Australia May Pay Camel Killers in an Effort to Combat…Climate Change?

camelFrom The Blaze

Kill a camel, earn cash for cutting greenhouse gases: That offer may be coming soon in Australia, where vast numbers of the nonnative, methane-belching animals have been trampling the Outback for more than a century.

The government has proposed that killing camels be officially registered as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has the world’s largest population of wild camels — an estimated 1.2 million — and considers them to be a growing environmental problem.

Read the rest at The Blaze.

121 Responses to Australia May Pay Camel Killers in an Effort to Combat…Climate Change?

  1. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 10, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    A cunundrum for PETA?

  2. paul wenum June 10, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    “People eating tasty animals.” What next, humans? Too many Fosters I assume?

  3. Rob N. Hood June 11, 2011 at 7:35 am #

    Paul, you don’t eat tasty animals? Yes you do, and you kill them yourself. Another non-issue for the radical to get all riled up about.

  4. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 9:58 am #
    “While the MSM is all hot under the collar about the Killer heat wave in the mid-East US, not a mention about the massive snow accumulation in the Western USA this year. It’s not just a few roads being late to open due to the excessive snow clearance effort, the snowpack is way above average this year.”

  5. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:35 am #
    10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.

    Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol’s energy-rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world’s population, economic activity and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won’t vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.

    Don’t demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed, Europe’s CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?

    Given Al Gore’s proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many … for so little.

  6. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:36 am #
    9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.

    Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that “wealthier is healthier and cleaner.” Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be — in both financial and human costs — to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others’ lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europe’s former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide” (in other words, bailing them out).

  7. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:36 am #
    8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world’s poor.

    Climate — or more accurately, weather — remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth creation and technological advance — a.k.a. adaptation — and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning “witches.” The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.

  8. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:37 am #
    7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.

    Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and politicized “Summary for Policy Makers” of the UN’s IPCC to support this favorite chestnut of the press.

  9. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:37 am #
    6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!

    For some reason, Al Gore’s computerized polar bear can’t swim, unlike the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to believe — me or your lying eyes?

  10. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:38 am #
    5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.

    Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century of man’s greatest influence, despite green claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see instead a drop. These societies’ real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?

  11. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:39 am #
    4. The glaciers are melting!

    As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding — despite decades of cooling in Kenya — due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture.

  12. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:40 am #
    3. Climate was stable until man came along.

    Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just as “witches” were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The “hockey stick” chart — poster child for this concept — has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN’s alarmist repertoire.

  13. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:40 am #
    2. The science is settled — CO2 causes global warming.

    Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:43 am # (sorry, #2 has more to it, and here it is!)

      2. The science is settled — CO2 causes global warming.

      Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of claiming “consensus” to avoid debate (consensus about what being left unspoken or distorted).

      What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius — or 1 degree Fahrenheit — higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth’s atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.

      Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled.

  14. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:44 am #
    1. It’s hot in here!

    In fact, “It’s the baseline, stupid.” Claiming that present temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. — or 1998 — and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that’s why the greens tried “global cooling” first.

    The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of “sprawl” (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.

  15. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 10:06 pm #

    Hey RNH…… How do you like them cherries?

  16. paul wenum June 11, 2011 at 11:19 pm #

    Fantastic Neil. As always you are always on point.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 12, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

      Well, someone has to be! With RNH’s penchant for using non sequiters, name calling, and insults to steer away from the topics, I figure I’m just going to bombard this site with things that get to the heart of the issue. RNH’s agenda be danged!

  17. Rob N. Hood June 12, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    Overwhelming, NFA. Your powers of cherry picking are impressive and puts those other crazy scientists of the majority in their place… Who trusts a majority anyway? Sounds dreadfully democratic and… American.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

      Hey, if four out of five scientists said the Sun revolves around the Earth, would it be true? Just because they say so? There is no consensus for fact. Also you seem to be hung up on the myth that there even is a concensus. The only source that there ever was a concensus, or near total agreement is the IPCC. It is just another lie, in a never ending cascade of lies that you seem to believe.

