Gore, very cowardly, refuses to debate any gw sceptics.  The reason seems to be that he can’t defend his theory.  Why else in the world wouldn’t he stand up and argue for what he vehemently believes is real?  I think it is simply b/c he knows he would be blown away by real scientists who would make mincemeat of him and the nonsense he promotes.  The world deserves a full-blown investigation.

We’re all about to have Obama stick his hands deeper into our pockets to prove to the European Socialists that he knows how to play by their rules. Mainly based on the “documentary” made by “Super Con-Man” Al Gore.
  I think the Nobel Peace Prize next year should go to Michael Moore. You know,  keeping in line with the Nobel Committee’s reasoning.
  Read “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” if you want to understand some of the errors Al Gore has made.

You are kidding, right Carl?  A tissue of lies?  You’ve investigated which charges?  What are your findings and where did you find them?  Come on Carl enlighten all of us right-wingers.

For example the charge that he claimed he “invented” the internet. He did not use the verb “invent”. Look it up in AIM’s quotations section. He was called a liar for saying that Manhattan would be flooded if the Greenland ice cap melted. But it’s a scientific fact. Anyway, discussing an issue like what’s gonna happen over the next century or so, it’s no use to talk about the most likely outcome, as the right insists on doing. The outcome that matters is the worst possible outcome, because that’s the one we must prevent. So there’s a lot of very speculative stuff going on that’s very important, and you cannot approach a complex issue like that with a jackhammer, as you do. I find it a waste of timnme to have to wade through all the distortions and sarcasm I find in right-wing literature on environmental issues, trying to figure out what’s true and whay you made up. I will be glad to read critique of Al Gore, provided that it is balanced and genuinely interested in the issues, not the monstruously malicious rumors I read in the right-wing press.

Right-wingers are shocked at Al Gore´s lies. Just imagine, making those reckless statements about polar bears! Gore´s rival in 2000, George Bush II, has never made any incorrect claims about polar bears.

But that’s just because George Bush does not screw around with chicken-#### lies. George Bush is a big-time liar. He lied us into Iraq to please his capitalist cronies at Exxon, BP & Texaco. At the behest of the G.O.P., scribblers like Judith Miller wrote mendacious pro-war propaganda in the NY Times. She is now permanently enshrined as an adjunct scholar at a Republican think tank. The head of British intelligence leaked his notes of a meeting with US envoys, stating that the White House was “fixing the intelligence” to justify a war. This note was never disavowed. Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell now admits he was duped by phony intelligence provided by the White House into making his big anti-Iraq speech at the UN that led up to the invasion.

In 2000 the liberals foolishly compared George Bush II to Adolf Hitler. Now that Bush has departed the scene, we can soberly assess George Bush´s historical role and compare him objectively to Al Gore. Al Gore certainly does not cut very dashing figure compared to George Bush in his flight suit.  In historical retrospect, Bush bears a striking resemblance, not to Adolf Hitler, but to Josef Stalin. With some Al Capone thrown in for good measure.

People who studiously ignore these historical facts shouldn’t quibble about a couple of polar bears.

Dear Mr Tremble: Perhaps global warming was just a passing climate phase that’s now over, perhaps everything will turn out fine. But that is not the standard of reasoning required to make life-and-death decisions about the future of this planet. The current (or recent) head of the American Economic Association, Nick Stern, was elected to the position on the strength of the Stern Report he wrote for the British Government, in which he takes global warning very seriously indeed. And that reflects the attitude of the entire scientific community. Global warming is a concept accepted by the overwhelming majority of climatologists. Who knows? They may be wrong. But I’ll take their word for it until further notice.

I’m more interested in the catastrophic effects of polution than the global warming controvesy. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO EMBRACE UNCRITICALLY ANY IDEA IN WHICH DISCUSSION IS CENSORED.  I honestly think that is the basis of all the global warming skeptism. (Does that sound reasonable?)  I can understand the impetus for social and political PC, which is often based on partisan politics in which propaganda and ad hominem attacks rule.  Although this is certainly not the first time the world has been subjected to “scientific PC” (Ask Galileo), to the outright censorship of empirical arguments. Though politics is subject to consensus, the idea is alien to science.  Subjecting science to PC is not just extraordianrily ignorant, it is absolutely insane. Certainly if we are going to ruin our economy with things like “cap and trade,” etc., the public has a right to full and open debate.  Of course, over-population, the root of so many present and future evils, is seldom, almost never discussed in conjunction with global warming, a case if there ever was one of the “Emperor has no clothes!”

Carl Stoll, You are right, GW will cause serious problems in the future. I have a neighbor who is in her late 80s. When she was a girl growing up in Outback Queensland the sun was so hot even green grass was burning..so when this takes place in the future even more people will be affected by it because they will not be prepared for it because Al Gore and others have their own agenda for saying what they have said. For those who are Politically Correct they are actually being Information Incorrect.

Carl Stoll probably is Al Gorge, or he works for ACORN.

In 1974 NOAA put floating temperature measuring devices all over the worlds Oceans. The highest it EVER was measured was in 1989 at a .04 increase. That was also the year that the earth’s orbit was closer to the sun which runs on a regular cycle.

Newer satellites have the ability to penetrate water and ice. The reason a piece of Ice the size of Rhode Island fell into the Arctic Ocean, was due to the fact that it was forced by newer Ice forming on the cap. The satellite also detected mountains of new Ice growing under the Arctic waters…I do not believe that an excess of snow caused that to form.

Mark Haprin of the EPA, the senior most scientist in the EPA, published a report on Global Cooling. When he sent the report out to news agency’s Obama had him fired for breaking the Chain of Command, although that is how it has always been done.

You are going to realize the money you no longer have to pay for an 80% increase in Utilities when Cap and Trade passes.

Mt. St. Helens put more C02 into the air than all humans have in the past 2000 years, but the earth always repairs itself. The Ozone Hole has ALWAYS been there, it is a natural balance to allow Carbon Gases to escape.

Gore is a shill, and his only reason in Money, period. He has made himself hundreds of Millions perpetuating this scam.

Bush would not sign the Kyoto Treaty until Russia, China, and India would agree to sign.

This reminds me of Obama’s promise to post all Bills online for five days before they would be voted on, he also promised “No more Pork”. Now the Senate Democrats are at this very moment behind closed doors, discussing the soon to be Social Health Care.

What is really bad, is all the Obamanistas following him like the pied piper, straight into Marxism.

Lest we forget, the U. S. Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol by a vote of 95-0.

To paraphase Glen Beck, you cannot argue with idiots.  Global-Warmers are not amenable to facts or to empirical science.  They only need a few selective oversimplified cause-and-effect examples, and even if those proofs they have decided upon as fact (by scientific-journalistic-sociologist consensus), are not strictly correct, it doesn’t seem to matter to them.  Global Warming is a matter of faith, to them, a brotherhood of ego-involved and profit-minded believers, who have raised a belief in global warming to the dizzying heights of PC.  They have made up their minds, and THE ISSUE IS CLOSED. WARNING TO DISBELIEVERS: YOU ARE NEARING THE TIME WHEN ANY OPPOSITION TO GLOBAL WARMING WITH EARN YOU THE OBAMA MANDATED “RACIST” LABEL.

Wesley (re: #20 - (The New Homeland Security Bill involving the Internet)
Wes, I hope that this has nothing to do with a bill mentioned in the following email I received yesterday from Ron Paul’s site.

Here’s an excerpt -

[Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality.  That’s why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, “The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.”
Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to “shut down” all private internet in the event of a “cybersecurity emergency” — a vague term that the President can define at his discretion.
And Rockefeller’s bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants.
That’s why this expansive new power grab should really be called “The Internet Takeover Bill.”
As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised.
It’s also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media.
And we’ve already seen the Obama Administration’s reaction to any online speech they deem “fishy.”
In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends’ and neighbors’ emails to help Barack Obama silence the “disinformation” about the Obamacare bills in Congress.
Well, now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man.
If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly — by ordering a shutdown of all Americans’ access to the Internet.
That’s right.  Under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shut down access to the Internet.

But that’s not all.

Even outside of periods of White House-declared “emergency,” this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed “cybersecurity professionals.”
If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they’re federally-licensed bureaucrats.
And God forbid you like to visit websites that spread “fishy disinformation” like free-market health-care solutions:  Passing socialized medicine could soon become enough of an “emergency” for Barack Obama to shut them down.
You know, for the public good.]

Is there a connection?

Thanks Wes,

If this Marxist rogue and his Trilateral buddy, Rockefeller, get this egregious violation of free speech passed, we are in for some dark days ahead, indeed!
I’m definitely going to contact my congressman about this.

Wesley,

The level of resistance from the GOP of Cybersecurity Act of 2009 will be interesting to watch.
Glenn Beck is supposed to cover this on his show today (10/19).

One has to be flabbergasted at this latest example of the most obvious, outright Leftist propaganda I’ve read on these blogs.  Effective propaganda requires has at least some factual basis, at least the proverbial grain of truth on which the clever propagandist can base his distortions, but this Leftist doesn’t even have that.  I usually try to avoid all the back and forth posturings that seem to inundate these forums, but having lived through all the anti-Bush lies and anti-Bush and anti-American slanting of the news for eight years (including the vociferous attacks on Cheney), and seeing now the opposite, all the pro-Obama propaganda which seems to pass for news these days (Including the ignoring of Gore’s gross distortions [a kind word here for something much worse—read the latest NEWSWEEK if you want to be shocked by outright leftist propaganda in print], I must protest.  This latest is really beyond the pale.

I assume you will include PBS and NPR.  Also, I will not accept the absence of the Leftist anti-American propaganda, the absence of anti-Bush lies, or even the absence of the blatant Leftist slant predominant in US media (NYT, MSNBC, e.g.,) as proof of pro-American bias.

Mr. Stoll,

Please provide proof of your allegations, or else do not say them. Last night’s election targeted two of the most vociferous Bush Haters, Corizine, and Creigh Deeds. Bill Owens came very close to a defeat by an unknown everyday Joe with no political experience, to mention hardly and personality (not to put the man down). Had the GOP not supported Scozzafava in the first place, Doug Hoffman would have pulled it off. I am saddened by the GOP nominating someone so liberal, more liberal than most Democrats, then turns around and supports the Democrat after promising she would support Hoffman.

The GOP should take a lesson from Scozzafava, become a sheep in wolves clothing to get into office, but I do not believe the GOP/Conservatives are that low.

As for your Media Rant, the former MSM (Mainstream Media) now known as the LFM (Liberal Fringe Media) such as ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, most all newspapers, and many magazines, all have become more like a Government Run System.

Those Media Outlets were Bush Haters really came out of the walls. All Polls taken by the Media themselves, Gallup, Rasmussen, Harris, USA Today/CBS, all had the same results that the all News Outlets other than Fox (they for some reason not counted), showed that 98% of the Media was pro Democrat/Liberal.

The Polls on Fox News were split:

Republican: 40%
Democrat:  40%
Independent: 10%

Without a doubt, MSNBC is the most hateful, vile, and sickening; they should be taken off the air. Had they been on a Non-Cable channel, the FCC would have banned them for many of their crude, nasty remarks. They are the ones who started calling the legitimate TEA Parties (all races, all political Parties) “Teabaggers”. Honestly until I read the News, the word teabagger had a sexual meaning. I looked it up on the Internet, it turned out to be a Homosexual position, bunch of sick people who should have been fired, and the Station Sanctioned.

You set there complaining about something you obviously know nothing about, while the Media does not tell us the truth, that truth is that Obama is turning this country into something unrecognizable. This man could not even run a McDonald’s, but does know how to run the greatest Nation on earth into the ground.

Dear Wesley in Dallas:

You make some very interesting claims about the media, most of which I am not qualified to comment on.

Many serious academics write about the media. I am thinking for example of Harold Wilensky, who in his book “Rich Democracies” (Univ of Calif Press 2002, p 154) writes that there are three principal theories of why the media say what they do: (1) there’s the theory that says that the media say what they say to advance the interests of the owners of the mass media; (2) there’s the theory that says media content is determined by the occupational and practical activities that must be carried out in order to produce the news, transmit it and present it; and (3) there’s the theory that stresses differences between country and country, depending on local regulations, traditions, etc. Professor Wilensky writes: “in my view the first theory (no. 1) explains less than the other two (nos. 2 & 3).”

In other words, after having considered various theories and the evidence supporting each theory, he concludes that the theory according to which the media supports the interests of their respective owners, which you apparently espouse, is less backed up by the evidence than the other two theories. That does not mean of course that there is NO evidence to back it up, just that it is apparently not such an important factor.

A study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research “What Drives the Political Slant of Daily Newspapers?” http://www.nber.org/digest/jul07/w12707.html reaches the conclusion “The ideology of the owners doesn’t correlate in any significant way with the political slant of their newspapers’ coverage. When a single owner owns multiple papers, the authors find that each paper’s language is tailored to its own market, rather than toeing a single, corporate line.”

On the other hand I don’t necessarily completely agree with these authors and tend to agree with you that there are certain cases of clear political manipulation. In some cases, like Fox News, for example, the owners are waging an ideological crusade, presumably in their own interest.

In my opinion there is strong evidence for a conspiracy, but NOT a liberal conspiracy, but rather a conservative conspiracy, in the presidential campaign of 2000. The two best-known reputedly liberal newspapers in the country, the New York Times and the Washington Post, both assigned reporters to cover Al Gore’s campaign who describe themselves as “conservatives” (Ceci Connolly and another broad). These two journalists then proceeded systematically to ridicule Gore throughout the campaign, which no doubt cost him a fair number of votes. Meanwhile G.W. Bush’s correspondents were enthusiastic about him & “got the message out”.

My assertion of the tendentious press coverage of Gore is confirmed by a conservative journalist of impeccable reputation, Harold Evans. I stumbled upon these words by Evans through a link provided by Accuracy in Media, no less. Harold Evans was the editor of the Sunday Times (London) for 14 years, which he left over editorial differences with Rupert Murdoch. He has been the editorial director of U.S. News and World Report, the New York Daily News, and Atlantic Monthly magazine… etc. No suspicion of liberal tendencies here, are there? Well, Harold Evans wrote the following in The Guardian of Nov 1, 2008:

“… the American press likes to think of itself as more superior and detached than it actually is. In 2000, the mainstream media did a great deal to elect George Bush by portraying Al Gore as a boastful liar.”

Now according to your theory that cannot have happened. But it did. So your theory needs some retouching, to say the least.
In my work in economic research I have found that many things people say sound perfectly reasonable and convincing – until you verify the facts. And even when you know the facts, like Wilensky and the authors of the NBER article, there can be disagreements over their interpretation.

So just because your theory sounds reasonable to you, who are apparently not even a specialist on the media, does not mean it’s true.

There’s another serious objection to your NY Times theory: The New York Times journalist, Judith Miller, was instrumental in persuading the American public in 2002 that President Bush had solid grounds to suspect Saddam Hussein of producing weapons of mass destruction.

“What?” you say, ”the NY Times supporting Dubya?”

I cite now from the Wikipedia article on Judith Miller (2009-11-12) “Miller [wrote] “Mr. Hussein’s dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq’s push to improve and expand Baghdad’s chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war.” Although Miller conceded that some intelligence experts found the information on Iraq’s weapons programs “spotty,” she did not report specific and detailed objections, including a report filed with the US government more than a year before Miller’s article appeared by retired Oak Ridge National Laboratory physicist, Houston G. Wood III, who concluded that the tubes were not meant for centrifuges.

Shortly after Miller’s article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller’s story as a partial basis for going to war. Subsequent analyses by various agencies all concluded that there was no way the tubes could have been used for uranium-enrichment centrifuges. Miller said of the controversy, “[M]y job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq’s arsenal.”

In other words the New York Times journalist Miller thought her job was uncritically to tell us what G.W. Bush thought, and if she had any doubts, to shut up about it. The moment her shady story was published, the administration pointed to it to justify attacking Iraq. It would seem here that the NY Times was acting as a GOP mouthpiece. Mrs. Miller now has a cozy little job in a Republican think tank.

I realize it’s very frustrating to find that your theories don’t agree with the facts, but believe me: it happens to everyone.