Hey Al Gore? It’s freakin’ cold!
By Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, December 8th, 2010 | PolicyI can’t remember the last time Al Gore was in public in winter. Maybe this is why.
“Fort Lauderdale at 40 degrees (42), and Vero Beach at 31 degrees (38), the National Weather Service reported. For Wednesday, at least three cities are expected to set Dec. 8 records: Miami at 42, Orlando at 30 and Jacksonville at 21. Tallahassee is forecast to tie its record at 22 degrees.” (MSNBC)
Now out come the yippie hippies of the left who will whine “climate isn’t weather” but that didn’t stop them from saying “global warming” during mild winters.
They don’t even say “global warming” at all anymore.
And I see why.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
50 Responses to "Hey Al Gore? It’s freakin’ cold!"
If you would just accept that either global warming or George Bush is at the root cause of all that is bad, your transition to the dark, I mean left, side would be painless…
Just like Brian to substitute today’s weather for the science of climate change. Is that short term thinking, or just Brian being Brian? I think both. After all, in his profession, quips, spin, and misdirection are the tools of his trade, and he has moved on before he has to deal with the consequences.
How’s your oceanfront bar proposal, Mike?
Actually fine, thanks for asking. It is expected that Eden will open in early May, and will operate as a restaurant, bar, and club. Live music will be presented in the club venue most evenings until midnight, and the restaurant/bar will be open until 2:00 AM. Perhaps the stage can be reserved for your comedic routines focusing on the art of politics. That should be hilarious.
Wow. Council didn’t give you music past midnight? Could’ve sworn that was on the agenda for a vote.
Thought someone as good as you could get a simple thing like that passed.
Mike,
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Scott, lack of faith in global warming, Brian Kirwin, or the political process?
In recognizing a funny quote.
Turns out man made warming is a good furnace in Florida.
Hey Mike, if you’d like to be on the winning side of an issue for once, give me a call.
Um, were you not paying attention when Norfolk hit an all-time high of 105 this summer? It’s more than a little dishonest to cherry pick a chilly day in December to make the claim that global warming does not exist.
Even the military accepts that not only does global warming exist, but that it will have major implications for national security going forward.
Brian, why do you hate the military???
Global warming has occurred for millions of years.. at which point did the sun become less influential than man?
Sorry Brian, since you have displayed herein that you can’t recognize when a victory has taken place, I think I will keep handling our matters myself.
Sid, if you’re dumb enough to criticize “cherry picking one day” and then proceed to cherry pick a day yourself, I’m too busy laughing at you to respond.
Mike, a victory? You had to pull your agenda item because too many Council members opposed it.
From the Virginian-Pilot “But the majority of the 11 council members didn’t support the club, Mayor Will Sessoms said. ‘I thought it was best for them to withdraw,’ he said.”
You call that a victory?
This is grand! What do you call when you have a majority vote in favor? A defeat?
Well yes Brian, it is a victory. Fact is, Eden can operate by right without a CUP, and the CUP required certain concessions and modifications that will not apply to operation as a primary use. Further, since we were the first out of the box, perhaps the community opposition coalesced against our project. But soon, the bars and restaurants in the Thompson/Huey development will need the same approvals, and once their approvals go forward, the irrational opposition to our CUP will wane. So standby for excellent food, great music, and good times for all at a quality club called Eden.
We still have 38,000 years of “global warming” to go. Only about 12,000 years into the warming cycle. For the last one million years, have had cycles of 100,000 years from peak bottom to peak bottom. And no one knows why.
Climategate only broke a year ago. Since the watermelons lost control of the story, more research is becoming known. Things like NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann’s numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.
Mike, if withdrawing your proposal is a victory, was submitting it in the first place a failure?
This is a subject that I find really interesting, if only because I can’t figure out why there is a liberal and a conservative viewpoint on an issue that hits us all literally where we live.
Brian, I trust that you were being sarcastic in your original post. You are absolutely right–the correct term is Global Climate Change, not Global Warning. That 100-year snowmageddon we had last year is a case in point. The short version is that because the western Pacific Ocean temperature was about 3 degrees higher than normal, the North American jet stream out of Canada was forced south while moisture out of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean was forced north. Global Climate Change (formerly Global Warming) causes extreme weather patterns in both summer and winter. Note, for example, that Paris is snowed in today. That doesn’t mean that they are going to have a cool summer this year. Last summer and in the summer of 2009 they had heat waves that killed dozens of people.
James H. is right–there is ample evidence that global cyclic climate change is a pattern that predates human activity. For example, when the Earth warmed up from the last Ice Age, there was only an estimated 5 million humans on the planet. Their carbon footprint consisted of their campfires and flatulence. But the Earth warmed up anyway.
However, the jury is still out on whether or not human activity is making this cycle more severe than what would naturally occur. As James pointed out, we are still very early in this cycle. I would not bet the ranch that human activity isn’t exacerbating the problem–because if you do then you are quite literally betting the ranch.
However, it is fun to poke a finger in Al Gore’s eye over individual weather events. I will never forget when he was VP and we had a Bermuda high heat wave in the Washington area. Fat Al famously asked, “can anyone doubt now that Global Warming is real?” What a boob; no wonder Tipper is dumping his ass.
The disturbing thing about the climate wars is the corruption of the scientific process through politics. HISROC and JH are correct that climate changes are an empirical question, not a political question and that there is no “proof” that humans are doing anything significant to the climate at this time. However what we have seen here is Lysenkoism. Lysenko was a Soviet biologist who perpetrated a scientific fraud (training producing genetic changes passed on to children) that was congenial to Stalin and Communist ideology. The Soviets supported fraudulent data in support and punished anyone questioning the findings. Does this sound familiar with climate research today? The real point of the climate research is the corrupt cap and trade program designed to enrich Al Gore, Goldman Sachs etc. Even Scientific American (no right wing group) has repeatedly criticized it. Do you think the leftists care about that?
There really should be no debate about implementing policies to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Even if you are so out of touch with the science that you wish to project conclusions based on daily temperature variations, even if you consider the whole thing nothing more than the equivalent of a political football game, even if you FIRMLY believe that global warming/climate change is nothing more than an elaborate conspiracy to con us out of research grant dollars. There are very real and very important national security and economic reasons to implemenmt these policies. These objectives should be enough in and of themselves for every American to support – even those that wish to throw the environmental dice for our grandchildren as irresponsible as that thought process seems.
V (for vendetta?), cap and trade was not a leftist idea. That being said, if we can agree that we should DO something and focus the debate on WHAT we should do – THAT would be a great step forward.
Eric,
I cannot believe that I am agreeing with you, well sort of. As I said, we are too early in this climate cycle to know if human activity is exacerbating the swings. Can we take the chance of waiting until we know for certain before reducing carbon emissions where it is feasible?
On the other hand, cap and trade is a fraud. Even the originators of cap and trade now refute their own theory. If you want to see the flaw of cap and trade, take a look at Al Gore’s mansion in Tennessee. It has the carbon footprint of a small third world country, but Gore purchases “carbon credits” to offset his emissions. Those carbon credits don’t represent a lessening of emissions somewhere else; they come from industries which habitually have lower carbon emissions.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Eric,
P. S.
You are absolutely right about GCC being a national security issue. As a Defense consultant, I have been to symposiums where the risks to the United States have been discussed. For example, what happens if the Arctic ice cap above North America melts to the point where the Northwest Passage is navigable by surface ships year round instead of being accessible only by nuclear submarines? Suddenly, the US and Canada will have a northern coastline to patrol and defend. And what effect will the droughts in Africa have if they become perennial? How will that affect piracy in the coastal waters of the continent and how will that effect the North American hurricane season?
Scary stuff.
@troll
The vendetta has been perpetrated by left wing politicians, their media accomplices and complicit scientists against anyone questioning their position. Even they admit their proposals would have no significant effect on greenhouse emissions. The left has also opposed nuclear power. What we need is more technology development and market choices, not more bureaucracy to address environmental issues in general.
Hisroc, valentinus and Eric: You guys ruined Brian’s post. I’m sure the last thing he contemplated when posting this this was that a serious and interesting conversation about climate change would break out.
Conservatives don’t like such conservations — ridiculing Al gore is a much more effective rhetorical tool — because they inevitably undercut the Conservative position that global climate change is a hoax, so nothing needs to be done to address it.
Not so fast, Mr. Zimmerman (aznew). I’m enjoying the conversation very much.
If you really buy into the Climate Change/Global warming theory, then rather than supporting expensive and burdensome methods to mitigate it, you should support some of the methods suggested in the book Super Freakenomics. Garden hose to the sky seems loony, but it is based on science. And if an ice age came along, we could stop doing it.
Aznew, i am a lifelong environmentalist.. so was Barry Goldwater, the sire of modern conservsatism. The irony is that Goldwater was not a hypocrit. He was a practical environmentalist without comparison as was Teddy Roosevelt.
Concern about the environment has been so politicized for so long that the end result is that some from left and right have become annoyed by the sky is falling crap and do little more than pay lip service to real environmental issues that really do matter such as particulate emissions and ground level ozone..
Right now we are increasing the tons per minute of pollutants pumped into the air by operating an aging fleet of vehicles in this country. Want to help make a dirrerence? Help auto dealers replace the clunkers with newer more efficient models but don’t fall prey to gimmicks like cash for clunkers. Those older cars pollute orders of magnitude more than the new ones we should be manufacturing right here.
Oh, about Al Gore.. http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Can’t make this stuff up
I’ll never buy into the planet’s temperature being something mankind can control. I have an ego, but it’s not so big to have that arrogance.
And I don’t think carbon makes a difference at all compared to that big ball of fire in the sky we call the sun.
Politicians want to tax the air you breathe by means of a carbon tax…….
Therefore, before we spend or transfer one more dollar, three absolutely critical steps must be taken.
First, we need to have open, robust and, if needs be, cantankerous hearings and debates – in Congress and elsewhere, with witnesses under oath. Do we really face a manmade climate crisis? Or are we just dealing with the same forces, the same changes, the same impacts (good and bad) that Earth, the wild kingdom and mankind have had to confront and adapt to countless times over the eons? What actual evidence do you have, and how was it gathered and peer-reviewed? Not computer models, assumptions, assertions, scary headline-grabbing press releases, imaginary consensus, et cetera. Real evidence.
Second, Congress and the states must bring in government officials, again under oath and subpoena, and find out which agencies gave how much money to whom, how it was used – and what quality control, transparency and accountability rules applied, who enforced them, and how.
Third, we need to stop this runaway climate crisis funding and regulatory juggernaut, until we have satisfactory answers to these questions. That means freeze the funding conduits; halt or defund the EPA “endangerment” rules; and open America’s onshore and offshore public lands to oil, gas, coal, uranium and rare earth metals exploration and development, under reasonable environmental guidelines, to ensure that we have the reliable, affordable energy we need.
Only then will we again have government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Well put James H.. Our current EPA has been pwned by wealth redistributionistas. People working there know it and I applaud some of them for deliberatly exposing the Obamanation going on there right now.. This too shall end 1.20.13
Brian’s position is exactly what is wrong with this debate from the Conservative side, or at least a particular segment of that side, perhaps exemplified by Sen. James Inhofe and the many Conservatives who contend that global climate change, and the effect of human activities upon it, is some kind of hoax.
He writes, “I’ll never buy into the planet’s temperature being something mankind can control.”
Okay then. By his own admission the facts of the matter are irrelevant, since Brian will “never” buy into the idea no matter how much evidence piles up. Now, Brian is obviously an intelligent person, but given his stated position on this issue, there is no point to discussing the matter with him — indeed, there is no debate in which to engage. Absolute beliefs are by their nature self-validating.
James — I can appreciate that one can be a Conservative and an environmentalist. I can appreciate that one can even agree that the scientific evidence of human effect on global climate change is real (as distinct from the magnitude of that effect), but differ passionately and rationally on what, if anything, ought to be done about it.
But where I part ways is with that particular brand of Conservatism that denies, as a matter of belief and faith, that human activities affect global climate, regardless of what the science shows, as a means of defending the public policies, or more accurately the lack thereof, that they advocate. It is one thing to oppose government action because of a ideological belief in limited government (that is a good debate to have), but quite another to defend one’s position that government ought not to act by simply denying that a problem exists despite reams of evidence to the contrary. Indeed, I would argue that the latter position is not at all Conservative.
As for Al Gore, please see this too:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
Aznew, you want to be told by government about the impending doom of the planet so you can cede your freedom and money, be my guest.
I’ve long supported conservation and clean environments. I’m just not buying the hype by those who think America is the cause of all environmental damage to the planet while places like China are so hunky-dory.
Global temperatures track solar cycles, not carbon usage. They just haven’t figured out a way to tax sunshine….yet.
Do we really face a manmade climate crisis?
Before spending trillions of dollars to fix this problem, perhaps it would be wise to see if the problem really exists.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php
Go to that site to see reports by scientists who believe the answer is no.
I would like to see real evidence by people who believe we do face a manmade climate crisis.
Aznew, It is our obligation to keep them ruling class bastards living in the fear that we might find out what they’re doing. The motivation for Al Gore is MONEY. Environmental issues are his convenient tool to fool the ignorant masses who bow to the likes of Gore then after the controvery is turned upside down they continue to deny they were snookered so they don’t feel as dumb as they may be for not doing their own DD. Not nice words, not minced either..
Brian: Looking through the thread, I can’t find where anybody said it was all America’s fault or that China’s environmental policies were “hunky dory” or anything else, for that matter. No discussion of that issue.
You know. building strawmen and setting them on fire increases your carbon footprint.
As a carbon based life form, I see no problem with having a carbon foot print. Brian, they may not be able to tax sunshine, but they sure can tax “life”. They want to own the carbon cycle.
I’m tired of the elementists. They should go pick on another element in the periodic table to demonize and tax. Next thing ya know, those guys will try to use the “Commerce Clause” and regulate the carbon exchange between people and the trees/plants. We give them carbon dioxide and they give us oxygen. Clearly that calls for Congressional action!
Besides, Steve, Brian is just referencing a group of people out there in the Global Warming crowd that really do practice “Hate America First”. Intellectually, these people he references, ignore China because they either can’t do anything about them, they get a pass because they’re good communists, or they could not care less (because they’re trying to make money in the US not China).
Those people do actively affect policy, work alongside and probably tainting good science coming from all the other well meaning people.
Another thing not mentioned previously in the thread are natural events like volcanos. Compare those emissions to Brian’s virtual burning strawman and see which has a significant effect.
This wouldn’t have to be a partisan issue if it wasn’t for the crooks on the Left giving the good Lefties a bad name. Many on the Right are indeed conservationists and believe in good stewardship. Even Libertarians believe somebody has to pay for damaging others. We just believe in innocence until proven guilty. The Global Warming crowd can’t even make up their minds let alone prove anything. First it was a coming new Ice Age, then global warming, now they can have their cake and eat it too with “Climate Change”. When you combine that with alleged “leaders” like Al Gore, how do you expect anyone to take this whole man-made climate disaster stuff seriously? How many hurricanes were we supposed to have this year again? I expect next we will hear that the climate is so extreme that there is also a moderation of weather at times.
Why not just argue for conservation and efficient practices? Some things are definitely man-made, like mercury levels in LOCAL water ways. More efficient gas engines or alternatives, which will have security benefits as mentioned earlier? Some of your friends on the Right might be able to go along with things like that. You wouldn’t even need to threaten them with Climate Armageddon either. It is a “very convenient truth.”
aznew,
I largely agree with your argument, but don’t understand why you linked to the snopes article. It confirms the information at “turbo”‘s link. Are you trying to defend Al Gore on the basis that his mansion “only” uses 12 times the amount of energy as the average home instead of 20 times?
I am sympathetic to the GCC concerns and believe that out of caution alone, if for no other reason, we should reduce carbon emissions where it is feasible to do so without sending our economy spiralling back into the 18th Century. Al Gore, however, is part of the problem, not the solution. He embraced the issue of climate change as a senator and politicized it for his own aggrandisement. He damned near rode it all the way to the Oval Office, which is one of the few things I am grateful to GWB for. Since leaving office, he has parlayed it into a Nobel Prize, an Oscar, and millions of dollars in fees and royalties. Gore is the embodiment of the fraud that many people believe GCC to be. The most charitable thing you can say about him is that he is a hypocrite who doesn’t walk the talk. At worst, he is a charlatan interested only in enriching himself at the expense of a very serious problem facing the planet as a whole.
Trying to justify Al Gore weakens the entire argument for recognizing GCC as potentially something more significant than a routine solar cycle.
Hisroc:
I wasn’t trying to justify Al Gore. The Snopes article I cited demonstrated to me that the rap on Gore was a little more ambiguous than the Snopes article James cited, and that’s all I was trying to say. I’m not hanging my hat on Gore or his movie, which I’ve actually never seen.
As for your broader attack on Gore’s character, I don’t share it is a general matter, but really am not interested in debating the point. Whatever else he is, he’s yesterday’s news, it seems to me.
Anyway, I think your position on this issue is one grounded in common sense, and I appreciate the thoughtful and informative discussion it launched, so well done.
aznew,
I think that we are in agreement.
BTW, you really should watch “An Inconvenient Truth.” Just take some Dramamine before you start it and keep a barf bag handy. Regardless of how you might view Al Gore before viewing this movie, your opinion of him will definitely be lower afterwards unless you are a dogmatic liberal, a member of the Hollywood glitterati, or the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee. Oh, wait. That really is redundant, isn’t it?
“Carbon-free” Al talks about global warming in “An Inconvenient Truth”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8847562857479496579#
Since I took a course in how to fudge “cheat” with your numbers in scientific papers, I am listening to this from a different point of view. Someone on his staff must have been a classmate of mine. A buddy of mine who is now a professor at GW in DC taught me how to cheat in chemistry. Scientists can be just as greedy and corrupt as politicians.
Al Gore is saying that manmade CO2 is causing global warming that will destroy mankind.
The people at the UN climate talks in Cancun are saying the same thing.
I consider this to be false since there is no evidence to support it.
What is much worse is the solution that these fools want to use to “fix” a problem that does not exist. These fools want to spend trillions of dollars, more then our entire current national debt.
They want to tax North America and Europe that much money to pay for their schemes.
Like buying solar powered ovens in China to give to Indians in the jungles so they will not use wood to cook their food.
I would rather spend billions of dollars in Virginia to fix the infrastructure.
Talking Hippo Predicts End Of World. Sorry that was from an ad not the headline.
The UN Climate Commission wants the people of Virginia to come up with 2 billion dollars to help developing nations deal with global warming and increase efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation. I think 2 billion dollars would cover 30% of the repairs needed to fix the state infrastructure.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/12/11/mexico.climate.summit/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
Tax Cut Bill Loaded With Deals for Lobbyists, Lawmakers from Fox News. Charles Krauthammer’s piece on the compromise makes me wonder a bit.
So the deforestation is ok? They just want to reduce “emmisions” from the act of deforestation? Maybe they want a solar powered chain saw?
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)
None of the lobbying has been more telling than a statement issued by 259 investment organisations, controlling “collective assets totalling over $15 trillion” – including major banks, insurance companies and pension funds. These are the bodies calling most stridently for “government action on climate change”, because they are the ones who hope to make vast sums of money out of it. They are desperate for a treaty of the type they failed to get at Copenhagen – even more so since the collapse of the US cap and trade bill – because they see their chance of turning global warming into the most lucrative fruit machine in history dwindling by the month.
Top of their wish list is “a rapid time-frame” for implementing the UN’s REDD scheme, which would enable them to make hundreds of billions of dollars by selling the CO2 locked up in the world’s tropical rainforests as “carbon offsets”, thus allowing firms from the developed world to continue emitting CO2. Under this scheme, for instance, environmental bodies including the WWF hope to share in the $60 billion which they estimate as the “carbon value” of the Brazilian rainforest.
“I consider this to be false since there is no evidence to support it.”
Sorry, there is plenty of evidence to support such a conclusion. The fact that you wish to ignore or disagree with the conclusion drawn from that evidence does not mean it does not exist. But the policies needed to reduce the emission of carbon and other greenhouse gases is needed regardless of whether you agree with the science or not. We need to convert our country to sustainable and renewable energy for economic and security reasons alone (in addition to non-greenhouse gas environmental reasons). Nuclear power is a big part of the equation. Wind and solar need to be as well as an electric car fleet. Wind turbines and solar power never create the kind of disaster as was seen in the Gulf this summer. Carbon taxes or cap & trade will help to move the economy away from fossil fuels. This is in all of our best interests regardless of whether you believe the science behind MMCC.
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the most deadly and widespread pollutant on the planet, contributing hundreds of times more to global warming than all the greenhouse gases combined and has killed millions of humans.
“Global Warming” is little more than a scam, cooked up by green activists, bent scientists, greedy corporatists, and power hungry politicians to advance an agenda of taxation, regulation, socialistic wealth redistribution and control.
The Death Blow to Manmade CO2 Global Warming by Stephen Wilde. Where is Wilde wrong????
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true&position=1
It is snowing now. Snowing again. Snowing again for the third time this season.
Iceland has finally emerged from deep recession after allowing its currency to plunge and washing its hands of private bank debt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/8187476/Iceland-offers-risky-temptation-for-Ireland-as-recession-ends.html
I am thinking that perhaps I should explore the economic history of Iceland for the last 3 or 4 years. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned.
Spain debt auction pushes borrowing costs to decade high
2010 is on track to be one of the hottest, if not the hottest years on record. A local cold snap doesn’t change that.
Comparing all the temperature records http://t.co/bSFkio0
What happened to the ‘warmest year on record’: The truth is global warming has halted
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz19LDS4z6s
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.