  18. Rob N. Hood June 12, 2011 at 7:05 pm #

    Yep, I’m a fool for facts. Just because you dislike certain facts doesn’t make them false by default. That’s my point, that’s all. You are amenable to one conspiracy theory in particular. I respect that on a certain level. I, too, am a beleiver in some of what others think of as conspiracy theories.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 12, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

      Facts are facts weather I like them or not. My example question about if four out of five scientists….. was used because it was the scientific concensus in Copernicus’ day. But it wasn’t four out of five, it was more like 999 out of 1,000 scientists said the Sun, and the other planets revolved around the Earth. Copernicus was scorned, ridiculed, censored, and put under house arrest!!! But he was not wrong. So forgive me if I don’t believe that concensus means reality, or fact.
      The fact is that there is no repeatable scientific, laboratory experiment that will show, without any doubt, that anthropogenic CO2 will cause the catastrophic warming predicted by the IPCC.
      If you know of one, I’d like to see it.
      And it is a fact that observational data is not showing any of the warming that the IPCC claimed, ten years ago, that we should be seeing today, had they been correct in their predictions. I actually have a graph that shows this very fact.
      It is not a conspiricy theory RNH. A conspiricy theory is a theory that has no supporting facts, or facts that are misinterperated, and/or manipulated to fit the story. This is nothing like that. This is a case where predictions, doom and gloom predictions, were made. And the reality, and evidence has not borne those predictions out.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 12, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

        I forgot to expound on the concensus. There is no concensus.
        “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus…” – Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard
        “The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?


        For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

        An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

        A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

        Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.”

        • Rob N. Hood June 13, 2011 at 7:36 am #

          Are you prepared to say the same thing about those scientists who deny the connection (AGW)? If not, why?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 13, 2011 at 11:47 am #

            What connection? There is no connection. That’s the whole problem. They predicted a certain level of warming by now. It hasn’t happened. The dots are not connecting. It is not a conspiracy to say that the IPCC was wrong. It is demonstrable by observational data. And it would not have mattered if every scientist on the planet was in concensus with the IPCC predictions because they would all have still been proven incorrect.

      • Rob N. Hood June 13, 2011 at 7:39 am #

        Your definition of conspiracy theory is interesting to say the least. It’s funny that you are threatened by that label. It’s true, as you point out, that some “conspiracy” theories turn out to be true.

        • Jerk A. Knot June 13, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

          Robbie Boy… You walked into a saw blade here and Neil tore you apart. Who cares what his defination of a conspiry theroy is…. The fact is the IPCC made claimes that have not born out. They were wrong. I personally think they were wrong because they were lieing to meat their own motives. My conjecture as to their motives if wrong does not change the fact that they were wrong.

          Great job of setting the trap then springing it upon him Neil. Well played, Well played indeed.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

            Jak, I wasn’t trying to spring a trap. I look at it more like he set a pile of do-do for me to step in, but stepped into it himself. I never said anything about conspiracy theories. That was a premise that he injected, that I reject. It is a non sequitur, which, if you look closely enough, is how Liberals argue. They will use non sequiturs, which if you don’t know what a non sequitur is, as I recently learned what it means. Yes, I have heard the term before but I did not know the meaning, so I looked it up. Non sequitur: 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. But I digress. The formula for arguing for Liberals is using non sequiturs, followed by name calling, and personal insults, with lies sprinkled liberally (pun intended) throughout! Just go back a few months and read his posts. I swear that is exactly what he does! He always makes statements that do not follow logically from what preceded it. And he’s actually pretty good at it.

          • Rob N. Hood June 14, 2011 at 10:20 am #

            Whatever… you are ridiculous.

          • Rob N. Hood June 14, 2011 at 10:22 am #

            The below was meant for Jerk. It didn’t stick in the right place. As for Neil, your denial that it is a conspiracy thoery is irrelevant. To many it is. That’s a fact. Sorry.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 14, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

          What is the conspiracy theory? Gosh! And to many…. what is that about 30, or 40? Get real. You’re losing the argument so you have to try to change the trajectory of the discussion to conspiracy theories? I bet you knock over the chess pieces when you’re loosing.

  19. paul wenum June 12, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    Neil, where is Oliver Stone? Me thinks that the far left needs his expertise? Nice read, as always.

  20. Jerk A. Knot June 14, 2011 at 9:28 am #

    You may not have ment it to be a Trap but you were well prepaired to support your assertion and stood your ground. He literally made you look like a genious. Thank you for the clarification of non sequiturs. I know it had to do with being illogical. Now I have more clarity as to how to use the term.

  21. Rob N. Hood June 15, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    You people are unbelievably hopeless. Denial is your “greatest” weapon, for everything, all the time.

  22. paul wenum June 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    I agree, you are proof of denial to the nenth degree.

  23. Rob N. Hood June 16, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    You can’t come up with anything original? Gotta copy me? Every country throughout history needs people like you guys to allow the wealthy elite maintain their status quo. I realize you don’t believe that you are playing that role but you are. To the nth degree. But you will also NEVER see reality logically and rationally, becuase you are illogical and irrational.

  24. paul wenum June 16, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    Thank you for the compliment from an incompetent comment. I appreciate it.

  25. Rob N. Hood June 17, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

    Say what now? Wacky.

  26. paul wenum June 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm #

    Like that name don’t you. Nice name.

    • Rob N. Hood June 18, 2011 at 9:44 am #

      First time I’ve used it…so… You seem confused…and…a little wacky.

  27. Scarface June 18, 2011 at 6:30 am #

    Where is Greenpeace when you need them?
    Oh, I see, they are too busy promoting the CO2-hoax.

    These redgreen fascists are completely nuts.
    Now it’s camels, next it will be …

    My advice to anyone in favor of this outrageous plan: Stop Breathing!

    CO2 is plantfood, not a pollutant.

  28. Rob N. Hood June 18, 2011 at 9:47 am #

    Note to scarface- environmentalists, except perhaps for the very very few real radical ones, are not fascists. You, as do many on the Right, like to conveniently confuse fascism with everything except where it actually belongs. Par for your course unfortunately, thus no credibility for you. Sorry.

    • Jerk A. Knot June 21, 2011 at 10:10 am #

      What is the Definition of “fascist”? Dear Robbie Boy…..

      • Rob N. Hood June 22, 2011 at 11:18 am #

        You tell me. That would be much more interesting. Besides, I’ve defined it several times here already. And you were the one who used the term first.

        • Jerk A. Knot June 22, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

          I knew you did not know what the defination of “fascist” was. I asked you because I wanted to understand your motivations and your reference points better. Don’t believe me if you don’t want to. It really dosent matter. Your juvenile quip about me using it first made me wonder where in this string I used it. I can’t find it anywhere. oh well. As I sit here and think about it I don’t think I ever called you a fascist. I have called you a communist and a socilaist. That I will admit. 90% of what you post is from socialist or communist sites. My mother always told me that birds of a feather flocked together. My experence in life is that she was correct. OH I almost forgot…. I have never seen you define anything. I am not saying that you haven’t I just don’t remember seeing that type of post from you.


          I thought you might like this about wind energy.

  29. paul wenum June 18, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    Thanks scarface, am waiting for the day I get taxed for taking a breath and exhaling. Just wait. Diapers on cows, Ted Turner stating too many people exist on the planet, et al. Never changes.

  30. paul wenum June 22, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    Oh, by the way, “ole” Alfred Gore is now pushing birth control for climate change? He should have a diaper put over his mouth having more co2 then his Lear jets. “When times get tough the tough get going.” As to Al Gore? He plays on emotions, not facts Of course if we were in his shoes knowing he may well be a billionaire if cap and trade passes, wouldn’t some of us use his tactful way? Not I, nor you. That’s why we are on this site. What a guy Gore is when times are tough. He never changes.

  31. Rob N. Hood June 23, 2011 at 9:29 am #

    I am so glad the Right never plays on emotions. Let’s all praise their rationality and superior ways…

    • Jerk A. Knot June 23, 2011 at 9:58 am #

      Here is that Juvenile argument again…… “well So and SO” does it…… Why don’t you point out the facts that Al Gore has got right…. Just use the internet he invented to find them. Just bring one fact from any of his work that leads to a valid conclusion that can be corroborated independently.

      • Rob N. Hood June 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

        FACT: A.G. NEVER claimed to have invented the internet. Talk about juvenile arguments- you guys don’t even get out of the chute. As usual.

