Al Gore wins Oscar for best documentary; Update: “Thrilled”
posted at 10:45 am on January 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Technically, he’s only been nominated. But … come on.
The competition’s pretty stiff this year, actually. There’s Gore, two movies about Iraq, one about sex abuse in the Catholic Church, and “Jesus Camp,” which does for evangelical Christians what “Jaws” did for sharks. Time was you could count on four Holocaust movies being nominated plus a gimme about starvation in Africa. But I guess the Academy’s moved on.
Eventually this category will be dominated by movies about Darfur, but probably not until another 500,000 or so people are dead.
Big day — and night — for global warming, though, huh?
To celebrate, I offer you this tender, unintentionally comic tribute to the Gorebot.
Update: Nominated for best song, too. No chance in that category.
Update: The Gorebot will attend the ceremony next month.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Wait, aren’t documentaries supposed to be based on facts?
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 23, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Any chance he’s running?
mikeyboss on January 23, 2007 at 10:52 AM
The George McClellan of our time.
Limerick on January 23, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Think Moore will be secretly angry?
xanadu1015 on January 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM
I now have the deepest love for this man. We’ve all been so wrong about him.
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzz
huh? something unexpected happened
Defector01 on January 23, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Really, don’t you hate those nutroots…
CNN.com January 22nd
honora on January 23, 2007 at 11:04 AM
It’s Hollywood folks . . . the bottom of the intellectual land fill.
rplat on January 23, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Oh man, noticably absent are Gore’s own WMD’s in Iraq comments, and mention that on the famouse image of a hurricane coming out of a smokestack on the cover of every DVD for the Inconvenient Turd and every poster, etc. the hurricane is spinning backwards!
Also, one clip has him calling Iraq the biggest strategic mistake in the history of the country.. I’m not even going to get back in to the fact that we’re only in such a rough situation because of the Democrats dividing us and promising victory to the enemy, but just ask how making a sandwich out of Iran, with Afghanistan and Iraq being the bread, is a strategic blunder. If folks don’t recognize this as being part of the plan all along, because Bush is on a mission to transform the middle east (or was), then I don’t know what to tell ya.
Also, the clip has Gore arguing that we need to find the fastest way to get the troops home. Obviously everyone wants that (which reminds me of a quick side point, Democrats never do more than give us a list of “wants”, a Christmas list if you will, but never explain how to achieve these goals. Know why? Because they have no desire to achieve them. They have a desire to win votes by making vague statements suited for headlines and TV soundbytes, and sadly it works on the stupid electorate). At any rate, my original point was, while everyone wants the troops home, you can’t fight the war with that as your goal… that can happen when the goal of WINNING happens (here’s where liberals jump in and demand we define winning, even though it’s been done thousands of times). Liberals play the heartstrings by saying we need to bring the troops home, and it gets them votes, but is there a person on this planet who thinks you can win a war when that is the objective?
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 11:07 AM
By the way AP, I think you’re trying to beat me for discovering the most idiotic liberal YouTube video yet… Though I still think BOOOOOOOOSH has a slight edge on this.
And am I the only one who is going to be extremely angry if Bush fully jumps on the Global Warming bandwagon tonight?
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Bill Oreilly called this one a while back.
Sad that he’s right, but … ya know … he is.
One Angry Christian on January 23, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Obviously pollution and emissions are something that should be limited when possible but i don’t think it’d make a major difference in the global temperature
Defector01 on January 23, 2007 at 11:22 AM
And your point Honora? The popular fear in the 70’s was global cooling. In the 90’s and early 2000’s it was global warming. The enviro-weenies are finally getting smart… rather than pinning themselves down, they’re calling the latest fear-du-jour “climate change”.
There is still no hard evidence that global cooling/warming/change is anything other than part of the natural ecological cycle.
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 11:23 AM
And here’s part of the kicker. Economic opportunities and the left are like oil and water.
The blue chippers above are just smart enough to take a pro-active stance so they can keep some measure of control, which is much easier and more profitable, than a reactive stance with a dem controlled house and senate.
Economic opportunities might include actual DRILLING for oil in ANWAR and the Gulf…what say you now?
shooter on January 23, 2007 at 11:25 AM
This won’t happen until the liberals figure out some way to blame the GOP for Dafur . . .
Labamigo on January 23, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Sorry, thought it was obvious. There was a time when people like Gore were the only ones really talking about global warming and the RW laughed at them and called them kooks and attempted to marginalize them. Global warming, climate change, whatever, as a phenomenon that is partly due to mankind, is now embraced by CEOs of major companies, parts of the evangelical movement and apparently tonight by Bush.
All of which makes Gore a visionary and the folks who keep making fun him are the ones, at the end of the day, who are marginalized.
honora on January 23, 2007 at 11:31 AM
This won’t happen until the liberals figure out some way to blame the GOP for Dafur . . .
