The neocons are at it again–they’ve spent years fighting envorimental reform and now are trying to slander Al Gore. Here’s the facts (look them up in the news stories if you don’t want to take my word for it:
1) a neocon group (Tennessee Center for Policy research) claimed Gore uses a lot of electricity and is being a hypocrite.
2) This group lied about contacting the power company–and the figures they published for Gore’s power use were exaggerated.
3) Al Gore is currently in the process of converting his home to solar energy
4) In the meantime, Gore is purchasing carbon credits (at hs own expense) to balance out his energy use.
Oh dear! Seems like the neocons aren’t being entirely honest. Imagine that!
More Pages:
- Solar Power: Facts About Renewable Energy? (solar, Wind, Etc) Please Answer? (5/29/2011)
- Solar Products: Is It Bad To Looked Straight Up To A Solar Eclipse Without Any Gadget At All?? (6/8/2011)
- Solar Energy: Can Someone Help Me With Facts About Solar Energy? (5/4/2011)
- Solar Power: Superman Vs Sentry:The Facts.Solar Charged Battle.Who Wins? (7/1/2011)
- Solar Energy: Can Anybody Help! I Need Weird Facts (about Energy) Like How Much Energy A Shower Will Use This Is For Scienc? (7/20/2011)
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve learned not to trust the far right about anything.
Come on now… you shouldn’t spread false propaganda.
Thank YOU for spreading the truth!!!!!!
Sadly, people believe them.
Rush neglected to tell them that!!
Reality has a distinct liberal bias.
Since the right-wing crackpots can’t confront the message, they attack the messenger.
Actually, there are a lot of green groups that were admonishing Gore for his energy usage way before the neocons got onto it.
But I’m glad that he’s getting solar power. A little late in the game, but good for him.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $ 3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970′s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990′s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
Gore is a Moron!
funny gore has the money to purchase all the carbon credits he wants…he better get some Dem soilent green too…decider
You should provide the breaking news story from a legit news source before you spew. The truth is, Gore squeals about global warming, but he flies around the world in his big old jet! That jet uses more fuel than my SUV will use in a life time! Gore has been on this global warming kick for years, and years, and if he’s going green as far as the energy in his home, it’s only because the hypocrite was exposed as a fraud, and a liar. You Libs are a hoot. You’ll stand up for a man that clearly has not been practicing what her preaches!
Ok how about if we get our facts straight.
Gore does use more electricity in a month to power his 10,000+ square foot home than a lot of of people use in a year.
Gore is currently in the process of converting his home to solar energy. Why is he just now starting? Why did he wait until he came under scrutiny for his hypocrisy?
Gore is purchasing Carbon Credits at his own expense(who else do you expect to pay for it) to balance out his energy use. So what your saying is even though the guy is telling all of us that we need to cut back on our CO2 production that its ok for him to keep burning the juice like its going out of style because he could afford to buy credits?
Gore didn’t even begin to buy “Green” energy from his power company until about 3 months ago. He has been the one standing up and telling us if we don’t change our ways we will ruin the planet and then goes home and uses more energy than 3-5 families.
And maybe look up the word slander. You cannot slander someone with the truth.
This sounds like a Karl Rove orchestrated move. Yes, we do need to get facts straight. Do some reading and research before making up your mind. The list is probably generated by Rove or one of the hate mongers on conservative hate radio. Maybe both.
He is “starting” to convert his home?
Solar power is not a new idea.
I wonder if those credits (at his own expense) are tax deductible? Can poor and working class people buy them too to get that tax break too?
Exactly how many carbon credits does it take to lower earth’s temperature 1 degree? Where/ How do you trade them in to get that degree?
Nothing surprising about any political group not being honest.
Haha! Trying to justify Gore! Like fishing without a hook. It is too late, look at all the pollution he has caused.