        • Jerk A. Knot June 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

          Bobie Boy you have to do better.

          My jab a Al Gore was saterical. Here is the quote I used for saterical purpouses. During a March 9, 1999 interview with CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. In response to Wolf Blitzer’s question: “Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley?”, Gore responded: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” As you can see my comment was baised on FACT. Now your turn. Give me an AL GORE position about Global warming that can be supported by Facts.

  32. paul wenum June 23, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    Gore facts are wonderful things, if you can find them.

  33. paul wenum June 24, 2011 at 11:01 pm #

    Could care less about the net. Climate change was the question. Your response? Based upon your post you cannot find one factual statement. If so, post your Gore “Facts.” Waiting.

  34. Rob N. Hood June 25, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    I was not the one who brought it up. Chastise Neil if you want to be rational and logical, oh nevermind…

  35. paul wenum June 25, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    Answer the simple question. You cannot I assume? Give us a factual statement by Al Gore about “Global warming” now called “Climate change” that is fact and not an assumption by a few IPCC alleged “sciencetists obviously excluding the teenager that claimed the glacial ice melt that was refuted? We are seriously awaiting and I sense you cannot present one FACTUAL statement can you? Facts speak such as documents. Present your evidence. Impatiently waiting.

  36. Rob N. Hood June 26, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    But but but you don’t like any of “my” facts, do you? What does it matter, really? It’s all opinion, then. Stupid game this.

  37. paul wenum June 26, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    You have yet to answer. Where’s the “Gore Facts” requested? By the way, it is not a game. Answer the question on Gore’s alleged facts as they pertain to Global Waming n/k/a Climate Change. Waiting and have been for numerous replies. Problem with an answer I take it?

  38. Jerk A. Knot June 27, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    Come on Robbie Boy play some more…. Don’t just pick up your toys and go home. We were having so much fun. I smashed your Al Gore fact above. I really want to talk about his claims in his movie not a one liner from a campain question he muffed (even thouh what he said was correct it just left the door open for a bashing). I am going to make it easy on you. I think every claim Al Gore Made in Inconveient Truth is wrong or an outright lie. Now all you have to do is find one that is true and you win.

  39. Rob N. Hood June 28, 2011 at 9:13 am #

    Neil has done a lot to provide you all with all the Al Gore “facts” you want or need. It’s funny that you think you have me cornered and you are finally having so much fun. That’s hilarious. Doesn’t take much for you, eh? You can just pretend you showed me up and out, and be all giddy about that. You will anyway, no matter what I post.

    E.g.: You “think every claim Al Gore made is wrong or an outright lie”. You just made my point, again. By that I mean why would I even bother, since that is the case…? Although I have done so in the past year many many times, but I am nearing the very end of my patience, which you are very happy about I’m sure, or don’t really care about very much. Either way. So, once again, you people need to learn logic and reasoning, until then it is completely useless to try to have any kind of discussion with you. You live in a self-absorbed bubble and you are happy there. You will stay there the rest of your lives. Good luck with that.

    • Jerk A. Knot June 28, 2011 at 10:57 am #

      What a joke… Seriously are you that self absorbed. We are in a discussion here about AGW and I have set you up to blast me and you cry that your patience is running out. Come on you are so superior to me you can do it. Just one fact on topic. Let’s go genius. Just GOOGLE it and find that one thing that A.G. asserted in his movie that is true. Just one. Put some intellectual effort into this. After all you are so much more logical and reasonable than I am. It should be no problem for you.

      PS I like the way you left out “in Inconvenient Truth” in your quote of me. That was really logical and reasonable. Sheer Genius!!!!!

      • Rob N. Hood June 29, 2011 at 9:14 am #

        Wow- your own genius is so great I cannot even see it. Why would googling something for you to shoot down no matter what be intellectually challenging for me or anyone for that matter? Why so angry Jerk? ( I didn’t leave “I.T.” out for any special reason other than perhaps typing laziness- you people can sure conjure up some paranoid theories on the fly, wow.)

        • Jerk A. Knot July 13, 2011 at 8:34 am #

          Me think it is more than typing layzness. It is more on the intelectualy lazy level.

  40. paul wenum June 29, 2011 at 12:18 am #

    Excuse me Robbie Boy, but you have yet to answer the direct question. What does it take absent blathering posts from you with no actual, factual answer. A simple question, give us simple reply as to Al Gore’s “factual Statements.” I personally am impatiently awaiting. You are like people I go after and find, that never give me a factual answer until pressed further. Prove me wrong that you are not like them. Waiting.

  41. Rob N. Hood June 29, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    Oh, you want a factual answer re: a Gore quote or theory? Do I seem that stupid to you? Why don’t you tell me which one of his quotes you will not dismiss immediately and out-of-hand and I will use that one. Besides that, in case you failed to notice, I have already conceded (among other things) that things like this really come down to OPINION. What is it about that you don’t understand?

    • Jerk A. Knot June 30, 2011 at 3:00 pm #

      Ok I will not dismiss any of his statements immediately and out of hand. I promise to show my work and reference my work with independent authors and supporting opinions from reputable sources. So pick any one of them. If I pick it you will claim I set you up. I am willing to fight this on your ground within the context of A.G’s movie An Inconvenient Truth. A.G. has done many thing that were biased in truth when he was the GOV of TN, and later as a Senator. I will admit that. I don’t even dislike the guy. BUT his movie is all a lie to set himself up to make billions on selling carbon credits. This is not about being hateful to you. I really don’t think you have a clue about life, politics, economics, or science. But I don’t hate you. I just feel sorry for someone who is so unhappy in life.

  42. paul wenum June 29, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    What I don’t understand is your failure to answer a direct question. Waiting.

  43. Rob N. Hood June 30, 2011 at 7:55 am #

    Just answered.

  44. paul wenum June 30, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Not looking for “Opinion” asked for factual statements that Gore et al states that make “Global Warming, n/k/a, “climate Change” a fact. Have yet to receive a direct factual response with details as you seem so capable of extracting from the net that Gore stated he invented. One last factual shot before you depart this site that can be verified as fact and not “opinion.” Assume that’s why you are leaving? See this with my opponents I go after daily. Simply disappear when presented with facts and asked to refute that which was stated. Rarely get an honest answer. “Pa Ka.”

  45. Rob N. Hood July 1, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    So you want Gore’s opinion rather than mine, or Soros’, or Glenn Beck’s? What’s the difference if it’s all opinion? This is a right-wing circular firing squad and I’m done. So sorry I failed you all and never gave an “honest” answer. You all are so superior to me that I cannot compete any longer. Congrats on winning another phyrric victory. You guys love those.

    • Jerk A. Knot July 1, 2011 at 12:53 pm #


      on this string you have been asked 2 questions. Both of them you have doged. Why? My opinion is that you cant answer a direct question because you would be pined down. I bet in a former life you were a labor union shop steward. They never give a straight answer either.

  46. Rob N. Hood July 1, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    I have answered it. Several times. As usual, you as a Righty cannot stand anything that is not your way… not unlike a young child. So it goes…

  47. Joe July 3, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    This Rob guy seems to not be able to answer any questions now know why global warming scare is a fraud.

  48. paul wenum July 6, 2011 at 12:37 am #

    Robbie Boy, I’m still waiting for exact quotes from Gore from your wide base of knowledge on alleged factual quotes from others. Is there a problem in quoting Gore’s FACTS? Address the question because we are getting darned bored awaiting your response. You have a problem with facts do you? Seems to be your major problem. Prove me and others wrong. I have clean up to do after the tornado as you ponder the questions raised. Awaiting impatiently. Sick of blather with no backup with Gore facts as requested.

    Of course, Gore, Soro’s and others would be proud of you for being a recalcitrant vessel being asked direct questions that you refuse to address. My God, you were trained good I must say. I could not have done a better job. Must have had similar mentors? ( Left V: Right) We are still impatiently awaiting……….

  49. Rob N. Hood July 7, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Yep, you got me. I am incapable of cutting and pasting any of Gore’s facts. I am sorry about this too since it would be so much fun to watch you all dismiss and deride anything no matter what I posted…(as you have done in the past so robotically)… really a shame we can’t all experience that together, again.

  50. Rob N. Hood July 7, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Pauly boy

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.