Gore used Lieberman when he thought it would get him the Jewish vote
but as soon as Lieberman wanted to run for Pres Gore showed him the same support as Europe showed the Jews thru history. Use them and lose them. Gore did not support Lieberman's Presidential run, and in December 2003 endorsed Howard Dean's candidacy, saying "This is about all of us and all of us need to get behind the strongest candidate."
Nothing would make the democratic race more interesting than to put Gore back where now he doesn't want to be.
You see Gore makes more money not being President than he would sitting in the Oval office. He is on the boards of companies like Microsoft and Google and has several tens of millions of dollars worth of stock for that honor but if he were to run for President he could no longer be on those boards as that would be a conflict of interest. He would not be able to do his speaking tours or book tours. It is much better for him to sit on the sidelines and criticize the Government than it would be to be running it. I have been weary of how "Green" he really is ever since his 2 terms as VP where he only passed one environmental bill and that was to prohibit the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.
This article below is taken from the blog: Nixon is in Hell (this is just a small portion of it but I took the part that focuses on his hypocrisy about his being an environmental crusader.
After reviewing the actions, and inaction, of the Clinton-Gore administration, it is hard to believe that it is the same Al Gore featured in the documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”.
Al Gore’s estate in Nashville, Tennessee
Critics of Gore’s personal lifestyle point out the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 10,000 square foot mansion in suburban Nashville, Tennessee. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house used nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
Gore also owns homes in Arlington, Virginia, and Carthage, Tennessee. To be fair, he subscribes to utility company programs offering alternatives, paying more for wind power per kilowatt-hour than energy derived from traditional sources. Gore has also installed solar panels where possible on his estates and does his utmost to make his lifestyle “carbon-neutral”.
In the final analysis, how do we reconcile Al Gore’s abysmal record as a politician with his personal convictions, (which I have no doubt are sincere)?
I think that The Independent, (London), journalist Johann Hari provides the explanation quite clearly in his article of June 1, 2006:
“The temptation for journalists is to blame it on personal moral failure. Clinton and Gore are hypocrites, liars, the old story. If only we could find a morally pure politician, everything would be okay.
The reality is less glib and more disturbing. Every American politician has to pay for their massive election campaigns, and there is one group waiting with open wallets and a few polite requests: the fossil fuel industry. Democrat or Republican, if you don’t lick the boots of the oil and gas companies, you never get the key to the White House.
This legalised bribery is often so naked that many corporations give to both parties, to ensure whoever wins is in their debt. Anybody with environmental leanings is quickly tamed - 28 gas and oil companies gave to Al Gore’s election campaign, from BP Amoco to Enron, from Exxon to Chevron. Occidental Petroleum paid for the Clinton-Gore inauguration, and stumped up an extra pounds 50,000 after Gore personally made a begging call to their CEO.
These companies own the American political process, and they are violently opposed to any moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They can keep US politicians on a short leash, since presidents and senators are forced to spend around half their time fundraising. According to Bob Woodward, Clinton was so exasperated by this corporate-cash treadmill he once snapped: ‘We spend so much time raising money, when do we get to govern?’
Some politicians deal with this double-bind by rote-learning an ideology - neoliberalism - that says there is no conflict between the public welfare and corporate welfare. As Eisenhower’s secretary of defence, Charles Wilson, put it: ‘What’s good for General Motors is good for America.’
Al Gore is far too smart to fall for this, but he was powerless to act. When Clinton arrived in the White House in 1992, Gore lobbied him hard for the only environmentally sane solution: a broad- based energy tax that would hit the dirtiest fuel, coal, hardest, and have a knock-on effect on natural gas and petrol. Clinton agreed, with a nervous nod in the direction of his campaign contributors - but it was impossible to get it past a (Democratic) Congress also drenched in petrol.
Yet in Al Gore’s inspirational lectures on the danger we face, there is only the most fleeting of references to ‘the special interests that want us to ignore global warming’, and silence about Gore’s own dependence on them. Why doesn’t Gore mention this, the biggest brake on dealing with global warming? Because if he wants to run for President in 2008, he will have to plunge back into the petrol tank to grab some campaign funds. He cannot afford to alienate potential donors, so he cannot give a full and honest account of the problem.”
It’s not just the petroleum industry on which Al Gore would rely for funds, but a myriad of corporations dependent on cheap energy to guarantee their massive profits – businesses that hold stocks in oil companies, or are owned by them outright, including all of America’s mass media networks.
Back to his film that made him a Nobel Prize winner (right up there with Arafat and Carter) here is some of the incovenient truths about An "Inconvenient Truth"
Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Not all of the inaccuracies in the film were fully considered by the court as the judge requested a sample on which to consider the case. Professor Carter's witness statement (reproduced below) lists 20 inaccuracies in the film.
http://www.newparty.co.uk/UserFiles/File/dimmocktranscript.pdf
Nothing would make the democratic race more interesting than to put Gore back where now he doesn't want to be.
You see Gore makes more money not being President than he would sitting in the Oval office. He is on the boards of companies like Microsoft and Google and has several tens of millions of dollars worth of stock for that honor but if he were to run for President he could no longer be on those boards as that would be a conflict of interest. He would not be able to do his speaking tours or book tours. It is much better for him to sit on the sidelines and criticize the Government than it would be to be running it. I have been weary of how "Green" he really is ever since his 2 terms as VP where he only passed one environmental bill and that was to prohibit the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.
This article below is taken from the blog: Nixon is in Hell (this is just a small portion of it but I took the part that focuses on his hypocrisy about his being an environmental crusader.
After reviewing the actions, and inaction, of the Clinton-Gore administration, it is hard to believe that it is the same Al Gore featured in the documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”.
Al Gore’s estate in Nashville, Tennessee
Critics of Gore’s personal lifestyle point out the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 10,000 square foot mansion in suburban Nashville, Tennessee. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house used nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
Gore also owns homes in Arlington, Virginia, and Carthage, Tennessee. To be fair, he subscribes to utility company programs offering alternatives, paying more for wind power per kilowatt-hour than energy derived from traditional sources. Gore has also installed solar panels where possible on his estates and does his utmost to make his lifestyle “carbon-neutral”.
In the final analysis, how do we reconcile Al Gore’s abysmal record as a politician with his personal convictions, (which I have no doubt are sincere)?
I think that The Independent, (London), journalist Johann Hari provides the explanation quite clearly in his article of June 1, 2006:
“The temptation for journalists is to blame it on personal moral failure. Clinton and Gore are hypocrites, liars, the old story. If only we could find a morally pure politician, everything would be okay.
The reality is less glib and more disturbing. Every American politician has to pay for their massive election campaigns, and there is one group waiting with open wallets and a few polite requests: the fossil fuel industry. Democrat or Republican, if you don’t lick the boots of the oil and gas companies, you never get the key to the White House.
This legalised bribery is often so naked that many corporations give to both parties, to ensure whoever wins is in their debt. Anybody with environmental leanings is quickly tamed - 28 gas and oil companies gave to Al Gore’s election campaign, from BP Amoco to Enron, from Exxon to Chevron. Occidental Petroleum paid for the Clinton-Gore inauguration, and stumped up an extra pounds 50,000 after Gore personally made a begging call to their CEO.
These companies own the American political process, and they are violently opposed to any moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They can keep US politicians on a short leash, since presidents and senators are forced to spend around half their time fundraising. According to Bob Woodward, Clinton was so exasperated by this corporate-cash treadmill he once snapped: ‘We spend so much time raising money, when do we get to govern?’
Some politicians deal with this double-bind by rote-learning an ideology - neoliberalism - that says there is no conflict between the public welfare and corporate welfare. As Eisenhower’s secretary of defence, Charles Wilson, put it: ‘What’s good for General Motors is good for America.’
Al Gore is far too smart to fall for this, but he was powerless to act. When Clinton arrived in the White House in 1992, Gore lobbied him hard for the only environmentally sane solution: a broad- based energy tax that would hit the dirtiest fuel, coal, hardest, and have a knock-on effect on natural gas and petrol. Clinton agreed, with a nervous nod in the direction of his campaign contributors - but it was impossible to get it past a (Democratic) Congress also drenched in petrol.
Yet in Al Gore’s inspirational lectures on the danger we face, there is only the most fleeting of references to ‘the special interests that want us to ignore global warming’, and silence about Gore’s own dependence on them. Why doesn’t Gore mention this, the biggest brake on dealing with global warming? Because if he wants to run for President in 2008, he will have to plunge back into the petrol tank to grab some campaign funds. He cannot afford to alienate potential donors, so he cannot give a full and honest account of the problem.”
It’s not just the petroleum industry on which Al Gore would rely for funds, but a myriad of corporations dependent on cheap energy to guarantee their massive profits – businesses that hold stocks in oil companies, or are owned by them outright, including all of America’s mass media networks.
Back to his film that made him a Nobel Prize winner (right up there with Arafat and Carter) here is some of the incovenient truths about An "Inconvenient Truth"
Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Not all of the inaccuracies in the film were fully considered by the court as the judge requested a sample on which to consider the case. Professor Carter's witness statement (reproduced below) lists 20 inaccuracies in the film.
http://www.newparty.co.uk/UserFiles/File/dimmocktranscript.pdf
Just added this article o
n 12/12/07:
n 12/12/07:MIT Professor Declares Gore’s
Global Warming Crusade a
‘Bait-and-Switch Scam’
By Noel Sheppard July 2, 2006 - 12:51 ET
Pardon the pun, but the concept of global warming came under some more heat today from the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen. Some of you might be familiar with the name Lindzen. He has been a strong antagonist to global warmingists – especially Al Gore – and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal back in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles, but avowed that exactly the opposite is the case: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”
Well, Lindzen wrote another WSJ op-ed published on Sunday entitled “Don't Believe the Hype,” with a subheading – “Al Gore is wrong. There's no ‘consensus’ on global warming.” This one further attacked the junk science involved in this theory, as well as the preposterous claim being made by Al Gore that there is actually a consensus in the scientific community about the issue:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
“Mr. Gore assures us that ‘the debate in the scientific community is over.’
“That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this ‘debate’ actually is in the first place.”
Lindzen then went through a meticulous examination of just how little consensus actually exists, and that any suggestion to the contrary is just a gaseous emission:
“When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists ‘don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence’ one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists ‘don't know. . . . They just don't know.’
“So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the ‘consensus.’"
Lindzen offered several examples of how preposterous these assertions of a consensus are, including:
“More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words ‘global climate change’ produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”
Thus, it appears quite simple to identify a consensus with data about those whose views are falsely depicted as part of such consensus.
Lindzen marvelously concluded his piece (emphasis mine):
“So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
“First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade.
“Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.”
I guess it’s safe to say that Professor Lindzen is not part of the consensus that people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the overwhelming majority of the drive-by media are continually telling the citizenry – despite all the evidence to the contrary – exists.
By Noel Sheppard July 2, 2006 - 12:51 ET
Pardon the pun, but the concept of global warming came under some more heat today from the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen. Some of you might be familiar with the name Lindzen. He has been a strong antagonist to global warmingists – especially Al Gore – and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal back in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles, but avowed that exactly the opposite is the case: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”
Well, Lindzen wrote another WSJ op-ed published on Sunday entitled “Don't Believe the Hype,” with a subheading – “Al Gore is wrong. There's no ‘consensus’ on global warming.” This one further attacked the junk science involved in this theory, as well as the preposterous claim being made by Al Gore that there is actually a consensus in the scientific community about the issue:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
“Mr. Gore assures us that ‘the debate in the scientific community is over.’
“That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this ‘debate’ actually is in the first place.”
Lindzen then went through a meticulous examination of just how little consensus actually exists, and that any suggestion to the contrary is just a gaseous emission:
“When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists ‘don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence’ one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists ‘don't know. . . . They just don't know.’
“So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the ‘consensus.’"
Lindzen offered several examples of how preposterous these assertions of a consensus are, including:
“More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words ‘global climate change’ produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”
Thus, it appears quite simple to identify a consensus with data about those whose views are falsely depicted as part of such consensus.
Lindzen marvelously concluded his piece (emphasis mine):
“So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
“First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade.
“Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.”
I guess it’s safe to say that Professor Lindzen is not part of the consensus that people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the overwhelming majority of the drive-by media are continually telling the citizenry – despite all the evidence to the contrary – exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment