Al Gore and his lies

Read the Opinion Journal from today, and read about how Al Gore admits to lying about global warming.

He betrays our country!!!!

He plays on our fears!!!!!

thebeaver's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Roadrunner on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 1:50pm.

Al Gore is a self-centered attention hound (anyone remember his claim of inventing the internet?) like many politicians are. I don't agree with his politics. I definitely don't agree with his non-scientific approach to this issue, but I do believe it only makes sense that the over-population & urbanization of the world's land surface is more or less permanently changing the only place we currently have to live. We are continuously removing green from our landscapes and replacing it with concrete & asphalt. There's bound to be a tipping point where the users of a resource (air for example) outstrip nature's ability to produce it. A simple experiment is take a 10 gallon fish tank and put the recommended 10" of fish in it. After the water is stable, double the number of fish, then double it again. See if any fish are still alive. At the very least you'll no longer have a viable environment that will sustain life for very long. We're no different than the fish in their tank. Just my .02

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 3:35pm.

anyone remember his claim of inventing the internet?

That's an urban legend that's been shown to be false time and time again. And yet you continue to propagate this slur.

Urban Legend: Al Gore and the Internet

Tell me again how your ginormous intellect is able to "separate the issue from the politics"?

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 11:45am.

Don Easterbrook's New York Times editorial you reference in your WSJ link had so many factual inaccuracies that it made the front page of The Daily Howler for laughably bad commentary

Here's the link

But that won't stop people like you from trying to smear Al Gore.

If Al Gore had been selected President in 2000 by the Supreme Court, Osama Bin Laden would be dead and 9/11 just another day.

maximus's picture
Submitted by maximus on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 12:39pm.

If Algore had received the required number of electoral votes to become president in 2000 (he could have done this by carrying his home state of Tennessee), the Taliban would still rule Afghanistan, Osama would still be telling the Taliban what to do, and the U.S. would still be pursuing Algore’s lawsuit against Osama for 9/11 in the U.N. World Court.

The one good thing would be that he never would have made his idiotic “documentary”.


hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 12:02pm.

Just how would Gore have killed him? does he have a different military then the other presidents?

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Fri, 03/16/2007 - 11:54am.

Well, since the Army wouldn't have been tied down in a bone-grinding war of attrition in Iraq, I think it would have been difficult but not impossible to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora (Gore, I believe, definitely would not have 'outsourced' Bin Laden's capture to the Pakistanis like Bush did).

Then the question is, what to do next? Thinking outside the box, I believe a World Wrestling Federation Pay-per-view would have been the best way to proceed.

Think of it: An undercard featuring George Bush 41 and George Bush 43 vs. Saddam Hussein and his son Quday (special referee Kofi Annan), and a main event of Al Gore vs. Osama Bin Laden! Pinfalls don't count, this is to the death! The worldwide revenue generated by such an event would probably fund government supplied health care in America for a good five years, plus wipe out the deficit as well.

I'd buy it from Comcast just to watch Bush 43 cower in the corner while his father cleaned up after his son's mess once again.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 5:25pm.

He probably would have used the one we have that is now fighting in the middle of the civil war in Iraq. Since Gore would never have gone into Iraq, they would have been available.

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 5:33pm.

I'm still curious how Gore would have have caught him when no one else has been able to. It's easy to say he would done this or that when there's no way to prove it.

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 5:31pm.

There are some in Fayette County who will not----can not, ever admit that we should have stopped in Afghanistan, and I'm not sure we needed to invade that place. How does one change an Opium and rug economy into a bean economy in less than 50 years?

nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Fri, 03/16/2007 - 1:26pm.

Actually, the opium production in Afghanistan is UP since the invasion. I don't know if that really matters unless one believes that opium production is directly tied to "terrorism."

Opium or's economics. Whoever grows the beans or opium makes $$$ selling it. Supply and demand indicate that you can make a lot more $$$ opium than beans. Gee, wonder which one the war-torn citizens wish to produce?


Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Fri, 03/16/2007 - 1:49pm.

So it would be ok to set up our"democracy" there, with a christian government since Muslims don't believe in democracy, and allow them to keep producing Opium? For your information, opium will buy MUCH more terrotism than beans, and one can eat beans.

Submitted by Yo on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 6:10pm.

... the war in Iraq was sold to the majority of American people as a racist extention of a co-worker calls it, "one united towel"...

