and Charles "Crippled in Mind AND Body" Krauthammer were there, and they were just nauseating, but that's the conservative style these days. Posted by: POed Lib on October 15, 2007 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINKI'm sure the next strategy of the FUD campaign will be an assault on the legitimacy of the Nobel Prize. Posted by: Stefan Jones on October 15, 2007 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINKStefan: Next? It's already started. But then, conservatives have always hated the Nobel Peace Prize. The committee keeps awarding it to advocates of peace, you see..... Posted by: Kevin Drum on October 15, 2007 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINKunless they themselves live in caves and cut their own carbon footprints to zero No one argues this. Now, you are being hyperbolic, but is it too much for him to set an example? If he's not going to make any sacrifices, why should I? Maybe instead of a cave, he could splurge, and live in a single modest home? And instead of a carbon footprint of zero, he could live a little dangerously and perhaps reduce his only slightly? Or is sacrifice only for the little people? I can only conclude global warming is not quite the crisis he jets around the world claiming it is. Posted by: Homer on October 15, 2007 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINKI think the classic reaction was at the Corner. Not even a single sentence of graciousness for the man, and a lot of venomous posts. Posted by: gregor on October 15, 2007 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINKChristopher Hitchens, when he's not holding the goats down for, Mickey Kaus "reminds us" that Gore was once a stern advocate of the removal of Saddam Hussein, and that in office he might well not be the coward or apologist that the MoveOn.org crowd is still hoping to nominate. Oh, and he says Global Warming has nothing to do with peace (presumably because this war isn't being fought for oil.) See! All us liberals are still cowards! Posted by: so I am told on October 15, 2007 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINKYa know FOX news should take its negative nelly schtick and start re-thinking their journalistic style [or lack of it] Karls gone FOX, get over it, stop the idiocy. Posted by: Ya Know... on October 15, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK"The dogs bark, the caravan passes." - Middle Eastern Proverb Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 15, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINKI can only conclude global warming is not quite the crisis he jets around the world claiming it is. Amazing that your base your opinion on the severity of global warming on a personality you don't like rather than the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. If he hadn't jetted around the world being an spokesman, making the movie, lecturing and so on reflexive, rightwing denialists wouldn't even be aware of global warming as a threat. So I fail how to see your example of perceived hypocrisy works in any way. Posted by: Old Hat on October 15, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINKIf Gore has no legitimacy to speak on global warming because he lives in a big house and flies in jets, then I suggest no Republican can speak about Christianity since they worship wealth and are sinners. In fact, from now on only Jesus Christ himself (speaking through the Bible) is allowed to advocate for his religion; everyone else has to shut up (that includes you, Your Holiness!) Posted by: Bush Lover on October 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINKIf he's not going to make any sacrifices, why should I? -Homer So was Bush Sr, but he decided to do it thru sanctions and other methods and that Saddam wasnt worth, thru war, destabilizing the middle east. Posted by: Ya Know... on October 15, 2007 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK"...is breathtaking." I demand a moratorium on this adjective unless used literally (also "breathtakingly"). All it does is imply that your corset is laced too tightly. Posted by: Boronx on October 15, 2007 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINKPK writes, "If science says that we have a big problem that can't be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed." Is this an accurate potrayal of problem solving by Consertatives? PK writes, "Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore..." Does that mean everyone on the Right hates Gore? Some on the Right? Most on the Right? Hate? Who's the one actually expressing hatred here? KD writes, "As Krugman notes, the extent to which conservatives have turned opposition to global warming science into a personal jihad against Al Gore is breathtaking." "personal jihad" "breathtaking"? KD writes, "Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming,..." Kevin, I have long thought that the pundits who trashed Gore before and after the 2000 election have at least as much to answer for as those who such willing accomplices in the promotion of the Iraq war. Really, if you didn't realize that Gore supposedly being a "phony", or wearing the wrong clothes, or sighing, or being too nerdy, was simply unworthy of mention compared to the potential for incompetent, rigid, and fanatical behavior in one George W Bush, then of what earthly use are you as a commentator on politics? If you get something so basic so wrong, why should anyone listen to you again, ever? I'm talking about you, Frank Rich, and Maureen Dowd, and David Broder, and, I suppose, just about any pundit you may name. You are all worthless. You have been proven so. Posted by: frankly0 on October 15, 2007 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK...is it too much for him to set an example?...And instead of a carbon footprint of zero, he could live a little dangerously and perhaps reduce his only slightly? Homer 12:50 AM Gore has reduced his carbon footprint to zero, as he advocates. Posted by: Dave Howard on October 15, 2007 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINKSoros has never given any money to anyone. He just gives it to organizations that do. In the case of Hansen, it went through the Government Accountability Project. It was legal assistance Hansen got, not cash, and nowhere close to anything like $720,000. That amount seems to have come from a category in Soros' Foundation documents called "politicization of science," and it could have gone to many places besides Hansen. Still, if Exxon was laundering donations so transparently to anti-warming scientists, none of you would buy it for a second. Incidentally, Gore actually is "holier than thou," and as for hypocrisy, there's a hell of a wide gap between living in caves and buzzing around in private jets and owning multi-million dollar homes. Posted by: harry on October 15, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINKIncidentally, Gore actually is "holier than thou," and as for hypocrisy, there's a hell of a wide gap between living in caves and buzzing around in private jets and owning multi-million dollar homes. Good point harry. USA Today exposes Gore for being the hypocrite he is by refusing to set an example. www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm "Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself." Posted by: Al on October 15, 2007 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINKHomer: "...but is it too much for him to set an example? If he's not going to make any sacrifices, why should I?" If a person is a hypocrite, it could be suspected that he doesn't really believe in his message. He could just be selling carbon credits, or hitching his career to a rising comet issue. I believe Gore is sincere, though I find him repulsive; but a hypocrite is not the most inspiring messenger. 