Labamigo on January 23, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Or Christians.
steveegg on January 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Interesting; nested blockquotes don’t work here.
steveegg on January 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Man, he is not aging well!
Ann on January 23, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Well, shooter may be right when he said that the CEO’s could be taking a pro-active stance. But the reason people make fun of Al Gore is the out-of-control way he’s trying to warn about global warming; he tries to make it sound like the world is about to come to an end. Have you seen the trailer for An Inconvenient Truth?
Gore isn’t a visionary, he’s a publicity whore; he latched onto the movement he thought would garner him the most attention.
Whatever? You can’t even define it, you just know that whatever it is, humankind is responsible? And just how much is “partly”. Yep, another thing that nobody can define. But, goshdarnit, whatever it is, it’s all our fault.
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Maybe in the sequel, he’ll actually debate a real scientist about this.
Tim Burton on January 23, 2007 at 11:38 AM
You clown. These companies are making a business decision. They want to cost other companies, who haven’t voluntarily made efforts, millions of dollars to comply. Some weak evangelicals are desperate to pull in a crowd.
That said… some glaciers are growing, Greenland’s glaciers have been melting naturally for over 100 years, as dalewalt pointed out – the same alarmist crowd screamed global cooling through the 70s:
How do you think ice ages began and ended? Who was driving the SUVs back then? (By the way, rapid climate change is required for both of these, when you’re talking miles thick ice). Oh, and “scientists” tell us that the atlantic was like a hot tub at one point, and the dino-era arctic was a tropical paradise.
Plants are contributing up to 30% of the methane going in to the atmosphere.
How about the fact that the global warmists (or “climate changists”), expect us to believe there long term ridiculous predictions based on crappy models, when they can’t even predict the weather!? Ever have one of those days where they’re completely off on precipitation and like 20 degrees off on the temp and you’re like “screw the weather guy, I’m not listening to him anymore”? We all have.
Hell, last week we were supposed to get 8-10 inches one day… We got a few the day before, and on the day it was predicted it snowed just a dusting here, then turned to sleet and freezing rain… then regular rain, while 40 miles north where they weren’t supposed to get much of anything, they got dumped on!
By the way, does anyone find it curious that the papers and Time and Newsweek aren’t screaming “Global Warming” while it snows in Malibu, Arizona, and Texas , and they hit record cold temps in Los Angeles, etc. etc. Even up here, the average for January is in the upper 20s… but we’ve been in a deep freeze almost every day ever since that one really warm weekend (that the media tried to make in to the entire winter). Our high (so they predict) this Thursday is supposed to be 8F. Friday? 3F! And the 10 day forecast is virtually filled with teens and low 20s. Thanks global warming! (Someone please drive around my block with a Hummer a few times)
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Imagine the spittle bits flying out of his mouth in that picture.
bloggless on January 23, 2007 at 11:47 AM
And still no one mentions THE SUN. Doesn’t THE SUN have anything to do with the Earths climate?? Just wondering.
KelliD on January 23, 2007 at 11:52 AM
All I know dalewalt, is we need to hand the issue over to the UN and allow them to make an international law that destroys our economy, and removes us as the sole superpower, and makes us one big world community, tax the hell out of us, and bring world socialism in to the new age! All hail the UN!
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Here in Minnesota, I am all for global warming.
infidel on January 23, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Dude. No way. My Country My Country will win. Its a flipping PBS documentary. About Iraq. The chick who “directed” it is now a labelled enemy of the state. Its like, a shoe in.
E. M. on January 23, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Let’s see, the biggest energy companies come out and tell the Government “we need mandatory restrictions and caps!” and that doesn’t sound at all suspicious to you? That the people with the most power to actually affect this dubious change don’t already just do it themselves, but want the government to intervene?
It’s just like the rich demanding higher taxes for social programs they’ll never use… They are wealthy and they can afford the burden, but the middle class and poor can’t. So the rich are still rich, but the middle class are too poor to become rich.
Could easily be a hollow attempt at energy monopoly by welcoming a stifling burden that would take a bite out of their profits, but would effectively scuttle a broad range of smaller competing companies. It seems to me that if these companies were concerned enough about this alleged “crisis” to limit themselves, then they would reduce their income and open themselves to fierce competition from less “environmentally aware” companies. But if the government mandates this change, then the smaller competition is bankrupted by a bureaucracy designed to limit the mega-corporation.
Lehosh on January 23, 2007 at 12:05 PM
I just threw up in my mouth. Thanks a lot.
Candy Slice on January 23, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Gore’s legacy will be related to his loss of the 2000 election and the frothing hatred of President Bush from the moonbats that resulted from that loss. This last election helped abate some of that but until they win the white house, they left will always bemoan their 2000 loss.
csdeven on January 23, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Oh I forgot. Nothing is ever our fault. Watch Bozo tonight and hold that thought.
honora on January 23, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Check. Scientists, all wrong; business, all wrong; evangelicals, all wrong. You’re funny.