... now this is only athe opinion of a native Georgian that I've met, not mine, so take it easy... he stated that the African American community had the most to gain from the war in Iraq... racism against blacks has been replaced by middle easterners... hurray!!

Again, Iraq had ZERO to do with 9/11

maximus's picture
Submitted by maximus on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 6:34pm.

The opinion of one racist Georgia cracker is all the evidence anyone should need.


cogitoergofay's picture
Submitted by cogitoergofay on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 12:02pm.

I do think that you are biased, Basmati, beyond any level of objectivity.

Instead of debating the issues raised by Al Gore you attack the attacker.

Let's be objective. I did not vote for Mr. Gore. But I wanted to keep an open mind on Global Warming so I bought his book and read it, keeping an open mind. First, I think it beyond debate that we are experiencing a warming. Regardless of man's contribution to the problem, there have been and will be significant consequences. Second, the debate should turn to solutions, best typified by the "adaptation" school of thought. Modern Science has only been able to assemble climate data no older than 500 years for a planet that is 10-15,000 years old. So what was the Medieval Warming period? What was the significance of the Little Ice Age?

Gore's book did contain substantial inaccuracies and omissions and had a large amount of space devoted to personal background profiles of Mr. Gore. This was a political piece and not a work of science. For example, he praises his college professor Roger Revelle for opening his eyes to global warming with the Hawaii research. What Gore conspicously omits is the 2003 article by Revelle questioning the severity and causes of Global Warming in his article "Look before you Leap." Additionally, separated by only pages are the contradictions about the Little Ice Age, hemispheric differences and the Antartica ice cores. An 8th grader might be easily fooled but the careful reader is not.

Again, I value Mr. Gore's opinions and yours. The book's photography is worth the price. But I for one would like you, Basmati, to once criticize any one of your liberal darlings as merely human. Is that too much to ask ?

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Thu, 03/15/2007 - 4:08pm.

Were I to admit to having any feelings, Cogito, I'd feel hurt that you feel I lack objectivity. I pride myself on being "Fair and Balanced", albeit in the same way that ArmyMajorRetired will look you straight in the eye and claim Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".

I know that it is somewhat gauche to attack the attacker, but consider the initial post as a classic example of Republican spin: the initial op-ed in the New York Times misattributes a key finding and blames Al Gore (he said "history of our civilization", the op-ed writer changed that to the "history of our planet" which is a fundamental misstatement of Gore's position to anyone who DOESN'T believe that Adam and Eve rode to church on dinosaurs). Next, the Wall Street Journal editorial cretins cherry-picked the erroneous quote and distributed it as a "fact" of Al Gore's. Finally, the slack-jawed mouthbreathing knuckledragging short-bus riding room-temperature IQ Citizen blogger "the beaver" dumbed it down even further: "Al Gore LIES!" I was content to point out the fundamental error in his post and move on. Life is too short to waste on lack-jawed mouthbreathing knuckledragging short-bus riding room-temperature IQ Citizen bloggers like "the beaver".

You may be correct that Gore's book contained inaccuracies and may well have been more of a political book than a scientific book. I haven't read the book, I wouldn't know. I will say that your choice of words "substantial inaccuracies" may be a tad subjective.

Insofar as Roger Revelle goes, I'd like to point out an error you made in your post. You claim Revelle's "look before you leap" article was from "2003". This was a neat trick, considering Professor Revelle passed away in 1991. He DID, however, write the aforementioned article that was published posthumously in 1992, and his main conclusion (I DID read this article) was that there was no harm waiting ten years until 2002 to implement global warming solutions. He felt, way back in 1992, that by 2002 research would have advanced to the point where we could accurately gauge the effect of man on greenhouse gasses and global warming. Truthfully, it took until 2005-2006 to get the vast majority of science caught up with that opinion. In any event, I fail to regard this single article as a "repudiation" of Vice President Gore's book.

I hate to disappoint you, but it's highly unlikely you'll see me criticize any of my "liberal darlings" (cute phrase, btw) anytime soon. I feel there is more than enough criticism of liberal thought from the "fact-free three" (ArmyMajorRetired, Taliban Trey Hoffman and Richard "Don't Call me Dick" Hobbs). I'm sure if you are looking for blistering criticism of the left, one of the three I just mentioned should more than meet your needs.

All the best,

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.