'm sure the next strategy of the FUD campaign will be an assault on the legitimacy of the Nobel Prize. Posted by: Stefan Jones Is the prize for economics, which was initiated by the Swedish bank and not Alfred Nobel, legitimate? Are the winners tested for performance enhancing drugs? Posted by: Luther on October 15, 2007 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINKKevin, I think most people know the Peace Prize is political. The Committee even admits it. Old Hat: If he hadn't jetted around the world being an spokesman, making the movie, lecturing and so on reflexive, rightwing denialists wouldn't even be aware of global warming as a threat. An amazing amount of information gets around this planet without someone having to fly around personally delivering it for gigantic speaking fees. As for Gore being "carbon neutral," I'm not impressed by the phony indulgences. "Green Power Switch" cranks out about 2.1 million kilowatt-hours a month (average), of which the majority comes from the Windrock wind power site. Gore's house uses up over 18,400 kilowatt-hours a month, which means he's using about one percent of the entire Tennessee Valley green generation capacity all by himself. You can tell that it's Gore, not his message, that pisses right-wingers off most these days because they spend so much time trying to prove he's a hypocrite. I think increasingly they're giving up the intellectual battle on global warming, so they need some kind of consolation prize. "Sure, he's probably right, but he's so morally flawed how can I take him seriously?!?" Of course, Republicans have been using variants of the Gore-uses-airplanes-and-has-big-houses-so-global-warming-isn't-real attack for a while. I remember vaguely last year some right-winger saying something like "How can John Edwards really care about the poor? Why, he's rich!" Posted by: sweaty guy on October 15, 2007 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINKLet's say, for argument's sake, that Al Gore did live in a cave and had reduced his carbon footprint to zero. Which do you think is the more likely response by the fringe Right? Would they 1) change their behavior, persuaded by Gore's noble example, or 2) find other reasons to avoid being responsible members of our interconnected society? Heh. The difference between Bush Derangement Syndrome and Gore Derangement Syndrome is intriguing. In the one case, legitimate criticism of GWB's many, many failures is dismissed as Bush Derangement Syndrome. Whereas in the case of Gore Derangement Syndrome, the violence and irrational acts seem to intensify as his multiple insights and accomplishments grow. Posted by: PTate in MN on October 15, 2007 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINKHypothetical question, where the premise has absolutely zero chance of happening, option 1 bestows nobility on an example that will never exist, option 2 assumes facts not in evidence, implying "other reasons" will be found to continue a behavior that is not being undertaken. "...the violence and irrational acts seem to intensify as his multiple insights and accomplishments grow." Really? Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINKPTate, you are so right. I mean, Ralph Nader doesn't drive out of principle and Jimmy Carter spends his old age roaming around Africa trying to cure river blindness. I've never heard of any right-winger cite them as huge influences on some emerging "green conservative" movement. (Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lot of GOPers love Ralph, but for entirely different reasons.) Oh, maybe they're saying that they disagree with guys like this, but at least they "respect" them, unlike Gore. Well who cares if they respect him? If they were at all serious about reducing carbon emissions, they could feel free to hate Gore's guts. As with universal health care and so many other issues, Republicans only introduce "character" as a distraction. it's more fun explaining to the GOP masses why they need to keep hating Gore than get into a serious debate about global warming. What was it Malkin said about serious debates being beneather her? Posted by: sweaty guy on October 15, 2007 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINKI hear the chirping of crickets who simply repeat the very things Kevin is making fun of. Who knew insects could be retarded too? Posted by: Kenji on October 15, 2007 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINKWalking the walk does mean living by the principles and conclusions that one espouses. That should include reducing his carbon footprint in more than incidental ways. He has the money. Many regard nature as their house, and only live in small heated areas. They think of their home as hundreds of thousands of square feet outside, but only 1000 (or 2000 if you really need an inside exercise room) or so as their heated home. Also, the largest reason that global warming is occurring is the ABSENCE of businesses that address transportation, space heating, industrial, and energy generation needs in energy efficient manners. It would be possible for Gore to encourage investment in mass or collective transit, space heating conservation, regional decentralized industrial production. The political is an assist, but in many ways what is being asked is for government to bear the financial burden (taxpayers) of subsidizing too heavily. Perhaps with democrats in more secure power, the combination of rational regulation and moderate government subsidy will help, more than the subsidy only approach of the Bush administration. Posted by: Richard Witty on October 15, 2007 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINKharry: "Gore's house uses up over 18,400 kilowatt-hours a month ..." Do you and Al have any idea how juvenile you both sound, whining about Al Gore like a couple of jealous schoolgirls who weren't asked to the prom? Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 15, 2007 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINK"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei. Conservatives used to pride themselves on arguing facts, not emotion. Today's Conservatives have found it far more effective to ignore facts and instead scream lies and assassinate the characters of their opponents in order to avoid at all costs open debate on the merits of an issue or the worth of an individual they oppose. It's the modern political analog of the Spanish Inquisition. And it's very effective. Conservatives today behave like a cult - just take a look at this list of top 10 warning signs of a cult. Some examples from the two lists: 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor. 9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful. 10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided. The current incarnation of conservatives however place blind party loyalty above all else and treat dissent and opposition like heresy of the highest order that must be persecuted as vigorously and viciously as possible. Why would they viciously attack (not just criticize) Gore over the Nobel Peace Prize? They're sending a message to Gore to stay out of the race: if Conservatives can coordinate a collective, unhinged character assassination against Gore over something as respectable and benign as a Nobel Peace Prize, just think about how much worse it will be if Gore were to actually enter the political race. Gore's their worst nightmare. That's why they have attacked all of his very many real strengths (e.g. being an early and strong backer of the internet; raising the alarm on Global Warming ages ago; being vice president during one of the greatest periods of economic strength and domestic peace in our nation's history, etc.). These people have no shame. They don't care about facts, reasons, right or wrong. They are amoral mercenaries with no loyalties beyond money and their political party. They pedal in fear, hate, and greed. Pure and simple: they are enemies of decency, reason, peace, the rule of law, our constitution, and indeed our very country. The amazing thing, and I know I'm nothing original here, is how the right and pigs like George W. Bush fight tooth-and-claw not to do anything, anything at all. It would have cost virtually nothing just to make companies obey the law or to adopt new technologies, and yet that's somehow heinous. It would take so little to retrofit coal factories. It would take so little to have new ones meet a certain standard. Why force construction firms to use steel when they build skyscrapers? They might as well use pot metal. Posted by: Anon on October 15, 2007 at 5:02 AM | PERMALINKPeople should just call conservatives on the Gore Derangement Syndrome for what it is: a preemptive strike to discourage Gore from jumping in the race. Why? Because Gore is the GOP's nightmare candidate. Posted by: Augustus on October 15, 2007 at 5:18 AM | PERMALINKConservatives accusing others of being "holier than thou?" That's rich. Posted by: pj in jesusland on October 15, 2007 at 6:22 AM | PERMALINKKrugman, as usual, is dead on accurate. What a better world this would be if the five conservative justices of Supreme Court had not disregarded the will of the people and appointed George W. Bush, the loser of the 2000 election, as president. God bless Al Gore! Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 15, 2007 at 6:38 AM | PERMALINKSomerby doesn't focus so much on right-wing attacks on Gore, although quite a few of the stories originated on the right. He tends to focus one the major media spreading and reinforcing the lies about Gore. From the internet to Love Story to Love canal to the carbon footprint, major newspapers, TV and the writers and talking heads truly dislike Gore. They mostly dislike him because he's been right. That's why he's called pedantic, the smartest kid in the room, the overweight, overbearing nerd. They just can't stand it. Despite the MSM trashing Gore (who really cares what Fox says about him, their numbers don't influence elections) the right still wants to claim the media is liberal and unable to hide its biases. You can see it here. The commenters want to tear Gore down using juvenile attacks like his house is too big, he's using energy, he's too rich. Why? Because they hate when they've been so very wrong about the major issues of the day and Gore has been so right so often. Reason why real global warming environmentalists should resent Gore: By exaggerating the science behind his claims, by falsely claiming that no true, honest scientists dispute his arguments, by smearing skeptics as either corrupt or fools akin to Holocaust deniers, Al Gore has done the most of any man to create a determined resistance to his proposed policies. His hypocritical lifestyle doesn't help either. Posted by: ERF on October 15, 2007 at 6:55 AM | PERMALINK"And instead of a carbon footprint of zero, he could live a little dangerously and perhaps reduce his only slightly? Or is sacrifice only for the little people? " Damn, your on to him. Yes, Al Gore walks the streets at night sacrificing little people to his imaginary science gods. This is how he manages to maintain a negative carbon footprint. Posted by: B on October 15, 2007 at 7:28 AM | PERMALINKAH, yes, the wingnuts of the right do certainly seem to be becoming EVEN MORE unglued...making my every day!!! The past seven years have held little reason for pride or passion in my country...so I take great pleasure in watching the wheels come off...another Repug to retire in OHIO...YEAH!!! Blackwater being ordered OUT of Iraq...sadly I probably won't live long enough to see AMERICA restored...hope my grandkids can... Posted by: Dancer on October 15, 2007 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINKActual scientists think that he fundamentally has the science right ERF. If you actually were a free-market supporter you'd applaud the carbon offsets that Gore uses. But you're now the Nth winger coming here and complaining that he has a "hypocritical lifestyle" instead. The right wing in the USA has truly gone off the rails. Posted by: Marc on October 15, 2007 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINKOh, and "Richard Witty" (if that's your real name, HA)...yes, and those who would be called Christians should be divesting themselves of their riches to help the poor of the WORLD before they profess to make our country behave like the Christian nation they want it to be ...as should BUSH AND LAURA have adopted some of those snowflake kiddies! Come on, try to argue like a grownup... Posted by: Dancer on October 15, 2007 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINKConservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming Naturally? max Absolutely, Mr Drum, as usual you are so correct. Critic of Mr Gore couldn't possibly be serious expecting him to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. After all, burning crosses on the neighbor's lawn does nothing to impede the credibility of Brotherhood and Reconciliation advocates! And carbon offsets, the Amway of the Concerned! Posted by: Sparky on October 15, 2007 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINKHmm... hey, majarosh, fair's fair: YOU claim that multiple examples of conservative attacks on Gore prove nothing. Okay -- so produce ANY statements of admiration for Gore's achievements on global warning from ANY recognizably conservative outlet, or for that matter, even ONE conservative elected official. A few quotes along the lines of 'well, we disagree on Kyoto, but the former Vice President has responded to his 2000 defeat in honorable fashion, proving that he has the courage of his convictions in travelling the world preaching the dangers of global warming. Hell, he even took his slide show to Grover Norquist's Wednesday Group, as tough an audience as can be found anywhere...' 'Course, I just made that up, although it's all true. So produce even ONE real example. Posted by: theAmericanist on October 15, 2007 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINKI dont care about Al Gore one way or the other. Gore won't submit to a debate over his ridiculous movie and ignores every fact that says that AGW is simply from the sun [melting polar icecaps on Mars, etc....] No serious member of the scientific community takes HIM seriously, although there are some indications that Global Warming is caused very slightly by human activity. But the argumentation and "facts" Gore himself employs is ample evidence that the man himself is a complete fraud, hoaxer, impostor. Is this the best the Dim-ocrats can muster in the candlepower department? Richard Feynman called the Gore approach "Cargo Cult Science." The ever-honest Camille Paglia has to admit the fellow is "self-defeating," and the Oslo Committee has again cheapened the brand by putting this charlatan on the list. If the left weren't so shameless, you'd be ashamed. Posted by: daveinboca on October 15, 2007 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINKHe's "hectoring." He's "lecturing us." He's "holier than thou." The best was from John Stossel, who went straight for the heart of the grumpy old man: "Do I want Al Gore telling me to turn off my air conditioning?" or something like that. Anyway, from your post + comments, it sounds like ironically it's more the conservatives who are telling us to turn off our air conditioning, and Al Gore who is actually only arguing for cleaner emissions standards! Posted by: Swan on October 15, 2007 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINKThe real reason conservatives and Republicans hate Gore so much is that he got more votes than their boy, who everyone, of course, would love to have a beer with. Oh, and he's been right and their boy has been such a pathetic failure and everyone knows it. At least Republicans can't be accused of hypocrisy. Many of them are rich and advocate abolition of the estate tax, capital gains taxes and income taxes. These guys walk the walk, 100% self-interest. No class traitors among them. Posted by: Pug on October 15, 2007 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINKI'm an astrophysicist "daveinboca". One of the things I study is the Sun. And there is essentially no one in the solar community who thinks that the Sun is responsible for recent climate changes, even though that would help our grant funding. Go figure. Maybe we care about what the book of nature actually says. I could go on about how Mars has an elliptical orbit, a thinner atmosphere, and a strong impact on climate from global dust storms. Or I could mention how hard it is to get a reliable global measurement there. Or how you would never measure any change in Martian climate from the sort of temperature changes that we see on Earth. But why bother? You don't know about the science behind these claims; they're just a convenient way to dismiss your political opponents. Hi, As a Jewish liberal, I consider it my place to chime in + make sure the Jews are represented on this blog. Al Gore is right on the money, Paul Krugman is a smart boy, and the conservatives are talking nonsense. Posted by: Jewish Liberal on October 15, 2007 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINKHere is a link to Fox News video of grumpy old neobloviators Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer trying to throw night water on Al Gore and the Nobel Prize Committee. Posted by: corpus juris on October 15, 2007 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINKWhat it comes down to is class warfare. Al Gore has class. The guy is right, and he is a great spokesman. He is now rich, and he got rich ethically, not by the standard conservaturd method of stealing from children. So, those who hate people with class have to bring him down. We have a conservaturd like Al, who is wrong, and he is envious of Al's class. Posted by: POed Lib on October 15, 2007 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINKThey don't hate Gore. He's just the annointed one for that particular issue. The conservative political style is to personalize every issue with a scapegoat. For example, they were absolutely bereft on the war until Cindy Sheehan came along. Then they fell on her like a ravening wolf on a crippled doe. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINKdave, you need to look more closely into the claims of Habibullo Abdussamatov (whence came the Mars' CO2 caps are shrinking therefore Earth warming is caused by the sun). He's another crackpot that you sign on with. It's very consistent with the rest of your crackpot theories. Here are some comments about the mad Russian: “His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." Also, dave, there's no particular reason why the sun causing temperature increases on Mars excludes Earth warming being man-made. Posted by: TJM on October 15, 2007 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINKI don't understand why the right wing noise machine is wasting time on Gore anyway, surely there's another twelve year old boy somewhere whose family hasn't sold their house for health insurance. Priorities, guys! Posted by: gary on October 15, 2007 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINKGore won't submit to a debate over his riiculous movie and ignores every fact that says that AGW is simply from the sun [melting polar icecaps on Mars, etc....] Measured solar output is flat to down since 1950. If there were anything to an increase in irradiance behind GW there'd be an 11 year fluctuation in the record to match the changes in output due to sun spot activity. There isn't. Martian icecaps melt whenever its orbit brings it closer. Don't be stupid. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINKIt would be interesting to see what the 'winger arguments against AGW would be were Gore to enter a monastery and retire from public view. Probably they'd recant their errors and embrace reality. "Oh, well, with Gore gone, I have to admit that those gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere have warmed things up a bit. Time to break out the carbon tax." Yup. It's easy to imagine that Gore's the only thing between them and sanity. Martian icecaps melt whenever its orbit brings it closer. Oh yeah, I remember reading about that when I was a kid. Incidentally, I read one of those '60s science fiction books, which was based totally on Mars, when I was a kid, and it was scientifically accurate as to climate and geological facts-- Mars is a very interesting planet. Posted by: Swan on October 15, 2007 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINKYup. It's easy to imagine that Gore's the only thing between them and sanity. Well we were somewhat a saner party before Al Gore was born, it's true. But it was actually the birth of young Rosie O'Donnell that sent us right out of our flippin' minds. "Hmm... hey, majarosh, fair's fair: YOU claim that multiple examples of conservative attacks on Gore prove nothing"-the Americanist Hmm...nope. I made no such claim, though it would be a reasonable argument for supporters of Gore's crusade. My point is, here's another important issue that should be discussed rationally by all that gets turned into another pissing contest by some from both sides. One internet group I belong to is comprised of folks from both sides of the political spectrum and has an "anything goes" policy on topics. Disagreements abound, point and counter point are made, passionate arguments are common. We can be nit-picking jerks, stubbornly opinionated and empty of common sense, all at the same time. When someone is shown they are mistaken, they admit it and the world does not end. Behaviors that get slammed the quickest and the hardest are putting words in someone's mouth and blatantly unfair accusations. And strands of humor run through the entire thread. I'm not advocating,"Can't we all just get along." But Shirley, we can live and let live. Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINKOf course there would be a "Sparky" spouting right wing venom. Sigh. Not me. . . Forget about all that science stuff. Since Al Gore maybe uses a lot of electricity, global warming can't be a real problem. It's nice when we can simplify these big "complex" problems so that everybody can understand them. Posted by: frankly0 on October 15, 2007 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINKharrt: most people know the Peace Prize is political. Peace is inherently political. You think the prize should go to the guy with the biggest d**k or something? Posted by: thersites on October 15, 2007 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINKI read a lot of right wing stuff, and I just don't buy the idea that the right hates Al Gore. Sure, they're happy to point out aspects where he may have exaggerated the global warming threat, but I just don't see hate. Rush Limbaugh calls him "Algore", with the accent on the first syllable, like "algae", but that's a tease, not hate. Contrary to Krugman's assertion, there is no Gore Derangement Syndrome. I would second Kevin suggesion of reading Bob Somerby. Somerby was a roommate of Gore (and Tommy Lee Jones) at Harvard. Over the years, Somerby has focused accurately and in detail on how the media mistreated Al Gore. But, Kevin is wrong if he means to imply that Somerby's blog shows how the right mis-treated
No, and this is why you are wrong: liberals hate America. They want to see the way of life you and I enjoy turned into a seething carcass full of maggots so they can point to it and say, "we toldya Bush was a bad man!" Nothing excites them like another non-event like a fat man getting a prize from someone who isn't even an American! Gore won because he paid off the right people. No doubt, George Soros decided to play kingmaker and had the Nobel committee figure out a way to link climate change to world peace through some shadowy conflation of insanity and switchgrass or some other nonsense and there you have it--Gore wins, the world *loses.* There is no global warming. A lot of things are melting because, in nature, ICE does IN FACT melt. It's like the whole world got stuck on stupid one day. ICE MELTS! Did you know that? It melts because things are slightly warmer. Once the ice has melted, and the climate switches back to being colder--and that's because everything in the Natural order has *cycles*--the WATER WILL FREEZE AGAIN. Don't you people know about "CYCLES?" Or have you never been in an office with twenty women who, all of a sudden, after working together for 90 days, are all suddenly fat and crabby on the same day? Once everyone sees that, in order to get a Nobel prize, you have to gain weight, scream at PowerPoint slides, and wear loosefitting jeans, the world will be consumed by copycats. And as I look to the right of this blog page--what are these cats doing, being impaled on a pole? Are they pole dancing? You liberals are encouraging impaled cats to pole dance? What the deuce is that all about? Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINKSomerby says that the "liberal press" such as Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd et al reviles Gore in order to keep their snobby liberal club small and exclusive. I don't know if it's so, but it would explain a lot. Posted by: Horatio Parker on October 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINKThere is no global warming. A lot of things are melting because, in nature, ICE does IN FACT melt. It's like the whole world got stuck on stupid one day. ICE MELTS! Did you know that? It melts because things are slightly warmer. Once the ice has melted, and the climate switches back to being colder--and that's because everything in the Natural order has *cycles*--the WATER WILL FREEZE AGAIN There's nothing independent out there called a cycle. Certain forces vary over time. So, what force, Norman, is different now? There's no El Nino, right now. (El Ninos pop up now and again, but they're yearly phenomena. They don't persist.) There's no orbital oddity such as the ones that bring on ice ages. Solar has held steady since 1950 or so. If there's a cycle, there has to be an identifiable force that you're talking about. What could be strong enough to cause temps to rise so high since 1970. You're pretending to have the answer so you must have something in reserve, surely. Some secret ingredient that thousands of scientists have missed. Phlogiston or polywater or something. Hyper-extended aether, maybe. You wouldn't want the world to think you're a gasbag of such magnitude that YOU could be the cause of AGW. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINKA lot of things are melting because, in nature, ICE does IN FACT melt. brilliant! we at least need this idiot for some comic relief. Posted by: haha on October 15, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK//BREAKING NEWS//
If they can give the Nobel Peace Prize to a terrorist like Arafat... Yeah, go figure why they gave Nixon's butt boy Henry Kissinger -- who, along with Tricky Dick, approved secret bombing missions in Cambodia -- a Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. Did I mention Kissinger also negotiated U.S. troop withdrawals from South Vietnam? Must make warmongering wingnut hearts swell with pride. Posted by: Apollo 13 on October 15, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK
No such thing as a cycle? In Nature>??? Are you insane? Have you never heard that deep buzzing sound in the back of your head, emanating from 20 very bloated and very touchy women who have all had their cycles come together in one massive fit of menstruation? You are insane. The Earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the Earth. These cause yearly and monthly cycles. If there are, in fact, yearly and monthly cycles, does it not prove that there are hundred year, thousand year, and ten thousand year cycles which could explain Global Warming?
See above--you don't know that all these things are, in fact, true. You're presupposing they are, but we haven't got enough hard data to prove you're correct. And, check me if I'm wrong, but the same scientists with the same data and the same methods told me, in 1975, that we were heading for an Ice Age. I bought thousands of dollars worth of goose down products. I invested in a wood burning stove for my vacation property. Sucks to be me! Worthless!
I'm not a gasbag nor am I anything other than a true Patriot. This country is going to hell in a handbasket and I'm going to take a razor blade and cut holes in the handbasket so the people I like can slip out of the handbasket and have a good life. You liberals can go suck eggs and wear a thong for all I care. When did liberals start hating cats? Now I see a giant thermometer full of mercury, waiting to crush a poor defenseless kitty who has his front legs stretched out like Willem Dafoe being shot in the back by the North Vietnamese Army in Platoon. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINKMaja, if yer gonna bitch about folks making bullshit arguments, don't make one, yourself. You quoted "...the violence and irrational acts seem to intensify as his multiple insights and accomplishments grow." Then posted: "Really?" Which I observed meant that you "claim that multiple examples of conservative attacks on Gore prove nothing.." So you promptly denied you'd made that claim -- but of course you did; it's what your words mean. Ya wanna raise the level of discourse about the level where you are evidently most comfortable? Respond to my challenge -- produce ANY example of an identifiably national conservative voice that has said of Gore 'attaboy!' for his longstanding, efforts on global warming. Cuz otherwise, in good Anglo-Saxon and not at all abusive, the fact is: you're full of shit. Posted by: theAmericanist on October 15, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINKNo such thing as a cycle? In Nature>??? Are you insane? You're purposefully mis-understanding. There's no independent thing out there called a "cycle". (Which I've already specifically said. You're indulging in that ordinary cycle of 'winger debate: quote mining.) See above--you don't know that all these things are, in fact, true. Well, yes, I do. There's this technique you don't appear familiar with. It's called "measuring". I'm not a gasbag Proof is the pudding, buster. (Of course, I may be responding to Imitation Norman, the Comic Grotesque.) Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 15, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK"ex-liberal" wrote: I read a lot of right wing stuff You don't say. I just don't see hate. Rush Limbaugh calls him "Algore", with the accent on the first syllable, like "algae", but that's a tease, not hate. Oh Okaaay. Posted by: ckelly on October 15, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINKI hear the chirping of crickets who simply repeat the very things Kevin is making fun of. Gore himself is like a cricket: the talking cricket who was Pinocchio's guilty conscience. (I'm referring to the book, not the Disney movie.) Posted by: mim on October 15, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK….here's another important issue that should be discussed rationally by all that gets turned into another pissing contest by some from both sides…majarosh at 10:02 AMAlthough it is members of the right and the oil-financed interests doing 'pissing' on the issue, there are always some to try to claim both sides do it. You really should examine the issue before spouting off: there is science and empirical evidence on one side, and unsubstantiated claims of bias on yours as witnessed by daveinvaca, Homer, harry, ex-lax, ab-norman, al, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Rush and hundreds of other rightwing nutjobs. I read a lot of right wing stuff, and I just don't buy the idea that the right hates Al Gore…. ex-lax at 10:39 AMYou need to improve your reading comprehension skills. We've all remarked on how insufficient they are. Your comments illustrate that no matter what the facts, your allies will never cease cease sliming, which is a classic symptom of Gore Derangement Syndrome. Posted by: Mike on October 15, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK The six year old was right. If you are right, you should be able to argue. What fairy gave Gore the privalage to go around driving his footprint as deep as he wants and at the same time tell us to tread lightly. Sounds like just because he has money, power and hangs out with the popular people, he thinks he doesn't have to play by the same rules he wants us to. If he truely wanted the world to take him serious, he could at least try and appear like he was making a difference like Ed Baggley Jr. The secret to success is sincerity. If you know the science, you know the lie! So far the Global Warming crowd can only come up with "we think" therefore it ain't science yet. What effect does percipitation have on global warming? [You have made your point. Repetition is not debate, and if you have nothing further to add, further commentary will be deleted. --Mod] Posted by: JD on October 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKWow! Convicted criminal Norman Rogers has really gone off the tracks. I always thought that he was crazier than a runover dog, and he is really proving it today! Could the moderator please just ban this lunatic for his own good? I worry he is going to pick up a knife and start stabbing the cabana boy or someone else nearby, in his rage over Al Gore's Nobel prize! Sheesh... Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 15, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINKThe argument "Gore lives in a big house, so why should I believe him about global warming" is such a non-sequitur that it's completely impossible to rebut. As Spock said, "Logic is a beautiful flower that smells bad!" Posted by: Daryl McCullough on October 15, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINKMike: Your comments illustrate that no matter what the facts, your allies will never cease cease sliming, which is a classic symptom of Gore Derangement Syndrome. Mike, why do you think your cited article represents my allies? AFAIK Greg Easterbrook is a moderate Democrat. He's at the Brookings Institution, which is a moderately liberal organization. He's writing in the New York Times, which is now far left. I would also question your definition of "sliming." All Easterbrook did was to point out accurately that Gore has a large house and to discuss the effectiveness of carbon offsets. That's a far cry from epithets like "chimpy" and "Bushitler", not to mention calling yours truly "ex-lax." Posted by: ex-liberal on October 15, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKActually, Gore should take people at their words. We should get everyone who complains about Gore's hypocrisy to sign the following pledge: If Al Gore gives up his huge house and stops using jets to travel around the world, then I promise to dedicate my life to fighting global warming. If we can get 10 million signatories, maybe Al will do it. How about it, all you people saying "Gore is a hypocrite". Will you sign such a pledge? Posted by: Daryl McCullough on October 15, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINKIf he (JD) truely wanted the world to take him serious... he could learn the language. Welcome to America. Now write English! Posted by: thersites on October 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK
Though I am convicted, my pardon is in the works. The lawyers tell me that, Christmas Eve of this year, I should be included in a group of pardons to be issued by the White House. This will allow me to return to the investment banking business with full access to certain areas and I will spend the next two or three years cementing my retirement. And it's "crazier than a shit house rat" and not crazier than a run over dog. A dog that has been run over is not crazy; it is lying on the ground dead and cannot move or exhibit signs of insanity. A shit house rat runs around biting and clawing and shrieking for no reason. And if you attempt to engage me in a battle of wits, I will go through you like shit through a goose.
The interns who moderate this blog are under orders from Mr. Charles Peters, who has accepted several donations from me in the past. I have donated approximately $4,000 to this organization and if they even *think* about banning me, harrassing me, or moderating me, I will have my friend Charles turn their internship into a trip into oblivion. Have you never heard that deep buzzing sound in the back of your head, emanating from 20 very bloated and very touchy women who have all had their cycles come together in one massive fit of menstruation? You are insane. And you're offensive. Or obsessed with this idea, since you keep bringing it up. Or maybe both. I thought the topic of this thread was the over the top commentary regarding Gore's Peace Prize and the debate over the science of climate change. That's what I commented about, the rhetoric The certainty with which some claim to know what I mean or where I stand in the global warming debate is laughable. Rather than ask me what I meant when I wrote, "Really?" or where I stand on the debate, I'm told by all-knowing, all-seeing, self-appointed deciders of fact. "See above--you don't know that all these things are, in fact, true. You're presupposing they are, but we haven't got enough hard data to prove you're correct." From those subversives at the US DoE: "Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmosphere’s total moisture content." "sing 22 different computer models of the climate system and measurements from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), atmospheric scientists from LLNL and eight other international research centers have shown that the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world’s oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of this ‘atmospheric moistening’ is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels." http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-09-02.html Posted by: Sock Puppet of the great Satan on October 15, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINKNorm Rogers said: "It's like the whole world got stuck on stupid one day." No, just you. Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on October 15, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINKFirst, the "right" denies the reality of global warming because the so-called "right" in America today is nothing but a bought-and-paid-for creation of America's ultra-rich corporate ruling class, in particular the richest of the ultra-rich, the giant multinational fossil fuel corporations. The agenda of those corporations is to reap the trillions of dollars in profits to be made from extracting and burning the world's remaining oil and coal before it runs out, and to do this as soon as possible. Thus they do not want anything to slow the growing, and indeed accelerating, consumption of fossil fuels, let alone reduce fossil fuel consumption by 80-90 percent worldwide within a decade or so, which is what's required if we have any hope of preventing the worst outcomes of global warming. Thus they use their bought-and-paid for right-wing extremist propaganda machine to loudly deny the reality of global warming, to keep the public confused and unmotivated to demand a clean energy transition from both government and the private sector. The mental slaves of the "right" -- from Rush Limbaugh down to bottom-feeding "blog trolls" like "ex-liberal" -- are just obediently reciting Exxon-Mobil's scripted talking points. Second, independently of his role as a leader on the global warming issue, Gore is obediently hated by the mental slaves of the "right" for the simple reason that Al Gore won the 2000 Presidential election and is the legitimately elected President of the United States of America, whereas George W. Bush is not now, and has never been, the legitimately elected President but is instead a gangster and a thug, whose family's political machine stole the 2000 election through the most shocking and blatant fraud in the history of American politics. (Actually, the theft involved multiple frauds, from the deliberate disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of eligible African-American Democratic voters in Florida by Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris, to the fraudulent Supreme Court decision that prevented the state of Florida from fully counting all legally submitted ballots in conformance with long-established Florida election law.) The minions of the "right" must hate Gore, and must loudly attack, slime and ridicule him at all times, in order to distract attention from the fact that Bush is a thief who stole the Presidency and the "Bush administration" is nothing but a gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers that has no legitimacy and is raiding the US Treasury and misusing the US military for corrupt purposes of private financial gain. When these two prime targets of the corporate-funded phony "right" coincide in the person of Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for educating the world about global warming, we see the results of which Paul Krugman writes, which are rather ironically and humorously exemplified by the antics of the right-wing mental slaves who have posted comments here whining that Krugman is wrong. ex-liberal: I read a lot of right wing stuff, and I just don't buy the idea that the right hates Al Gore... ...But, Kevin is wrong if he means to imply that Somerby's blog shows how the right mis-treated Gore. What Somerby mostly shows is that Gore was often mistreated by the main-stream media, most of whom are Democrats. Bwahahahaha! You are so full of bullshit! Post up cites from Somerby's The Daily Howler to back up your claim that "most" of the mistreatment aimed at Gore comes from the mostly Democratic MSM. C'mon, I dare you. This I've got to see! Here's a cite that contradicts your false premise. From the incomparable archives of The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby himself from Dec. 3, 2002, Tues.: But in October, CIA head Tenet made that assessment, and Gore has cited it in his critiques. Last week, though, Fred Barnes joined the rest of the gang; like the other spinners at Fox, he pretended that Gore was just inventing his al Qaeda assessment (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/26/02 and 11/27/02). Now Barnes at least seems to acknowledge what Tenet has actually said. Too bad his buddy just keeps on dissembling. In the current Roll Call, Morton Kondracke continues his descent to the lowest level of anti-Gore hacks. He keeps pretending he just doesn’t know what Gore could mean about al Qaeda. In various statements about al Qaeda, Gore has specifically cited the assessment by Tenet. But it looks like Mort doesn’t want you to know. Mort just keeps spinning you blue. But someone else offended more grievously on last weekend’s Fox News Sunday. That was Charles Krauthammer, serving up a remarkable statement about Gore’s critique of the press. Gore had said that Fox, Rush and the Washington Times “are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/29/02). And Gore had said this: “Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks—that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what’s objective as stated by the news media as a whole.” When Tony asked Mara what Gore could have meant, Mara got busy finessing:LIASSON: Well, I think that what Al Gore is expressing is deep frustration on the part of Democrats who are now truly out of power in Washington, and they don’t have the kind of editorial voice representing them in the media. There is no doubt that the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times or the New York Post or the commentary on Fox is conservative. And I think that they are extremely frustrated. They can’t get their events covered. They feel that they can’t get their message out. Now, having a message in the first place is another question. But I think that’s a real kind of cry of frustration from Al Gore, and other Democratic leaders have said the same thing. Mara finessed the point nicely. To state the obvious, Gore hadn’t claimed that the “editorial page” at the Times was conservative; who on earth didn’t know that? He had claimed that Fox and the Times channel RNC spin, and that RNC spin increasingly becomes Conventional Wisdom in the mainstream press too. But while Mara flawlessly sidestepped Gore’s point, Krauthammer decided to crawl in the slime. Try to believe that he said itLIASSON: But I think that’s a real kind of cry of frustration from Al Gore, and other Democratic leaders have said the same thing.KRAUTHAMMER: Crying for help, you know. (LAUGHTER) I’m a psychiatrist. I don’t usually practice on camera. But this is the edge of looniness, this idea that there’s a vast conspiracy, it sits in a building, it emanates, it has these tentacles, is really at the edge. He could use a little help. What a slimy man Krauthammer turns out to be! Krauthammer—a former and now misbehaving shrink—thinks Gore’s remarks on the press are “loony.” What a slimy—and deeply dishonorable—man this Great Pundit turns out to be. Readers, were Gore’s remarks “loony?” A sad cry for help? Yesterday, we linked you to a set of well-known and thoroughly bogus spin-points that came to you straight from the RNC. Today we visit The Mother of All Spins from Campaign 2000—the much-flogged claim that “delusional” Gore said he invented the Internet. That spin anchored the press corps’ twenty-month War Against Gore—and the corps got it straight from the RNC. The process was precisely what Gore is describing. But to one slimy man, Gore needs help. As you will see below, when Gore made his comment about the Internet, no one in the press corps said one word about it. Two news cycles came and went—and no reporter in the country said a word about what Gore had said. The reason? Reporters knew that Gore had been the leader, within the Congress, in developing what we now call the Net. And because your news orgs all knew this fact, no one showed the slightest sign of thinking that Gore had said something unusual. But when the RNC began to peddle that claim, the press corps quickly leaped into action. They called Gore a liar for twenty months—once the RNC put out the line. A slimy fellow thinks Gore needs help. But it’s the American people who really need help, held hostage by spinner/dissemblers like Krauthammer. Do RNC spin-points script the press? Let’s take a walk down memory lane. Who invented invented the Internet? It was, of course, the RNC, handing its scripts to the press.Click the Somerby link above for more revelations with plenty mo' links and mo' proof that ex-liberal is full of rightwing propaganda bullshit. And, if anyone wants more recent examples of attacks against Gore from rightwing sycophants as documented by Somerby, it will require reading comprehension and diligence to scour The Daily Howler's archive than someone like ex-liberal is capable of doing. Hey, ex-lib. Do you know what RNC stands for? Hint: It is not Democratic. He's at the Brookings Institution, which is a moderately liberal organization. Only in your fantasies. To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It's called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal." In fact, much of Brookings' top brass has come from Republican administrations. Its current president, Michael Armacost, was an undersecretary of state for the Reagan administration and ambassador to Japan under Bush. Brookings' president from 1977 to 1995, Bruce MacLaury, spent most of his career in the Federal Reserve, with a stint in the Nixon Treasury Department.Another cite (which ex-lib isn't too swift on providing) from SourceWatch on the Brookings Institution: Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation. He's writing in the New York Times, which is now far left. Bwahahahaha! You really are a jokester! "What effect does percipitation have on global warming? Try http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-09-02.htm for effects of global warming on moisture content. BTW, it's 'precipitation' "What effect does the earth's shifting core have on global warming?" You're talking about a process (http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040517/full/news040517-13.html) which tooks millions of years to move continents 700 million years ago, and which even its major proponent believes is much attenuated now. What evidence do you have that it has intensified in the past 150 years? "What effect does solar winds have on global warming?" Seeing as solar wind would have an 11 year cycle with the sunspots, whatever effect it would have would manifest in 11 year cycles. We don't see that. "What balancing effects does the earth have to shift temperature from extremes?" Err, lots, but the CO2 feedback loop is one of the primary long-term. Over geological epochs, the temperature of the Earth has been more stable than solar output alone would merit. Google "Gaia hypothesis". Then Google "James Lovelock global warming" to see what state the originator of the Gaia hypothesis thinks we're in. "What is the normal temperature of the earth? Says who?" You haven't read a single flippin' scientific paper on this, have you. Almost all papers dealing with the AGW hypothesis use a temperature anomaly: i.e. the temperature in the model or observations normalized against average temperature readings from 1951-1990. "If you know the science, you know the lie!" If by science, you mean "randomly posting terms from earth science and meteorology hoping that noone call me on my ignorance". Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on October 15, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINKThe mental slaves of the "right" -- from Rush Limbaugh down to bottom-feeding "blog trolls" like "ex-liberal" -- are just obediently reciting Exxon-Mobil's scripted talking points. Hey! I resent the insinuation! LOL -- Maja, I merely assumed that you meant the words you used. You evidently don't like being held accountable for what YOU say, although you complain how others speak. Why is that? Posted by: theAmericanist on October 15, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINKDisappointed-theAm, You don't know what I meant. You don't want to know what I meant. You don't care what I meant. Why is that? Posted by: majarosh on October 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKSmearing Al Gore: Here We Go Again And if you attempt to engage me in a battle of wits….ab-Norman Rogers at 1:44 PMYet you always march bassackwards, unarmed. Ex-lax, neither the Brookings Institute, the New York Times, nor the Washington Post rate as liberal institutions save in your perfervid imagination. Not being an RNC house organ does not "liberal media" make.
Conservatives holler that "Gore should lead by example." Interesting point. I wish they had raised it when chicken hawks like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and Wolfowitz sent our children off to fight in Iraq. I'd like to see them raise this point the next time someone like Gingrich or Lott or Guiliani etc., etc. starts yelling about the sanctity of marriage and the family. You conservative critics, you lead by example: don't level charges of hypocrisy against Gore unless you are willing to level the same charges against the blindingly obvious failings of your own poster boys. Pull that log out of your own eye before you criticize Gore, boys. Or admit that the message is more important that the messenger and sit down. You conservative critics, you lead by example: don't level charges of hypocrisy against Gore unless you are willing to level the same charges against the blindingly obvious failings of your own poster boys. This is exactly right - any "hypocrisy" by Gore pales besides the hyperhypocrisy right wingers hold. Hypocrisy involves bragging or advocating a standard you don't hold yourself to - when you get right down to it, is there *any* policy or issue where Republicans *don't* do this? "Keeping America Safe"? How - by pissing off the rest of the world and giving our port security to the highest foreign bidder? With terrorism a bigger threat now than in 2001? "A strong military"? Our military is nearly broken thanks to their antics in the Middle East. "Financial Responsibility"? After turning a surplus into a record deficit? "Family Values"? With their stable of page molesters and bathroom fornicators in Congress? "Smaller Government"?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Heck, forget about actually being hypocritical about an issue. Before lobbing accusations against Gore, right wingers have to p | |