You know who is a big believer in global warming? And who is acting aggressively on it? Toyota. What assholes, huh. Know who else? The Chinese. What do those clowns know?
honora on January 23, 2007 at 12:15 PM
How about addressing the rest of my points honora? I’ll admit I don’t know (for certain) the motives of some of these groups, but all of my other points are facts and need to be considered. As for scientists, in general if they turn on their dark master their funding gets pulled and their careers are in jeopardy.
Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier… melting ice in the arctic won’t change sea levels.
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 12:22 PM
To say “all wrong” implies there is a consensus among “all” of these people, which is far from the case.
And oh yes! The Chinese are soooo concerned about Climate Change! That’s the obvious reason for China’s actions… China 1) has the second highest carbon emission rate on the planet, 2) signed the Kyoto treaty knowing that China is exempt from it, and 2) has yet to answer pointed questions about its “plans” to reduce emissions. China pretends to like the environment the way Iran pretends to like democracy: it serves their ends to say so. By signing the Kyoto treaty, China knew that as a “developing country” that they had no obligations under it, but they sure as hell could use their weight to demand that developed nations follow the rules. China is not obligated to do anything except “demand” that others carry the burden.
Lehosh on January 23, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Science, you pesky bastard. Always rubbing conservatives the wrong way.
JaHerer22 on January 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Possible historical outlooks
The historical era of 1993-2008 were most defined by the polarization of the political parties and visceral, unmitigated hatred of Bill Clinton by the right wing and an equally visceral, unmitigated hatred of George Bush by the left wing.
ALT Ending #1
This laid the groundwork for a young energetic Barack Obama to win the presidency, ending 28 years of having a Bush or Clinton on the ticket. Obama energized many of the country’s youth and took it in new directions much as did JFK in his short time in office.
ALT Ending #2
Considered a longshot for a general election win, Pres Rodham-Clinton won by positioning herself as the real moderate of the pack. Senator Obama’s popularity with the left, like Howard Dean, was not enough to pull the nomination. In yet another close election John McCain lost, many thought due to his cantankerous nature and age. The deciding factor in the election was widely believed to be the women’s vote.
ALT Ending #3
In a close election, President McCain pulled off the unthinkable by taking California and any chances Sen Clinton had at the win. McCain’s win was attributed to two major factors – (1) selection of Duncan Hunter as the VP and (2) a country weary of having a Bush or Clinton on the ticket for the last 28 years.
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Gee, they will give an oscar to just about anyone, will they not?
Dave R. on January 23, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Not going to keep repeating all of the same points over and over again, but in reply to your specific comment I say:
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM
So let’s just assume this whole “Global Climate Change” thing is a fraud, thought up by crazy enviromentalist freaks. For some reason the majority of America buys into it and we work to reduce emissions, conserve power, and develop clean alternative fuels. In 2027 we find out it was all a fraud and the Earth’s temperature isn’t going anywhere. The horrific results of our actions:
-cleaner air
-cleaner water
-more enviromentally responsible factories
-less dependence on foreign oil
-healthier humans
-self-sufficent homes
-more nature for our children to marvel and enjoy
Jesus Christ! Gore and his minions must be stopped. We cannot live in a world like that!
JaHerer22 on January 23, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Gore deserves an Oscar like Arafat deserves a Nobel. I probably should’nt really comment, if not for Gore I would’nt be here.
infidel on January 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM
The “accusation” that the so called Global Warming is caused by human activity is presumptuous at best or worst depending on your point of view.
Just because someone says it is, doesn’t make it so.
Other factors must be considered before blankly blaming any one source. If said Global Warming should exist at all.
Gloom and Doom has been Chicken Little’s “The sky is falling” mantra, and I suspect this is more of the same.
So, where’s the beef? Where’s the evidence of mans culpability? Real evidence, not just finger pointing.
Kini on January 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I don’t mind cleaner water, et al. What I don’t like is that the US has done all that, voluntarily without having to sign some socialist treaty. We don’t need Global Warming to scare us into creating a better environment. Teddy Roosevelt is one of the greatest republicans of all time.
What I despise though, is that it limits Capitialism and the ability for Capitalism to raise up and out of poverty billions of people. This is a socialist fantasy run amuck and global warming is a religion.
If you have to “believe” in it, then it is a religion, faith. I have no problem with the believers, but please stay out of public money. declare yourself a religion and then separate yourself from the state!!!
James on January 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Oh yes, that pesky science rubbing conservatives wrong. “Taint in d’Bible, Cletus. It’s commie witchcraft!”
