Gore Strikes Back – Plus: Am I Prophetic?

Ok, I really hate to keep clanging this gong – but did I not say exactly this yesterday (this was part of my comment on the link to the left (Under Crap of Interest) about the 400 scientists):

Oh – but because the U.S. Senate wrote the report it can’t be trusted because they all like to drown babies in crude oil for profit….

Remember – you heard it first right here on What The Crap.

Well, I’m finally admitting it: I’m a prognosticator…because, just like clockwork, here’s a statement from Gore’s spokesperson today:

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.” (emphasis mine)

Read the Full Article

You see folks – this is the sorry state of the environmental movement today. It makes me sad because I really do care about our environment. But the fact is that the “movement” itself has been completely hijacked by extremists and radicals.

Note Gore’s tactic – don’t debate the scientists, just attempt to discredit them by claiming they received money (note – only 25-30 of 400 may have) from that evil evil company Exxon-Mobil. Isn’t anyone else bothered by this? Even if a handful of these scientists did receive money from Exxon-Mobil (assumed to be evil and anti-environment) suddenly that means they must have made up the data and we shouldn’t even consider their arguments? Hello? This is a common tactic when something doesn’t fit the environmental agenda – Attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees.

I’m sorry, but ladies and gentleman, Al Gore is a coward for this, and I do not use the term lightly. If he truly believes that he has the science correct – he wouldn’t need to discredit opposing viewpoints. All he would need to do is counter their arguments with his own. You can clearly see – he doesn’t even have to stones to do that. Rather – he chooses to imply that anyone with a different viewpoint must be lying and/or paid off by the assumed evil “Big Oil”. What kind of a weakling starts a movement that has huge implications on the world, then refuses to debate his own conclusions? Plus, do you hear the opposition rushing out to slander Gore’s scientists? No. All the people in opposition want to do is debate the science. That’s it. Apparently Al Gore’s is just too pathetic to even let someone question his theory.

I just find this whole thing remarkable. I’m sorry to keep bringing it up – but I just can’t stand it. I believe that there are reasonable steps America could take to perhaps clean up aspects of our environment. However, making up outrageous doomsday scenarios based on politically charged science – then smearing and squelching anyone who dares show any objection is absolute cowardice. In my opinion, Al Gore is a disgrace to science as well as anyone who actually cares about free thinking or coming up with practical environmental solutions in America.

The Nobel comity should be ashamed for endorsing such a one sided wimpy whiny cry-baby – who’s only rebuttal to opposing questions is throwing blame-game slanderous tantrums. What little respect I may have had for Al Gore’s ideas has been completely destroyed by his own low-life childish actions. If he wants me to take his theory of man caused global warming seriously – he is going to have to re-earn my respect. Until then, Al Gore will remain What The Crap’s Honorary Eviro-Douche-bag of the Year.

Wopper of The Universe

Read my article from yesterday.


6 Responses to “Gore Strikes Back – Plus: Am I Prophetic?”

  1. brewski Says:

    Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

    1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
    2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
    3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
    4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
    5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

    These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by …

    Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
    Royal Society of Canada
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Academié des Sciences (France)
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    Indian National Science Academy
    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    Science Council of Japan
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
    Australian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Irish Academy
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

    In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

    NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
    State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
    American Geophysical Union (AGU)
    American Institute of Physics (AIP)
    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
    American Meteorological Society (AMS)
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

    I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.

  2. whatthecrap? Says:

    Allow me to clarify my concerns a bit,

    Firstly, when did “consensus” start to prove anything in science? Are we now voting on scientific truth? In science, because one team has more people on their side, do they automatically win? Can they now just wave a wand and proclaim any opposition unworthy of giving any serious thought? Consensus doesn’t equal Truth. That’s one of my main concerns here.

    Science is a tool with which we attempt to understand observed phenomenon in our natural environment. Quite swiftly, what once is a “consensus” among scientists can change based new data and the sheer massive quantity of factors involved.

    The science is not closed and I have a very hard time taking anyone serious who claims that it is. Clearly, there are many scientists on either side of the debate here – both sides arguments should be heard and given equal credence.

    Secondly, It seems like you are making the exact same claim that Gore just did. Just because a group of scientists may be associated with Sen Inhofe – then you can just discredit everything they say? What if I said the same thing about you. Well, just because you hang out with this particular crowd, your opinion should be disqualified regardless of what your point is… I’m not even going to listen to it. No! This is not a rational way to debate. But this is exactly what happens when anyone proclaims any skepticism about man caused global warming. Suddenly – there’s this huge rush to prove how they aren’t even worthy to be heard. What the Crap?

    That’s my main point. In science, you can’t just discredit a whole side of an argument because they might belong to some group or another or because they are in the minority. You have to debate their arguments. If they’re false – they will quickly and easily be proven false. Then you can conclude that the skeptics are incorrect. Note that I am not writing off all of the scientists on Al Gore’s side of the spectrum. I want to see their arguments discussed along side the opposition’s. That’s all I ask.

    Everyone has heard the Pro Man Made Global Warming arguments. The skeptics view should be given a chance – and whoever they may be affiliated with shouldn’t be a factor. Debate the arguments, not the arguers. Then you would have my full respect.

  3. Matt Turkington Says:

    I think you should repost that Stossel video where he interviews the dissenting scientists “in the pocket of corporations”

  4. whatthecrap? Says:

    Actually, It’s right at the end of the post I put up yesterday (below this one). ;)

  5. A Global Warming Tutorial « What The Crap? - whatthecrap.us Says:

    […] Gore Strikes Back – Plus: Am I Prophetic? […]

  6. 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Anthropomorphic Global Warming Hypothesis « What The Crap? - whatthecrap.us Says:

    […] And here’s a picture of Al Gore who will almost certainly launch ad hominem attacks on these scientists to try to discredit them. Mark these words (or some variation of them): “They (or maybe a few of them) received money from oil companies.“ […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: