Political Punch

Anna, it's not that we don't believe that the Earth is in a warming trend. It is. But the Earth has seen warming trends and cooling trends many, many times before -- even long before man began roaming the Earth. So many of us are skeptical that mankind is the cause of this warming trend. Since Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the rest of the planets are also experiencing a warming trend is it really logical to believe that we humans are the leading cause of the Earth's warming trend? Now if all of the other planets were in a cooling trend or even remaining steady and Earth was the only planet experiencing a warming trend, then you would have a great case for the argument.

Now as for the propaganda, inaccuracies and fuzzy math have been used in the effort to compare apples to oranges to prove that man is the cause for global warming. As for the inaccuracies, some of the thermometers used in the studies were placed in parking lots and too close to buildings (asphalt and concrete reflect heat and cause much higher readings). And many areas of the Earth were not included in the study. If you are talking about "global warming," you need temperature readings from all over the planet. As for the fuzzy math, averaging the HI and LOW temperatures of the day to give you the "average" temperature is not accurate. At the very least, you need hourly temperatures and then average the 24-hour readings to get a more accurate average for a particular location. As for comparing apples to oranges, you can't compare temperatures in one location to another location. Comparisons are only accurate when you compare various temperature readings for a particular location. To accurately compare "global" temperatures, you have to take the average of the average of every single location measured on a daily basis and then compare these daily averages. Even after being made aware of the errors, the alarmist continue to spout the results of their study. They are not interested in the real "truth," that is too "inconvenient."

chuck, Funny I guess Hypocrite was chosen!

It is not name calling to give facts, and i was responding to someone below, but I forgot to title it.

Prior the the 2000 election Gore was beginning to voice his concern about the environment. For example, in the late 1990s, Gore pushed for the passage of the Kyoto treaty, which called for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but was opposed by the Senate. It's true that back during the 2000 election, the environment was not at the forefront of Gore's campaign. I think it was also a mistake because environmentalists backed Ralph Nader's position and helped contribute to Bush's win. He didn't have to take such an interest in the environment and could have let his political career slowly die out. He doesn't need the money, so i refuse to believe that his stake in the environment is a money-making scheme designed to promote "propaganda." Global warming is a reality and it's astonishing that so many people still refuse to believe in it.

I'd suggest that one of the many reasons why VP Gore lost in 2000 is that he tried to distance himself so far from the Clintons (and remember, this was after the Monica Lewinsky scandal) that he tried to be all things to all people, as his seemingly-shifting stance on ecology indicates, without taking strong stands on anything. (Unlike our current leader who certainly takes strong stands and never backs down from them, much to his detriment.) But, as flyover so adroitly points out, we also have Ralph Nader to thank for our current condition.

Note to spock: is the best you can now do mere name-calling? Follow the advice you so gratuitously provide in your second sentence.

Theres a lot of sayings that can simplify Gore

Those without sin cast the first stone!

Do onto Others as you would do unto you!

Lead by Example!

Hypocrite!

Socialist!

to bad algore is all talk and no action.

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

markymark - Incorrect - Dont forget the Ice age prediction in 76, and that 300 temperatures rose a lot higher then they are now and that was before the industrial revolution, so please.

And who said Gore is not running? Do be surprised and even if he does not who do you think is going to make money off this carbon offset donation?

He didn't have a chance of losing because he was only, he was only running against a woman who saved 2500 Jewish children from the ovens. She actually did something real, but Gore almost made a truthful documentary. I think other contributing factors in why Irena Sendler didn't win the award instead was that well, we all know there was no Holocaust and she was a Catholic and that meant every now and then she said the word "Jesus" and progressives don't take kindly to them words. She was also a Polack. (Need I say more?) Finally, unlike Gulfstream Gore, she's a woman. She had no chance against a man. A made who made a movie. Yep, Irena Sendler didn't deserve that award. Not like Gore does anyway!

Thank you for the reminder. We all do owe Nadar a sincere Thank You for his contribution in 2000.

markymark: "If Gore is an opportunist and a hypocrite, what is he being a hypocrite or an opportunist about?"

Ever heard of Generation Investment Management? He's the Chairman. His buddy, Peter Knight runs the US offices. (He's being investigated by the Federal Elections Commission right now). Anyhoo, so Gore flies around in his Gulfstream and is a major polluter in his own personal life, but he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. He's playing a stock market game with carbon offsets. He's just playing everyone as fools to buy into environmental extremism which will help promote his company and the carbon offsets will go up in value. It's a great scheme and it seems there are plenty of people who fall for it.

Our Troops should get the Prize Also.

President Bush should win the Nobel Peace Prize for giving 50 million people a path to freedom. Not some hypocritical individual.

If the whole world was just as worried about Global Warming as Al Gore, and the production of Carbon Dioxide. Then why have we not had a mandate to plant a tree? Why must these "save the Earth" companies constantly insist that we buy their products that will help the world produce less CO2?

My logic is this, They want less CO2 in the air. By having less CO2, that leads to less trees, which leads to less overall oxygen, which inturn would lead to less people. So by supporting this Global Warming, the people are trying to eradicate themselves.

fatesrider - Tell us what Pres. Bush did against the environment please, Facts only!

I am so tired of Libs, trying to shove this Global Warming propaganda down peoples throats so they can get power and raise taxes. (already trying to be put through)

A judge in Britain already exposed the outright lies in Gores movie. Real Scientists disagree with the whole human contribution. So please a man who live in 9 mansions, flies in Priovate jets is trying to tell everyone else to live in huts.

As far as Pres. Bush, well his home has no so called Carbon footprint, he has upgrade the whitehouse to save energy. Why did not clinton do anything to upgrade the whitehouse?

If you Libs want to pay more taxes then add it to the bottom of your taxe forms and stop trying to get hard working Americans to pay more.

The SNL spoof of Al in his trophy room was on the mark last night. One of Gore's passions, one has to admit, is self-promotion. But Babe Ruth did that, too, as did Thomas Edison, and Muhammed (sp?) Ali. So, it means Al is still campaigning--for a reputation and a legacy, as many historical figures do. And there must be something else. My guess is, he won't campaign for it, but he would accept a draft to run for President, and he would accept a top job from Hillary and Bill if they move back into their old house. Al wants back in D.C. to do some more social engineering. I think that's the 'inconvenient truth'.

It seems to me that this is like kicking George Bush for his pot-smoking, hard-drinking, partying lifestyle when he was younger. That was then. People do change. Jealousy is unbecoming and picking nits is a poor argument for hypocrisy. Besides, George Bush may have been touted as more environmentally friendly in '00, but his track record proves that he is one of the worst 'protectors' of the environment in modern history. Al Gore is in a considerably lower position to effect lasting and meaningful change in national policy than Bush, but Gore has rallied more people to the cause of dealing with global warming than Bush has ever even considered doing with national policy. If Bush was serious, he would have spent far more effort on promoting viable, renewable and NON-OIL-BASED energy research. (Ethanol isn't the answer, but it sure promotes the oil companies since it doesn't really change their practices.) Gore and his co-winners deserve the award. Bush is a failure at protecting the environment, just as he is a failure at everything else except applying a domestic and global policy that let the oil/energy companies accumulate nearly a trillion dollars in virtually untaxed profits over the last seven years while increasing US carbon emissions 35% from 2000. Way to step up to the environmental plate, George.

If Gore is an opportunist and a hypocrite, what is he being a hypocrite or an opportunist about? He isn't going to run for the Presidency, so he isn't building a campaign on the back of this issue, he is hardly being a true hypocrite. The true hypocites are the ones on the right who insist that the those on the left must be held to a higher standard. Bush could make himself out as more Green than Gore in 2000 because the standards were higher for Gore [Jake's piece makes that point clear].

In truth the sadness of Gore's campaign is that because he is a Democrat, and because of the poisonous atmosphere in Washington, this issue has become so partisan. People who have no idea baout the science can jump on whatever bandwagon they choose because of the amount of science there is out there, but anyone with a 30 year memory must surely notice that the climate, globally, is far more volatile than it was 30 years ago. I don't know for certain that humans are to blame, but looking at the current historical upswing in the earths temparatures it tends to have started at around the same time as humans took up mechanised industrial production. It could be a coincidence, but even if it is, we should take some responsibility to future generations and try to limit our environmental impact. How is that not an argument right and left can agree on?

The people of Tennessee know Al Gore and did not vote for him---why? Like I believe Al Gore is a phony out promoting Al Gore. I agree with Dr. William Gray of Colorado St. U. who says the warm period we are now in is related to sea salt levels and we have had warmer periods and will soon enter a cooling period exposing Al Gore and the rest of the elite frauds.

I know there are millions of Americans who strongly believe all the hype surrounding global warming. And they are very sincere in their beliefs. For the past several years public schools all across the country have adopted the hype as part of their curriculum. That's because it is so easy to indoctrinate our youth. When these students become part of the electorate, they won't require much persuading into voting for the changes that the Left says are necessary to save the planet. But global warming is only a smoke screen. The real motive behind this movement is to control our behavior and lifestyle. They want to control what we buy, what we consume, and above all, what we think. The ultimate goal is to trick the American electorate into voting into office a majority of politicians who advocate womb-to-tomb universal healthcare with the federal government as the sole HMO, and revamping the tax code to further redistribute the wealth, by claiming that only these politicians will make the necessary changes to save the planet from global warming. Once they are in office and have turned their socialist ideology into American law, they will announce to the world that the planet has been saved. And that we no longer have to fear the doom and gloom as long as we continue to adhere to their new policies.

I agree with Getalife. Gore is a proven opportunist who is a hypocrite. I never would have, nor ever will consider a vote for Al Gore.