Consensus

August 6, 2011 | Filed under Al Gore,Global Warming | Posted by

Al Gore’s prescription needs refilling:

The former vice president dropped in on an Aspen Institute media forum titled “Networks and Citizenship” on Thursday and railed against corporate evildoers who put profit above society.

Gore referenced the book “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, which tells of how petroleum, steel, autos, utilities and others enlisted lobbyists to cloud the climate debate.

Gore recalled how not long ago tobacco giants “succeeded in delaying the implementation of the surgeon general’s report for 40 years – 40 years! In every one of those 40 years the average number of Americans killed by cigarettes each year exceeded the total number of Americans killed in all of World War II: 450,000 per year. My sister was one of them. … It was evil, evil, evil.”

The model of media manipulation used then, Gore said, “was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!” Gore exclaimed.

“When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again,” he continued. “There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! … It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.”

He wasn’t done.

The reality that’s being shared Mr. Gore is that you’re losing it… not just the global warming debate, but your freakin’ mind.

It might be time for an intervention.

H/T to Doug Powers.

« « Actually, at this point, I do
Their Plastic Roots Are Showing » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on August 6, 2011.
Filed under Al Gore, Global Warming.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!

  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • Anonymous

    Cliff Notes for Gore’s speech:
    Wahhhhhh! People are using science to mess up my Chakrah. Wahhhhhh!

  • Anonymous

    I agree with you Gorbert!!  You’re nutso!

  • Anonymous

    God bless you, Tipper. I don’t know how you put up with both the ego and the crazy for so long.

    • Anonymous

      She must belong to the same club as a certain wookie?

    • Anonymous

       As I recall back on Jun 01, 2010, Tipper told him to pack his crank theories and get the hell out.

  • Frank O’Connell

    Actually, Rick, Gore is right. Oil interests have paid for “science” to counter the real scientific evidence.

    I guess there’s one born every minute… but then, you never said Gore was wrong.. just that he made you teh angry.

    Here’s just one example.

    “‘One of the world’s most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.‘
    This somewhat contradicts that [Harvard researcher Willie] Soon in a
    2003 US senate hearing said that he had ‘not knowingly been hired by,
    nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had
    taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN
    Framework Convention on Climate Change.’”

    Liberals might suggest that he was paid $1 million to do their bidding, but we Hobbits know it was just a coincidence.

    Right?

    Hobbit Powers UNITE!

  • Frank O’Connell

    Here’s more information Rick couldn’t find on Google.

    A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most
    comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the
    tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same
    organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of
    climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report,
    ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a
    network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on
    global warming science

    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

    ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection
    of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors
    that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change
    contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has
    received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by
    Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is
    affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil.
    Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the
    Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a
    Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate
    change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is
    affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

    Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not
    changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13
    scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper.
    This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing
    to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been
    able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable
    climate scientists.

    Personally I don’t see anything wrong with oil companies funding research. After all, all you have to do is watch one or two of those Exxon commercials on Fox News to see that THEY are the good duys in all of this…

    Right, hobbits! I mean, why would the oil companies intentioanl fund lies? Next you’ll be telling us that the tobacco companies did the same thing! Guffaw!

    Hobbit Powers UNITE! Stand up to scientists and their fancy shmancy “research”….

    So what if the future of the planet is at stake! I stand with EXXON!

    • Anonymous

      Apparently Albert’s prescription isn’t the only one that needs a refill.

    • PBunyan

      I wonder if it’s worth it to point out to Frank that he has “The Wonder Twins” and “The Lord of the Rings” confused and while he might be attempting to be clever he really just comes across as being an even a bigger moron than usual.  No, you’re right… It’s not worth it.

      • Anonymous

        Frank needs a girlfriend. I’ve heard that match.com is pretty good.

        • Anonymous

          Don’t be a homophobe and assume that Frank swings forward.  It’s the 21st century.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        It was kind of amusing the first dozen times…

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    I suspect Frank is the misbegotten bastard son of Jay Tea, who tried to hide his shame in some institution but found Frank was too young to be in Congress.

    • Frank O’Connell

      Makes sense to me!

    • Anonymous

      While it would explain why I had a certain elective surgery about 10 years ago (after Frank, why would I want to risk that happening again?!?!?), I fervently deny paternity of Frank and demand you tract that gross libel, sir.

      J.

  • Anonymous

    Well, he’s still peddling “Bullshit” so SNAFU.

  • Anonymous

    I suppose it is just a coincidence that many of the institutes, such as Heartland Institute of whom, recently Doug Robertson on this blog, pasted a an entire post, an which is funded by Big Tobacco and still deny the effects of second hand smoke.

    Ths same neanderthals, flat earthers, who opposed who challenged the science of second hand smoke for so many years -I imagine most of you felt the same way. It would be interesting to find out- have the same beliefs of the invalidation of anthropogenic globalwarming.

    In 2007, all  American 62 conservative political  blogs, who filled out a survey unamiously  disbelieved AGW, even though all climate scientists said that is a growing phenomenon.  No wonder so many of you want the federal government to get out of the field of education, and  environmental protection and leave that to  libertarian Institutes funded by big oil and big tobacco whose intere$ts, and disregard for the health of Americans so nicely dovetail with your prejudices.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.laprarie Michael Laprarie

    Something the left doesn’t seem to get here, is that tobacco is a voluntary choice on the part of the smoker.  Yes it is addictive.  Yes the tobacco companies manipulated scientific studies and continued strong advertising campaigns well after the harmful affects of tobacco were known.  But picking up that first cigarette is a voluntary decision.  No one in the government forces you to do it under penalty of law.  And no one forces you to keep smoking, although your tobacco tax dollars are used “for the children” in the form of Medicaid subsidies.

    But global warming and the fallout from the junk science behind its alleged proof is being set up as official government policy, with requisite taxes, fees, etc. enforced by penalty of law.  Think cap and trade is a billion-dollar ripoff more or less designed to funnel wealth from the West into Third World nations or struggling former Communist Bloc members?  Too bad – you’ll be forced to pay for it, just like you’ll be forced to pay for subsidies for giant windmill and solar cell farms while decades or centuries worth of cheaper, far more efficient fossil fuel sits in the ground.

    Meanwhile, a handful of huge companies, financiers, and political opportunists have set themselves up to earn billions from carbon trading and other unnecessary schemes and regulations that we will have no choice but to pay for — if Cap and Trade becomes law and the EPA keeps regulating the fossil fuel industry into submission.  Anyone care to ask Gore how his wealth increased tenfold (and now, far more than that) after he dropped politics and started selling global warming full time?   

    • Anonymous

      Second hand smoke is not a voluntary choice for the second hand passive smoker. This is brought up about Al Goré´s financial hypocrisy ad nauseum. He is a retired patrician politician. No one outside of the US cares less about Al Gore. This is a world wide phenomena. Carbon trading and the carbon tax are not on the table in the US. Hey because there are so many war profiteers in every war and will always be, do we disregard the cause or need  for going to war. We are just talking about recognition of the problem, irrespective of whose interests will be improved or not.

      • https://plus.google.com/114041580398058374552/posts McGehee

        I remember a study purporting to show that secondhand smoke was even more harmful than firsthand smoke.

        I think that one went down the memory hole when somebody pointed out it actually made a case for smoking.

        • Frank O’Connell

          Yep, a teh STRONG case for smoking.. because if second-hand smoke causes disease faster than smoking — of course you’d choose to smoke and then leave the room when other smokers are around.

          So what if YOUR smoking causes disease for those family members you live with and who ride in the car with you, or just happen to be downwind while you choose the healthy path of smoking. If you pray they will be healed.

          Makes perfect sense to us Hobbits.

          Hobbit Powers UNITE!

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Michael,

      To this day the vast majority of Lung Cancer patients have never used nor been substantially exposed to tobacco.

      Yes, Tobacco use does increase one’s likely hood of contracting various forms of cancer, and (more statistically significantly) emphysema.  But if all tobacco disappeared tomorrow, both cancer and emphysema would still be with us.

  • jim_m

    The warmists can whine all they want about “Big Oil” and “Big Tobacco” and other bogey men of the left having paid huge sums of money to counter AGW claims.  But all that still doesn’t get them past the real facts:

    Fact: The Mann hockey stick was pure academic fraud (one that has been publicly acknowledged) and the IPCC report that was based upon it was a total fraud.

    Fact: The ClimateGate emails from the HADCRU demonstrate coordinated fraud including interference with publication of research, falsifying data, and interference with tenure of academics with differing viewpoints.

    Fact:  The sea levels haven’t risen.

    Fact:  The North Pole still has ice.

    Fact: 11 of the 13 polar bear populations are increasing in number not declining.

    Fact:  Since 1998 the global temperature has declined not increased.

    Fact: Most of the data collected today in the US is based on data collection sites that are compromised and some 80% violate the standards for weather stations in ways that cause them to record readings that are at least 1 degree warmer than the actual temp.

    The fact is that global warming really is junk science.  Anyone who bothers to investigate how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere (0.03%) and how much man contributes to it (~14%) will realize that such a small amount of CO2 (0.0042%) is dwarfed by other factors (Solar radiation, water vapor, etc).

    The reason most people now do not believe in global warming is because hey have taken a rational view of the information at hand and decided that the warmists have lied about the data and people can see that warming is not occurring.  People can also see that the agenda of the warmists has never been to save the planet (Does anyone believe that a person who really thought that the world was going to end because of global warming would really jet around the globe expending thousands if not millions of tons of CO2 in order to tell people that releasing CO2 is bad?).  No the real agenda of the warmists has always been control.

    • Anonymous

      Since 1998 the global temperature has declined not increased. What planet are you living in?Most of you probably never thought we would land on the moon, as our poster Rick Rice exclaims, in an earlier post “Those were definitely the days for NASA and for the country. American exceptionalism at its finest. A time when, if only for a moment, Americans set aside differences and united in applauding one of Man’s greatest, if not the greatest, achievements” Now NASA is suddenly junk science . So all rigorous NASA scientists who somemhow manged to pull of mankind´s greatest achievements must be only experts on the climate of the moon, but uniformly junk scientists with regard to the atmosphere and the climate of earth.

      I don´t know why denying global warming/climate change unites all conservatives, (except for Romney,) you seem to wear it as a badge of pride, even when  you can´t find one single climate scientist  to agree with you.

      • jim_m

        Hasn’t warmed
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/01/july-uah-global-temperature-up-slightly/#more-44466

        NASA data shows computer models are false:
        http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

        30% of weather stations show cooling trend across their total data:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/04/analysing-the-complete-hadcrut-yields-some-surprising-results/#more-44552

        >85% of weather stations misreport temperature by a full degree and 64% by more than 2degrees:
        http://www.surfacestations.org/

        Actually, you can find plenty of climate scientists who will say that yes, the earth has gotten warmer, BUT there is little evidence it is from human activity and that the greater likelihood is that it is related to solar cycles.  The idea that there is some monolithic consensus is a fabrication of the fascist left.

        • Anonymous

          I shouldn´t have said one single climate scientist there is always one, maybe two defectors. D. Roy Spencer got his PHD in meterology science,  (about the same thing) and he has many scientific critics, questioning his science. He also believes in intelligent design over evolution. He doesn´t deny the globe is warming, he just says it is by predominantly natural factors.

          • jim_m

            He doesn´t deny the globe is warming, he just says it is by predominantly natural factors.

            And he has thousands of other scientists who agree with him. If the left wants to be taken seriously about science they need to stop demonizing everyone they disagree with just as they do with political ideas.  Argue about the data not about the person.

          • Anonymous

            They don’t argue the data, they ‘fudge’ it!

          • Frank O’Connell

            Yeah, they fudge it then they smuggle it into the country through a network of Obama-sponsored mosques.

            At least, that’s what I read on a wright wing blog;.

          • Anonymous

            I agre, but the right does a pretty good at demonizing Al Gore, when he is  really only a celebrity, and by no means a scientist.

          • jim_m

            He claims to speak for science and he demonizes anyone who dares to express a differing opinion.  He has attempted to preempt discussion by saying the science is settled, when it is definitely not. 

            Yes he is only a celeb, but he pretends to be a scientist and no one demonizes him more than he demonizes his ideological opponents.

          • Anonymous

            I’ll stop mocking him and calling him a hypocrite when he acts on a personal level like he believes what he says.  Shrinks his carbon foot print, rather than watch ir grow along with his speaking fees.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Don’t forget his ever expanding girth as well…

          • jim_m

            Or Heaven forbid that we should believe in the rantings of a man who believes the God created the universe:

            I want to know how God created this world. I’m not interested in this or
            that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to
            know His thoughts; the rest are details.

              That was Albert Einstein well known to the left as a conservative crank whose ideas about science and the world around us are not to be trusted.

            You see Steve?  Attack the data not the person, otherwise you look like a fool.

          • Anonymous

            Yes Einstein, also said ¨God does not play dice with the world”  if my memory serves me correct. Einstein had a philosophical  issue with accepting quantum mechanics for that reason. I have no problem with scientists believing God, but when they dismiss  evolution as only a theory like this crackpot scientist says, without the context that the theory of gravity is only a theory too but it explains why things fall perfectly in the mananer they  or the theory of relativty explains how the universe works, as the fundamental reigning cosmological principle.

          • jim_m

            Ummm. Evolution is only a theory.  Otherwise we would call it a law of nature.  The fact is that evolution has not been proven.  By its nature it can never be fully proven.  It explains some things but not others.  The main weakness is that it cannot explain the development of complex biological systems. 

            Gradual evolution does not explain these systems because in order for them to exist multiple advances need to occur simultaneously and that is contrary to the theory of gradualism.  Punctuated equilibrium doesn’t work because there is no evidence genetically that vast genome changing events ever occur.  Evolutionary theory explains species change but it cannot reach a reasonable explanation of how life arose, at least not one supported by anything beyond supposition.  Evolution remains a theory because actual proof is very difficult to get.  We can explain things in terms of how evolution would explain them but we cannot find actual proof. 

            Evolution’s power comes in that it can be used to explain, but it cannot predict.  Even “the survival of the fittest” is ultimately a tautology.  It explains why some survive but cannot predict which will survive.  How do we know which will survive? The fittest will. Which are the fittest? The ones that survive.

            ID is accepted by those who have grow tired of the empty group think that has become modern evolutionary theory.  There may be a better explanation to how life arose but evolution won’t lead us to that theory.  Current evolutionary science discourages any discussion on alternate possibilities.

  • Anonymous

    There is no valid mechanism for CO2 creating global warming:http://nov47.com/ntyg.htmlEven if there were a valid mechanism, human behavior has no meaninful impact on levels of CO2:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Al Gore.  Same guy who told the elderly not to worry, their Social Security funds were in a “lock box”.  Same guy, when asked by a Congressional Committee; if he stood to make money off of Global Warming, instead through a tantrum asking how they could question his integrity.

    You don’t have any “integrity” fatso!

    Let’s see you practice what you preach.

  • jim_m

    When you get down to it, the people who cannot see that Keynesianism is not working, despite the abundant evidence that Keynesian policy has destroyed the economy of this nation, are the same people who cannot see that human CO2 production has nothing to do with climate. 

    You cannot penetrate their consciousness with data.  They know what they know.  It is religion.  Just as they know that spending more and more money will somehow revive an economy choking on debt, they know that despite any evidence actually supporting their beliefs that man is causing the earth to get warmer (despite the fact that it hasn’t gotten any warmer for over a decade now).

    The left sees science as finding data to support the conclusions of your belief, not finding explanations for the data you have.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    So Frank must have a government source to achieve “credibility.” Never mind that the grant process is as corrupt as it gets. Essentially, “If you agree to reach a pre-determined conclusion, you may have a grant.”

    Regarding the “Surgeon general’s warning” strawman, how much difference did it make? As far as I can tell, if accomplished virtually nothing. Gore believes people are so stupid that they can’t discern that cigarettes are bad for them unless the government tells them so. After the government “told them so” they went right on doing it like nothing happened, suggesting that consumer’s calculated risks were already built in. The obstinate consumer then required “further measures” — wholesale hounding of a legitimate industry, huge tax burdens on the product, and the virtual outlawing of smoking. If there is an object lesson here it is that the public had best be prepared for government force to control its lives to an ever greater extent using “global warming” as a pretext, unless the fascist government is somehow prevented from doing to.

  • Anonymous

    Wait, so now it’s tobacco smoking that’s creating Global Warming?  OK, that makes sense…you see the little glowing tips of people’s cigarettes…and they must really really hot.  So ya, all those cigarettes are what’s heating up our atmosphere. 

    And sometimes people throw them on the ground when they’re still hot and crush them out and THAT is what is making the interior of the Earth so hot!  Because ”two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees”

    Is THAT what alGore is talking about? 

  • Anonymous

    Losing it?

    Nah.

    Long gone!

    Once upon a time, in
    the Good old days before first Lurch Kerry then Missus Billy-Bubbah
    Blythe then Buraq Hussayn in their turn all succeeded to the title:
    World’s Most Dangerous Dullard; second-generation traitor Al-Fredo
    Gore-leone inherited both his senate seat and his tendency to engage in 
    un-and-anti-American activities from
    his Soviet-agent senator father.

    But Al-Fredo’s real claim to fame is that the foreign owner-managers of the
    treasonous, recidivist, lying, looting, mass-murdering, co-serial-rapist
    Billy-Bubbah Blythe (“Cli’ton”) Crime family needed an absolute
    assurance Blythe’s recidivism and treasonous activities would not lead to his
    early removal from office. And what better way to see to that than to
    make a retard, VP?

  • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick Rice

    I’ve always wondered why research funded by corporations are immediately considered to be suspect by our global warming religionistas but government funded research is always pristine and trustworthy…

    • jim_m

      Because science for the left is not about data it is about ideology.  So the scientist must be ideologically pure in order to accept his science.  The science is accepted not based upon the quality of the data but based on the quality of the ideology of the scientist. 

      The data is unimportant. Just as with the IPCC which misstated the conclusions of the data as supporting their ideology even though many scientists complained that the IPCC overstated their findings.  The left then took the IPCC document as gospel even though the data was flawed and sometimes fraudulent.  They accepted the IPCC as gospel because the ideology was correct not because the data was good.

    • Anonymous

      Nail on the head, my boy.

  • Anonymous

    So when they announce  on Tuesday when all the national data has been collated  for July, that last month was officially the hottest month, ever  recorded in the USA since they started keeping records, well over a century ago, how to you rationalize that? sun spots, an anomly or some other method of cognitive dissonance, the way smokers feel their smoking won´t likely  effect them or other people, despite the evidence.

     It takes conservatives time to change your beliefs, ( a decade or two) but in 2005 circa, I remember when I first  started commenting on this subject, on this blog, you were much more sure of yourselves, that anthropogenic global warming would never occur..and now Romney even believes in it. We went through this with acid rain, the ozone hole in the Antartica, all the guffaws, from the same dinosaurs and finally recognition except for some like Dr, Roy Spencer,  your leading apostole who doesn’t even recognize the  important contribution of Darwin to our understanding of zoology.

    • jim_m

      Because the data is fatally flawed:
      http://www.surfacestations.org/

      And weather isn’t climate except when the warmists want it to be.

      • Anonymous

        Just like a budget is not a budget if you don’t submit it!

      • Anonymous

        Exactly!! I have included a primer on the Global Warming fraud. In part 6, Coleman explains that the number of temperature observation stations has been reduced from 6,000 to 1,000. Most of the eliminated stations are from cooler, rural areas (like mountaintops). The ones that still exist are in areas which have recently been urbanized. Therefore, the temperature being measured today is being compared to an invalid baseline, which was compiled by using temperatures gathered in cool areas where there are no longer observation stations.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

        • jim_m

          The omission of data from cooler areas is intentional. Just as the omission of the medieval warm period has been used to help create the impression that the earth is warmer now than it ever was (yes warmists it was warmer in the middle ages than it is today and England was still above water).

          Warmism is pseudoscience where they already have the conclusion and they are desperately trying to make the data fit.  The list of academic fraud is long and getting longer.  The poles are still frozen, no islands have slipped beneath the waves and polar bears are increasing in number.    Those are facts all contrary to the predictions of warmism yet the warmists know that they are right even though everything they say is wrong.

        • Anonymous

          Dang it again!

          Here’s the Coleman link:

      • Anonymous

        Aren’t they predictable with the “weather doesn’t equal climate” argument right up to the point that weather supports their position. Most people would see that as, what’s the term again….

    • Anonymous

      “So when they announce on Tuesday when all the national data has been collated for July, that last month was officially the hottest month, ever recorded in the USA since they started keeping records, well over a century ago, how to you rationalize that?”

      Right, one century’s data vs at least 100,000 years since Man has roamed the planet.  The sun is reaching it’s peak 11-year cycle now.  I bet next summer will be even hotter before it starts to cool again.  

      So, if August comes around to the end and the “national data” says this month was the coolest August ever, what say you then?

      • Anonymous

        James Cloniner, I haven´t heard  one reliable refer source refer  to sun spots as  a climate change/global warning phenomena. The sun thank God is very reliable, and enormous compared to the earth and I assume its´rays are very consistent. There will be fluctations in seasons, for instance  severer winter storms, as the warmer air moves pregressively north causing more snow when its  meet the cold Arctic air as occurred last winter in eastern USA. The envelope keeps trending  upward.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder when this fat POS is going to act like there is a crisis. As far as I’m concerned he’s the biggest problem the global warming side has, he has no credibility they would do well to kick his ass to the curb.

  • Anonymous

    If global warming is real, why does Al Gore pay extra to heat his indoor pool?

    • Frank O’Connell

      Yeah  – he doesn’t even have an indoor pool and yet he pays to heat it — why? WHY?

      Hobbit Powers UNITE!