When will conservatives realize that the Prophet of Gaiah rose from the waters of Turtle Bay to deliver us this new (but strangely timeless and familiar) message, “Change your wicked ways, for the End is Nigh!”
Lehosh on January 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Ah, the liberal dodge.. an old favorite. He comes out swinging with the scientific consensus line, I hit back with the 70s consensus that there was rapid global cooling and an ice age upon us… in return he diverts to “yeah, but if it cleans up the environment, who cares, right?”. I’m not even going to get in to how stupid that is, and how that is clearly not the motivating factor here, and just point out once more that liberals do this bait and switch dodging bs all the time.
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Doggone it, your facts always get in the way of a liberals belief. Knock it off, you arguments have too many facts.
Liberals, remember your mantra, “follow the money”, there is no money in saying global warming is a natural occurance. Look at the amount of funding of global warming, give me a couple of million a year and I would say my mother caused it.
Most of you liberals don’t read much but google Richard S. Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), probably the foremost expert in climate in the world. He does not accept government money regarding global warming. Everyone one of his critics do, his findings are not refuted by any other climatologist (sp). By the way, Gore would not allow Lindzen to comment at hearings, yet he took some of Lindzen’s statements, out of context, and twisted them. A scathing letter to Gore for mis-representing this great scientist, and of course like most liberals, Gore did not acknowledge his wrong doing. A real scientist that Gore.
Now try Prof. Bob Carter, also a real scientist he does not take any government money, industry money, or lobbyist money. An independent scientist.
Now try to find two scientists, with similiar credentials, that have not taken money for global warming research that can debate these two gentlemen.
Hey, but you have “never had a job” Al Gore to be your spokesperson.
Checkmate.
More? Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson: Dr. Boris Winterhalter: Dr. Dick Morgan: Dr. Roy Spencer, none of these gentlemen take grant money for global warming. They all say Gore, the great scientist, is full of beans. His facts are just plain wrong.
Oops, I forgot, I started out telling RightWinged not to confuse the liberals with facts, and I broke my own rule.
right2bright on January 23, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Al says its hot you say its cold.
Hmm let’s examine that word liberal while we are here.
noun1 liberal, progressive
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
liberal
a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
adjective1 broad, large-minded, liberal, tolerant
showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions” 2 liberal
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
Except for that pesky part about tolerating differing opinions your posts have a distinct liberal slant to them.
Let’s examine another word
Main Entry: ideo•logue
Variant(s): also idea•logue /’I-dE-&-”log, -”läg/
Function: noun
Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Yes that’s the one that seems to fit you RightWinged
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Look on the bright side….we will get a nice juicy posting of his acceptance speech while he fondels Oscar. Maybe even some vid of that famous spittle launching out to land on a hypnotized Sean Penn.
Limerick on January 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Ignorance fears facts.
infidel on January 23, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we
dieburn to a crisp and drown in the flood.Kini on January 23, 2007 at 1:16 PM
I feel dirty now.
x95b10 on January 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Honora, I keep thinking with each of your posts that you couldn’t be more wrong, and then dammit you post again. Gore a visionary? Only someone fresh from a frontal labotomy or an alien just landed from outer, outer space would utter such sillyness. Gorebal Warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on a the human race. Now, before you start having a Gorebasm at that last statement, let me say that indeed the planet may be in a state of warming, I don’t definitively know. There are two things I know as solid fact. Gore is no visionary and the planet goes through weather cycles. After all, we have had ice-ages and warming periods. If I’m not mistaken, these changes have been going on for many, many, many more decades and centuries before man set his feet on terra firma and drilled his first oil-well. So, if these changes occured before mankind, why are we so arrogant to think we are the cause of it now? We are insignificant little specks on this planet. Until someone in the Gorebal Warming Cult expalins this, I will remain certain this movement has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. How else explain the absolute disdain these people have for anyone even slightly skeptical of their “consensus”? Gorebal Warming Cultists have advocated jailing skeptics as “deniers” and stripping meteorologists of their creds if they express doubt about Gorebal Warming. Science is about fact, fact is what is, not the “consensus” of some in the science community. A consensus is an opinion, not scientific fact. If you want some science, real science, read up on the Sun and the activities going on with the source of heat and energy on our planet. We may be a little warmer simply because the sun is hotter. We aren’t warmer because I bought and drive an SUV or John Edwards spends two hours spraying his hair in place. We are in a natural weather cycle, nothing these idiots at GE or anywhere else can do about that. Eventually facts overcome politics, and this will be no different.
Just a little personal aside, my hot-water heater went out a few weeks ago. My repair guy told me it was Gorebal Warming…..
I recall another famous consensus, the flat-earth society………
ritethinker on January 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I have to admit I love the poetic irony of watching this clip and garnering all this info on the very internet he created.
mbredmond on January 23, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Have you removed that government implant in your neck? You haven’t? Good. It is telling you to do things…listen to it…it is your friend.
We are evil, the conservatives want to destroy the world, we want to pollute, we are evil…hear the voice…we are evil…we must be stopped…we can’t think…listen to the voice…we are murderers, polluters, Chistians…we must be stopped…we are evil
right2bright on January 23, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Gore scream fire in the theater?
There’s your Global Boring
Kini on January 23, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Hmmm…the Earth is HOW old? And humans have been on it HOW long? And the weather stats we have are for WHAT PERIOD?
You gullible liberal dolts, 100 or so years of data is totally useless to base policy on when the total span of Earth’s existence is what it is. Also, as stated above…what about the Sun? The Sun is responsible for MOST of the heat on this planet. Science has stated that the Sun is getting hotter. How is man related to that?? And is the next step to protest or legislate the Sun to get it stop being so hot?
Stop using science to back your arguments, when you’re not using it in the proper scientific method. Your sample (100 years) is too small to be valid.
tickleddragon on January 23, 2007 at 1:53 PM
And Allah…thanks sooooo much for that Gore-filled waste of my time.
Biiiiiig surprise that this film was nominated. I called that one last year.
tickleddragon on January 23, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Better watch out for that lightning strike, honora. You’ve just agreed with tree-hugger Gore, overpaid CEOs and dumbkoff George Bush all in one sentence.
Oh, I see, it’s because you think they all agree with you on evironmental issues. Heh.
Roger on that Rightwinged. Jaherer’s first line of defense will always start out with a “most Americans” agree with his point of view. Projection personified.
Is anyone else reminded of that arcade game “Whack-a-Mole” everytime honora and her sidekick Jaherer show up to post here?
fogw on January 23, 2007 at 1:57 PM
I doubt this description will get you an A in political science. It will certainly get you kicked off of the DNC board. I would like to see you get this as a plank on the DNC platform.
This is a perfect example how the liberals think, not what they know or what they do or how they vote, but what they think. Bradky actually believes this is what a liberal is. A free marketeer.
right2bright on January 23, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Look at it this way: if Gore, and the Academy of Scientists and most of the science community, are right and we do nothing, big mistake. Possibly an extinction level mistake. If Gore et al are wrong, and we do what they are suggesting, what is the downside?
Risk analysis.
Next case.
honora on January 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
I heard this last night so check it out once again free speech for the left. Therefore there is no debate on global warming
Gwillie on January 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Has anybody else noticed the one overriding constant in all the posts? Those who don’t buy into the climate change mantra have attempted to post facts and use reasoned arguments. Others, like JaHere22 and Honora, have just talked about how visionary Al Gore is, and how everybody knows that climate change is all our fault.
For those of you who believe in climate change, why don’t you try stating some coherent facts about it? You know… facts, what every conscientious scientist uses when proving/disproving a theory.
Until then, go put your heads in the sand.
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM
I heard this last night so check it out once again free speech for the left. Therefore there is no debate on global warming
Gwillie on January 23, 2007 at 2:25 PM
The only other thing I’d add is this.
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Risk analysis: Financial harm to our society, due to the increased costs of adhering to the Kyoto treaty.
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Very good point, we only had accurate temperature data for ~120 years; and of the data we do have, the margin for error is greater than the difference we’ve measured.
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I seem to remember that all this was caused by…waitforit….SMOG da.da.ddaaaaaa
Gwillie on January 23, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention earlier… can’t find the UPI story (hmmmm) but Freepers reproduced it anyway (so no whining about the source libs). Anyway, some Russian scientists believe we’re entering a period of global cooling (TODAY, not the 70s like all the flip-flopping alarmists of today used to predict)
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Well ok but you know as well as I do you won’t listen. It’s pretty simple:
1) The earth reflects back heat into the atmosphere. Most of this heat escapes, some does not, due to CO2 and other gases that absorb and re-emit that heat–hence the term “greenhouse” gases–back to earth and thus far this has made for a hospitable climate.
2) The amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being emitted post-industrial revolution are rising exponentially.
The more of these gases, the more heat absorbed and the higher the temperature rises.
3) There is a natural greenhouse effect; we are now exacerbating the effect with an “un-natural” increase in CO2.
honora on January 23, 2007 at 2:47 PM
I’ll offer another theory.
As far as gases are concerned, there’s enough Hot Air to go around. Still haven’t proven the source.
Kini on January 23, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Ahh, some facts:
but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. So water vapour is the chief ‘other gas’; is increased water vapour due to the industrial revolution?
Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more
Even given an exponential increase of CO2, the atmospheric effect is only logarithmic.
It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.
Hmm, so increased temps may be the cause of increased CO2!
Honora, please cite your sources if you’d like your arguments to be taken as credible.
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 3:02 PM
This does not explain why I don’t live under a mile of ice as I would be if I lived here 20,000 years ago. It does not explain the little iceage from around 1,100ad till 1,850ad. Or how natives in the fourcorners region of the US lived on lush farmlands 900 years ago, until the rivers dried up. Why when the Vikings found Greenland… it was green. Now it is covered by glaciers that “are threatening our cities with flooding as they melt”. England was warm enough to grow wine vineyards only 1000 years ago… damn those horse drawn SUVs. Fact; the earth warms and cools. How much effect SUVs contribute we can never really know, we simply don’t have enough data. Only 150 years out of what, 4 billion?
Gwillie on January 23, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Reminds me of what JFK said to Ted Sorensen while Sorensen was still writing “Profiles in Courage”:
“Hurry up, we need to finish. We’ve won the Pulitzer.”
Labamigo on January 23, 2007 at 3:28 PM
We are nothing if not timely. Full report is available on CNN and Foxnews sites.
honora on January 23, 2007 at 3:29 PM
How do we know there were once dinosaurs? As they were here less than 150 years ago, or for that matter, before recorded history?
Have you ever been to a natural history museum?
honora on January 23, 2007 at 3:30 PM
So where does all the CO2 being emitted go? Just curious.
honora on January 23, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Not the sort of joke one could make re the current resident of 1600 Penn Ave, she said wistfully….
honora on January 23, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Silly rabbit; there’s a world of difference between finding and carbon-dating fossils and knowing what the global surface temperature was 200 years ago; let alone 200 million.
This is the best argument you can come up with?
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Now come off it honora, you know what my point was. However to put you in your place I shall explain it once again.
We have accurate weather data for only the past 150 years before that we have less reliable fossil records and some historical data to build a case for or against global warming. But has I have proven in my previous post (the parts you simply ignored) the Earth has a history of warming and cooling and other types of climate changes that predates any effects of man. To say that we can know that this cycle is man made is just plain wrong… You can say that it is possible that we are contributing to global warming; you can also say that we are not making that much of an impact. You can claim all you want that if we did this it will help, or if we stopped this it will stop global warming (only if you ignore 4 billion years of changes that man had no part in) maybe you and algore are right, I would not mind and do not mind working for cleaner, better ways to power our world. I like trees and clean water and snow in winter… but what good will that do if I have to live in a tin shed because some reactionary leftist destroyed the economy to prevent global warming and its 85 degrees in January anyway…
Gwillie on January 23, 2007 at 4:00 PM
How many of you are there? Is Dale one person and Walt another? What is my source that greenhouse gases reflect back heat to the earth? How about junior high science class. Yikes.
Are you suggesting because an increase is lograrithmic it cannot be significant? That will be big news to the physics community!!!
honora on January 23, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Your logic is….interesting. Because man had no effect on climate change for 4 MM years, not yet being here, he can’t be having any effect now? Like I said, interesting.
honora on January 23, 2007 at 4:10 PM
I learned in science class that dinosaurs we related to reptiles, but now I learn that they are related to birds, go figure.
Gwillie on January 23, 2007 at 4:13 PM
What I find most … curious … is the hysterical emotional response of liberal’s to global warming.
The irony is vast and deep, but there is only one word for their belief in global warming – and that word is “faith.” They accept it unthinkingly, unquestioningly, and have a rabid emotional reaction to anyone who points out the obvious scientific and historical problems with global warming.
None of which means they’re necessarily wrong, by the way. As long as we don’t go overboard – meaning as long as economic damage isn’t done or human rights abused – I’m fully in favor of taking steps to limit emissions. Frankly, liberal loons and hawkish conservatives should join forces: eliminate the dependence on fossil fuels and you simultaneously drastically cut emissions and bankrupt the mullahs in the Middle East.
I dig that. Clean air, and no money for Osama. Not much of a downside.
But still … their blind emotionalism is vaguely troubling and deeply amusing. That they don’t see how funny it is makes it all the funnier.
Of course, liberals, by definition, have to accept a great deal on faith. They cannot for a moment wonder when life begins … because to even question their certainty raises the possibility that they’ve supported mass murder on an unprecedented scale. So they close their eyes and stomp their feet on that one.
Which is funny … because you’d think they’d come to the same conclusion that I have on global warming: even though I THINK global warming is ridiculous, I say the risks are too high not to do something about it; imagine what would happen if one day we proved when life began and it turned out to be 6 weeks after conception …
… Of course, then liberals would just ignore science, right?
But of course the funniest of all comparisons to the global warming scare is putting it next to global terrorism as an issue. I invite all of you to read ANYTHING any liberal says about global warming. Anything. Now head to DU or DailyKos,and find a thread in which they’re mocking conservatives for “scare mongering” or “Islamophobia” for pointing out that, well, people actually want to destroy the West.
Get the document their mocking – the op-ed or whatever on terrorism. Note exactly what they mock. Note the language they mock.
Then hold that document right next to, oh, an Al Gore speech.
You will find that the left uses EXACTLY the same language to describe global warming that the most far right isolationist hawkish wingnut uses to describe Islamofascism. They even use the same WORDS.
Try it. It’s funny. Seriously.
Then ask a liberal why it’s “mongering” of one kind or another when it’s terrorism, but it makes sense for global warming.
And then, to cap it off … take a trip to lower Manhattan and point at the whole in the ground. Ask if they can show you similar undisputed evidence that global warming is actually an imminent danger.
Just try not to laugh. Liberals are funny. When I was 20, I thought just like them. When you grow up, you open your eyes, and start asking the obvious questions.
And seriously … be nice to liberals. 20 years from now, you know and I know that “global warming” will probably be replaced by something equally doomy and gloomy, and liberals will line up to protest against it or for it or whatever. Heck, maybe “global cooling” will make a comeback.
Just be nice. Remember – these are people that burn flags and piss on crosses, and then protest cartoons … these are people that ban adults from smoking and then march naked in the streets of Berkeley for the legalization of pot.
It’s cognitive dissonance on a grand scale. The “global warming” hysteria is just the latest example.
So be nice. It hits most of them, eventually. Folks like Honora do grow up, and eventually feel a little sheepish. Pun intended.
Professor Blather on January 23, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Did I say that… No.
Gwillie on January 23, 2007 at 4:14 PM
How many? We are one, and we are all. We exist individually, and we exist as one being.
Fine, greenhouse gases reflect heat; but CO2 is only a small part of the greenhouse gases. And no, I’m not suggesting that it isn’t significant, but you haven’t cited anything that shows *how* significant. All your doing is regurgitating the same old arguments, but without backing up your rants.
And as far as junior high science, uh, should we start listing how *wrong* scientists have been in the past? I’m willing to admit that climate change is possible; but scientists have not proven it yet.
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 4:15 PM
There must be some way to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a single Hollywood award ceremony.
Jim Treacher on January 23, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Wonderful remarks as usual Prof!
snicker
dalewalt on January 23, 2007 at 4:18 PM
a global warming hack who makes his money off of global research.
So we cut out all harmfull emissions, we stop driving cars, and a stupid volcano (probably a conservative volcano) has one eruption and sends out more gas than we could produce in decades.
Mars ice cap is receding quicker than Gores IQ, the sun is getting warmer, did we cause this?
You should take your own advice, read some of Richard S. Lindzen articles on the subject. His models have never been shown to be incorrect.
The other advice, March of Dimes Syndrome, that is why this “scientific” debate has turned into a left vs. right. We know that the same powers that tried to drive the ice age debacle in the 70’s is behind this farce.
Who do you listen to? Scientist on the dole, or scientists doing research independent of lobbyists?
Here is my challenge again. Show me the names of the real climate scientists who are supporting humans causing or having an measurable impact on global warming that are not receiving money from global warming advocacy groups or have a political stake in this.
Mahlman and Weaver do not qualify.
right2bright on January 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Oh yes and when they give the award to Gore will get the great spetical of Gore giving his “how were destroying our planet by how we live ” speech to room full of people who arrived to the awards in private jets and big ass limos.
mlong on January 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Interesting thought. The seating capacity of the Kodak Theatre is 3400. Add another 200 or so for reporters, camera people, backstage workers.
Not all of them will take their own vehicle, but most will. Say 2000. Many of these vehicles are limos – A 2005 Cadillac gets 15 miles to the gallon and emits 10 tons of greenhouse gas per year.
I wonder how much it emits in one night of idiling and driving? Multiply that by about 2000.
Slublog on January 23, 2007 at 4:35 PM
It seems strange to me that when looking at Temp vs. Time graphs compared to CO2 vs. Time graphs over a similar period, there is no correlation between C02 and Temperature… In fact, high C02 concentrations do not correlate hardly at all with large temperature changes, much less precede and supposedly cause them. Yet we are to believe that C02 (which is less than 5% of the Earth’s Greenhouse Gas) somehow correlates to temperature, history notwithstanding.
Secondly… it is, quite frankly, not very hot. In fact, it’s rather cold. Gore lies when he says this is the hottest it’s been in 1000 years, because he’s looking at the fraudulent UN numbers. 1000 years ago it was much hotter than it is right now in span called the Medieval Warm Period. There were Viking settlements with farms in Greenland which are now covered in ice, and there were forests in Iceland, which is today too far north to support that kind of plantlife.
The idea that we are in some kind of heat “crisis” when we’re actually on the cool side of the last millenium is hysterical fear-mongering and is irresponsible.
Lehosh on January 23, 2007 at 4:37 PM
mlong, I was stuck in Bellaviva salon getting my hair highlighted under a dryer for about 30 minutes and the girl handed me a hollywood rag and it said “many stars will be arriving in Hyprid Prius’ or Hondas to all the awards ceremonies this year.” Yeah, they’ll do that but will go to all the parties in their limos and fly out on their private jets to “relax”.
Catie96706 on January 23, 2007 at 4:40 PM
This is a completely different side issue, but it’s almost an hourly occurance that actual studies totally turn so many similar theories about origins and what caused parts of the physical world to be as they are on their heads. It is evolutionary dogma/faith that requires they reshape their fairytale to fit the real data in to it, but in reality it doesn’t. The most disgraceful is when there is a write-up in Nature or Science by some top scientist in their field who discovers some ridiculously complex feature of a given species that totally destroys their whole idea of how the animal came to be, how it survived different periods, how it exists today, etc… and then they simply say something like “… proves it must have evolved quicker/different than we had previously though”…
The problem is, the findings never said anything about evolution at all, just punched giant holes in preconceived notions. But because evolution is assumed (faith) they can’t look at the data with an unbiased eye. It’s really shameful, and as I said it seems like it’s almost an hourly occurance that this crap gets pulled. Evolution holds back science, because it delays the study of things that are assumed by evolution… only when things are later studied because they clearly aren’t fitting in with the fairytale do the real facts come out, and again, instead of taking the new findings and simply studying and reporting them, some a-hole always has to throw in the “e” word to appearce Father Darwin… again, where the findings don’t show his hand at work, but it’s just assumed. Even more fun is when in these papers the “scientists” describe a feature as “uniquely designed” and in the next sentence flip back to evolution talk. Sad.
Anyway, apologies for the threadjack, but I felt the need to add to Gwillie’s comment, and let you know that it wasn’t just the dino/lizard/bird thing… this goes on constantly.
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Gore’s acceptance speech will be the most exciting thing on Oscar night. Who still watches this garbage?
Valiant on January 23, 2007 at 4:47 PM
By the way warmists, I presented a ton of questions to you guys early on here, that you completely ignored. So I’ll just get simple and do one at a time.
Please tell me why I should believe doomsday projection for future decades when the weather guys can’t get the weather right today. No, I’m not just talking about this failure of a hurricane season after the wild predictions (which they later revised… a.k.a changed because we could observe they were WRONG), in which not a single hurricane made landfall, only two weak tropical storms dropped a little rain, and on the whole it was a BELOW AVERAGE SEASON. No, I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about how the weather for local areas is constantly wrong. In fact it’s probably wrong more often than it’s right.
So why should I believe global warming alarmists who are predicting the distant future, when weather science can’t even tell me what’s going to happen later on tonight? (especially when these same a-holes screamed “global cooling!” through the 70s)
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I didn’t make up the definition — you are just misusing the meaning as a label, stereotype, derogatory term, etc. Kind of like the term Hooah in the army or “hai” in Japan.
Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Honora: “Look at it this way: if Gore, and the Academy of Scientists and most of the science community, are right and we do nothing, big mistake. Possibly an extinction level mistake. If Gore et al are wrong, and we do what they are suggesting, what is the downside? Risk analysis. Next case.”
Hmmm. Tantor’s Theory is that meteors are gonna pelt the Earth and destroy humankind. However, you can survive if you buy Tantor’s Tinfoil Hat which will deflect any asteroids with alpha waves emitted from your brain and focused through the specially constructed hat. Buy my tinfoil hats for ten grand apiece or risk being SMASHED BY METEORS!
Now, if I’m right, buying my tinfoil hats is a smart move that will keep you alive. Otherwise, humankind will be extinguished. Now, if I’m wrong and there are no meteors coming to kill you, what’s the downside? Risk analysis. Next case.
But wait. What is the risk of accepting every hare brained apocalyptic doom-mongering scenario as fact and desperately expending resources to stave it off, only to find we were scammed yet again? What is the cost of expending all our assets to fight off imaginary threats, again and again? One might be led to believe that mindlessly accepting the worst case scenario of every mad prophet of doom is the riskiest course of all.
Tantor on January 23, 2007 at 4:55 PM
This is why we use scientists and facts to debate. This is not junior high school science. Let me give you a quick look at the science.
This is from a scientist a couple of paragraphs from a several page article. A little more complex than your junior high science class. Makes me wonder if you have taken any advanced science class.
A problem a little more complex than Robert Redford or Al Gore could ever grasp.
right2bright on January 23, 2007 at 5:14 PM
How dare you question Gore’s expertise! How dare you! I mean, do you have any idea how hard it is to figure out which way a hurricane rotates!? It’s not his fault that he put out a movie with a backwards spinning hurricane on every DVD, poster, and item related to his Inconvenient Crap… I’d like to see you have done better!
RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »