From The Hill
Al Gore said Tuesday that Hurricane Sandy is a “disturbing sign of things to come” in a warming world and should prompt action to curb greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.
“We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather,” the former vice president said in a statement on his website.
Gore cited Sandy, which slammed ashore late Monday, and smaller-scale flooding in his hometown of Nashville two years ago, noting “both storms were strengthened by the climate crisis.”
“Scientists tell us that by continually dumping 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every single day, we are altering the environment in which all storms develop. As the oceans and atmosphere continue to warm, storms are becoming more energetic and powerful,” he said.
Gore also said that as Sandy approached the East Coast, it drew power from abnormally warm coastal waters and that the storm surge was worsened by sea-level rise.
“Scientists tell us that if we do not reduce our emissions, these problems will only grow worse,” he said.
Read more here.
The Problem with Al Gore. He is not a climate scientist.
He represents one view. All Issue’s require real open
debate of real unmolested facts. To find the truth of any
issue we don’t just pick the facts we like and obstruct all
the facts we don’t like. We don’t demonize people who
have come to a different conclusion. If we want real solutions
we need to be honest with ourselves and with others.
Al “NDenial” Gore: “We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather,”
All you ever do Gore is rant about your non-existent Climate Change crisis. When people have proposed alternative energy solutions your cohorts have nixed them. Wind power offshore was nixed by the Kennedys cause they couldn’t have their ocean view cluttered up. Wind power onshore was dumped upon by PETA for bird strikes. Solar power was rejected by Boxer because of impact on desert tortoises. Reid terminated safe nuclear power by killing Yuca Flats. Hydro electric power has been nixed by Greenpeace because of impact on stream fish. Obama has Illegally (as over-ruled by two Federal judges) killed looking for new gas & oil by blocking further offshore drilling.
So what are you solutions to “dirty energy”?
Any chance you could be part of the solution, instead of being the problem?
This is typical of Eyeore so It’s not surprising. It was a bad storm. In fact, my cousin who lives in Long Island lost his home to Sandy. But as I posted a comment from Dr. Roy Spencer earlier in a previous post, this is a common occurance. It’s just that they usually happen out over the ocean. It has also been established fact by people who study hurricanes that AGW would increase neither the voracity, nor the frequency of hurricanes, and none other than the IPCC has said that there is no increase in storms due to AGW. The science is settled! AGW does not increase storm activity! Der.
Neilio, sorry to hear your cousin lost his Long Island home. I hope your cousin (and his family) were not hurt and got out safely. Hopefully, they have some place to go and live till they can rebuild.
Ditto
Thanks. They’re ok and are staying with friends for now.
What a crock of crap from MAN-BEAR-PIG himself. I live near the Jersey Shore and have close people directly effected by this and I can say without doubt that this was NATURAL event with nothing special or “man-made” about it. All truth, it was actually a very small storm in intensity with more wind then rain. Irene was a rain maker….not so much with Sandy. The flooding and damage that we got was mainly exageratted because we are in a FULL MOON CYCLE, which means HIGHER TIDES then normal. Add high winds to full moon higher tides and you get what we got in NJ. The timing of the cold front just added to the size and the increased speed at the coast.
All in all, it was NOT a MAJOR hurricaine and it was only the unique factors that made it as bad as it got. Al Gore is a worthless leach that can’t do anything productive so he spews garbage.
I’ve been saying for years that we were returning to the cycle of the 1950s, that the Pacific, which by the way is at record-breaking cold levels — how about them apples? — the Pacific is cooling, the Atlantic is warming, the Atlantic warm cycle lasts another 10 to 15 years.
What aggravates me about these people is Dr. Bill Grey of Colorado State made this prediction in the late ’70s, that we were going into this very cycle, people laughed at him, here it comes. The Atlantic is warm, the Pacific is cold, the action shifts to the East Coast of the United States like it did in the 1950s for 10 to 15 years, and then we cool the Atlantic and we go back the other way.
We’re throwing billions and billions of dollars away when people are starving in the streets of this country. We’re trying to fight a ghost that’s not there. And yet, we look at people, our economy is in the tank because of all this. And, yeah, it’s aggravating to me because there’s no need for it. -Joe Bastardi
“Billion and billions of dollars”?? “People are starving in the streets of this country”?? Where oh where is this “Joe Bastardi” from anyway? What country is he talking about, cuz it sure ain’t this one.
He must be talking about Australia, because there actually have been quite a few stories in the newspapers about how many are now so poor that they have to decide between buying food or paying the electricity bill, because they can’t afford to do both. In the centre of Melbourne you are lucky if you don’t fall over a homeless beggar, there are so many of them now, and as for the ‘billions and billions of dollars’ being thrown away, our own government is even worse than yours when it comes to squandering wealth on useless and idiotic green-energy schemes.
I like that – fighting a ghost that’s not there. So true! If we’d spent these resources focused on economic growth, the world would certainly be a better and safer place for the poor in America and around the world.
So you are agreeing with me about the phantom billions and billions of dollars and the ghost starving in the streets, or what? What if we spent less on military boondoggles and used that REAL billions and billions of savings, while staying safe, for economic growth?
What if we spent less on military boondoggles and used that REAL billions and billions of savings, while staying safe, for economic growth?
————————————————————————————
sounds like someone’s been sipping the Obama Kool-aid, that makes you pretend that you can spend money that isn’t there
How about adding an “e” to the end of your Web address? Then it would be “Global Climates Came.” You know, like you were wrong and now you see that climate change came… is here. You’ll all be eating crow soon enough, I fear.
Scott
“Capital must protect itself in every way… Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”
J. P. Morgan
You might try a little research. Joe Bastardi is all over the internet. Google it! And then maybe look into that quote you’ve attributed to JP morgan. You may find some doubt out there. I did, but what would be the fun of just telling you? Google that too.
Doubt is what I post, usually. So do you. And your point is? There’s doubt? And you can look up what ever you want by googling it?! Wow, alert the media.
1892? Really dude? The quote is almost word for word from the alleged Bankers Manifesto of 1892. There is no source found for the quote being attributed to JP morgan. Plus, ask yourself this; if this is the honest to god truth, why is it out now? Over 100 years later? It stinks of propaganda and you know it.
Regardless of our never-ending skepticism, is it not a truth, a logical truism? Is it not what the elite do to maintain their power and control? Was JP Morgan not one of the pre-eminent bankers of that time? And why is your question of “why is it it out now?” nonsensical in several ways, not the least of which is your dating it to 1892. And does it not seem strange to you that we the little people end up squabbling over such inanities whilst Rome burns?
Regardless of our never-ending skepticism, is it not a truth, a logical truism? -RNH
NO! It is not truth. And the quote was from a document called the Banker’s Manifesto of 1892. Purportedly introduced to Congress by Charles Lindburg’s father sometime between 1907 and 1913, but nobody knows when exactly, nor does anyone know where he got it, or who wrote it.
But hey, it fits your template of how rotton you think capitalism is, so you run with it. No curiosity. No questioning it. It’s out there, therfore it’s truth? A logical truism? An open mind with no filter gets filled with garbage.
“Scientists tell us that if we do not reduce our emissions, these problems will only grow worse,” he said. – Alphonse Gore
Which ‘scientists’? Does he actually name them somewhere, and if so, what are their qualifications and areas of expertise? If he is truly concerned about the amount of CO2 that is ‘polluting’ the atmosphere, he should from this moment on abstain from taking any more trips by air and purchase a sail boat; he should preach via example, and set the high standards himself for others who are willing to minimise their ‘carbon footprint’ to emulate. I, however, get the very strong feeling that he would reject such a suggestion for one lame reason or another.
As Neilio would answer if I were to state such a silly thing: Google it. And as for Goree not leading by example, your point is somewhat valid. But as we all know you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. If hypocrisy were the one and only criteria to judge humans by none of us would have any right to voice any opinions about anything.
Ah, but you see, when someone makes an extravagant claim like, ‘hundreds of scientists support my view about (fill in the blank)’, it is incumbent upon that person to provide the evidence that would support the claim being made. It does no good to simply say ‘Google it’; I could, but what I would need to narrow down the search would be, for example, some references, websites, news articles et cetera from which the relevant information can be obtained.
Ahhh, but there have been those lists of those 100’s of scientists available for all to gaze at for years now… So please don’t be so lame next time.
The burden of providing evidence always lies with the one making the claim. If someone tells me that they believe in God, or that the end of the world is nigh because of our sinful, industrial ways, I will ask that person to provide the evidence that would substantiate such a claim. He/she cannot reasonably expect me to constantly provide contrary evidence for every lame and misguided notion that comes to my attention; that would be a waste of my time, and I have better things to do. I do NOT need to provide evidence to show that global warming is not taking place, even though I could, because the default position is always the sceptical position.
Do you believe in flying saucers? If not, could you provide me with evidence that they do NOT exist? (That is how you are coming across here, and it is not a good look. A bit flaky, if you ask me).
YOU are calling me Flakey? How is it that people like you can furnish whatever “facts” you wish when you wish and yet when it comes to FACTS you suddenly become completely unable and virtually brain-less? You must be working off of Nelio’s book of rules for the lame and inept. For example I know you could supply the list of scientists who do not beleive in global warming/change, i.e. AGW with no trouble at all.
List of sceptics include, but is by no means confined to, the following:
1. Freeman Dyson – Institute for Advanced Study
2. Richard Lindzen – atmospheric scientist, MIT
3. Garth Paltridge – CSIRO chief research scientist (ret.)
4. Philip Stott – University of London
5. Khabibullo Abdusamatov – mathematician and astronomer, Pulkovo Observatory
6. Sallie Baliunas – astronomer
7. Ian Clark – hydrologist, University of Ottawa
8. Chris de Freitas – University of Auckland
9. David Douglass – physicist, University of Rochester
10. Don Easterbrook – geologist
11. William M. Gray – Colorado State
12. William Happer – Princeton University
Your above rant (Nov. 8, 9:45 am) is, of course, complete rubbish. Anyone who chooses to believe that the sky is falling, in spite of all of the contrary evidence, IS flaky in my opinion. The Great Global Warming Cult needs to be stopped, it is sucking the life out of other, more important, research, because all or most of the government funding is going towards feeding this dangerous virus of the mind. It displays all of the classic symptoms of a mind-control cult, one as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism and the Temple of Jim Jones, one that is just as impervious to evidence and reason as those two examples.
I, just like anyone else, has the RIGHT to criticise that which I do not believe in, but any criticism that is levelled against the beliefs of the radical environmentalists (most of whom are actually Marxists in disguise) is immediately jumped upon with calls for censorship of the ‘deniers’, a vulgar and offensive term that equates environmental scepticism with denial of the Holocaust.
Well, I am well and truly fed up with this brainless conformity.
I’m sure glad that you don’t “rant” as I do. I would certainly hate to see what that looks like.
No, I do rant sometimes, I won’t deny that. However, when I do it is only because I just cannot seem to make the person who disagrees with me see that which is either patently obvious or, in the case of AGW, wide open to doubt; some people are just too frustrating to deal with.
Peter – Your points are intellectually valid, but you’re wasting your time debating Rob N. Hood. As I reminded Neilio in the past – when you wrestle with pigs two things happen – you get dirty and the pig has fun. Better for all of us if you simply and completely ignore RNH… 🙂
I don’t know Heath, I’m rather enjoying this. He’ll figure it out, he’s a smart guy.
Well, it’s good to know that at least one person here is having fun 🙂 I don’t know if Rob N Hood will return though; judging by his last post it appears that he blew a fuse, lol. He’s got quite a temper.
Not at all- just pointing out hypocrisy as usual. Projection is for the weak minded. You think that was an irrational response? Wow. What a drama filled illusion of a life you must lead.
What ‘hypocrisy’? Where? Give me an example. I provided the list of sceptical scientists, did I not?
To Pete the Proud below (watch the ego pal, it may burst at any moment): the hypocrisy of was referring to was you calling me flakey when you were being flakey. But that’s based on my opinion of your initial flakiness, which I know you will vehemently disagree with. I’m just pointing out that which you asked for below. Hypocrisy is a HUGE problem for many folks on the Right, as neilio and others continuously demonstrate irregardless of my diligence in trying to help him/them to stop. It makes such a person appear very illegitimate and even unintelligent, and makes whatever argument they are trying to put forward illogical, irrational, or both. If I/we bother to continue these discussions I willl have to keep pointing this out, because I can’t stand hypocrisy. It is the one thing than seems to anger me every time. So I find myself fighting that, and other illogic, as I see it, on this site more than the subject of AGW. Why? For the simple reasons stated above. Before I or anyone else can take a hypocite seriously they must stop being hypocritial. That is my “pet peeve” I guess, and I get sucked in because of it. That actually is my irrationality. Because it seems that it is the rare person who can and will change. Neilio, I believe, is either trying to work on that, finally, or more likley he is simply avoiding my wrath by posting less. Either way he is coming off as less foolish and impulsive.
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Okay, I can see your point, but I also believe that those of us who are still capable of rational thought, and who do not need the illusory comforts that come from adhering to a stale and pointless dogma, should – it’s almost a moral obligation – oppose nonsense whenever and wherever we find it. I know it can be about as effective as King Canute sitting on the beach trying to command the tide (of irrationality, in this case) to retreat, and about as pleasant as banging one’s head against a brick wall, but… these people just can’t be allowed to continue to spread their lies.
Who knows, maybe I’ll be able to ‘save his soul’, and de-convert him 🙂 – on the other hand, no, I don’t think I’ll get my hopes up, lol.
I’ve tried that. I’ve been round and round and round and round and round, and round again with RNH. I liken him to the black knight from Monty Python’s Holy Grail. He is never ending with a comeback, and he does not quit. And even if you beat him he would not aknowledge it. He’ll just post something like the alleged quote from JP Morgan above. This has gone on for years. Get used to it.
We have speculated that he is actually a computer program, or a team of people employed by some entity to challenge climate sceptics. But who knows? He’s definately a pain in the backside.
I don’t quit either, so I guess we will be here until the people who run this website get sick to death of us. This has been going on for years?! Oh well, I’m patient – very patient – and I have the time, so…
I wouldn’t say that he is a ‘pain in the backside’, just that he is not very well informed. There are many others like him, many in positions of power and influence (like Alphonse Gore) and that is the sad, and scary, aspect to all of this.
Good luck. I’m just letting you know that you are in for a high level of frustration. I am by no means saying you should stop. A bit of fair warning is all I intend. But I do disagree about one thing. You said that he is not very well informed, this is not the case. It is closer to the truth that he is very well misinformed, and a very partisan socialist. Just saying your forehead will not be the first to meet this particular brick wall. Cheers!
“De-convert” me from what exactly? Like neil I don’t think you even know what it is you think you are fighting. AGW? Nope, cuz I’m on the fence. De-convert me from that? That actually is illogical. If you can’t take some occasional criticism and challenge within this debate of a serious subject then I suggest you spend your time doing something else. Is all you want a simple-minded echo chamber? Turn this off and listen to Rush then.
Deconvert – I was joking when I said that; hence the smileyface. ‘Listen to Rush’? Do you mean Rush Limbaugh by any chance? I’m not in the U.S., so I couldn’t listen to him even if I wanted to (and I don’t). I CAN take ‘occasional criticism’, but the criticism you have dished out so far has been both destructive and personal. How about some constructive criticism for a change?
All I stated was a very simple concept- that the lists of scientists for either side in this issue are easily obtainable, and have been posted here and elsewhere many times to date. That is all. All of the subsequent drama by you drama queens is rather humorous to say the least. I didn’t even challenge AGW directly or your views on that. Just your irrational statements, that you continue to make over and over again, for some strange reason only your therapists may know. Scroll to the top if you have forgotten what it is we were attemtping to discuss.
No, you did NOT state that ‘the lists of scientists for either side in this issue are easily obtainable’. You asked me for such a list in the expectation that I would not be able to fulfil your request. Your resort to angry ad hominems in this, and previous, posts demonstrates a profound lack of self-control, and a deep-seated subconscious doubt underlying your faith in the anthropogenic global warming creed.
Now unless you have something intelligent to add to this discussion for once, I suggest you go away and never come back.
Wow- a true disciple of the Neilio “debate technique” of continuous use of illogic and diversion. It is an inadvertant “skill” that many of the Right persuasion possess. I indeed question global warming as much as I question AGW, although the numbers of the latter scientists out-weigh the former, thus my leanings towards the majority, silly fool that I am. As for lack of self-control etc. I suggest you take a moment and reflect upon your own behavior before flinging the usual hypocritical crap around.
Are you kidding?! Peter’s stuff is dynamite! I was never that good. He’s no disciple of mine. In fact I think I can learn a thing or two from him.
This may come as a shock to you Rob, but I am not ‘of the Right persuasion’. My political beliefs, if that is what you are referring to, I would categorise as being left-wing and progressive regarding a number of issues. For example, here in Australia we have very stringent controls on firearms possession, which I fully support and which – shock, horror – were introduced by a conservative federal government after the Port Arthur massacre during the late 1990’s. I also support universal health-care coverage (known as Medicare), the obligation of those with more money to pay more tax, and the retention of essential services and utilities by the government. My ‘right-wing nature’, on the other hand, is opposed to environmentalist policies (ex. CO2 tax), Marxism, and multiculturalism (which has never worked anywhere).
As for creating ‘diversions’, well… did you at any point make the claim, prior to Nov. 9 at 8:47 A.M., that ‘the lists of scientists for either side in this issue are easily obtainable’ in order to prove some point of yours prior to the request, by you, to provide a list of sceptical scientists? Did I perhaps miss it somewhere? Why are my statements ‘irrational’? Could you explain this perception of yours? Is it truly irrational to question authority figures regarding, not just the AGW issue, but anything else as well? What is your definition of ‘irrationality’? Why are you becoming so emotional about all of this? Apart from my use of the word ‘flaky’, which with hindsight was a mistake that I made twice, have I used ad hominems to denigrate, insult or ridicule? What, exactly, IS ‘the Neilio debating technique’? How does it apply to me?
So we’ve established your hypocrisy which is very honest of you to admit, something Neil never did, nor will. And that the smiley face takes you off the hook for whatever you wish to say or not say… Ok, your irrationality is this, for example: Listing some names (not very many) of skeptical scientists, and then rank on my for beeing irrational etc. (although this may be more hypocrital than irrational, perhaps boths). Glad to hear you aren’t a wing nut Aussie style. I am inundated with that here thus my assumption. I have always admitted that we on the Left can be wrong, hypocritical etc etc. But we then to do it much less than the rabid Right does. And Neilio I agree with you on at least one more thing (makes the total of things we agreed on I guess two now) that Pete the Humble is better than you at this.
Admitting to hypocrisy? Not I.
‘Listing some names (not very many) of skeptical scientists…’ Not very many? I could, if I thought that it would actually make a difference to anything, provide another 12 or names, but then why should I? You are set in your ways, nothing will ever have any impact upon your inflexible mind-set.
This last post of yours is truly disturbing, it makes no sense whatsoever, and I sincerely hope that you seek the psychiatric help that you so desperately need. From now on I will just ignore you completely, because you have demonstrated that you cannot even think straight and, to be quite honest, I am tired of your deliberate obfuscation and disrespectful ad hominems. Not to mention your bad attitude, temper tantrums, and inability to reason things through. You, sir, are truly hopeless, and I hope I never, ever, encounter anyone even remotely like you as long as I live.
Good bye and good riddance!
I hate to say I told you so. But……………. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I don’t think you should have apologised for saying he’s “flakey”, because I think you were right on the money. From the dictionary; flakey – conspicuously or grossly unconventional or unusual. It is an apt description.
Sigh- another lesson on hypocrisy forth-coming: you wrote- “Apart from my use of the word ‘flaky’, which with hindsight was a mistake that I made twice,” Ok? Using the Ad hominem, and then accusing me of same, is, hypocrisy. If that was not an ad hominem I don’t know what is. But hey, you may be perfect like Neil and never make any mistakes either initially or in retrospect. If so, you have every reason to be proud. And with regards to irrationality and the side to which the number of scientists to which one places their loyalty, as I stated I err (humbleness, see how that works?) on the side of the majority. Why? Logic and reason. It is not, vs. the minority based upon those two criterion? Granted the minority is correct sometimes, but that is not the point. My point was/is logic and rationality. You all have every right to your illogical position, but please stop arguing the pissing contest of the logic involved, because you will lose every time. That is all. And I’m so sorry for reacting so emotionally (actually I didn’t) to being called flakey. But as I discussed above I was more upset about your hypocrisy. However, I realize that like Neilio and his ilk you will not agree on your shortcomings, so I am ready and able to forget all the nitpicking and hair splitting about all that. You may want to discuss your choice of scientists, and why that is Not an emotional irrational choice… which IMO it is.
Neil- he apologized for the ad hominem nature of his insult, something which he and I share as a negative, and that which we feel bad for. You see, he is mainly a Lefty, if not wholey so. The apology to us Leftys is not a sign of weakness or anything of that nature. It is common courtesy and a sign of humanity. Was his insult an ad hominem? That could be debated surely, but it is he who apologized as was his right to do so, and my right to accept his apology. Now as I stated earlier, let’s move on to discuss AGW and those numbers of scientists who do and do not subscribe, and that which makes side the more logical to alighn with based on numbers of scientists. That is my current point and contention. What say you guys?
The Tesla Model S is the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year. The luxury 5-door electric sedan fought off 10 other finalists for the Golden Calipers trophy, acing the magazine’s six judging criteria in the process. Eleven judges reviewed the contenders, including three guests, and for the first time in the award’s history all 11 voted unanimously for the winner.
And yes, Neil, I am aware of the high cost of this amazing car and that very few people can actually afford it. *But that’s not the point.
*pre-emptive remarks based upon previous mind-numbing responses from resident expert…
Yes, and only by giving money and control to Al Gore and his cronies is there any chance of survival! Al Gore is our Messiah and Savior! Having achieved god-like status, Al Gore will quench the forces of nature that are making our world so dangerous! But only if we make the appropriate sacrifices at the altars of political correctness! We must all join the Church of Global Warming!