Under-Aware
If you're not careful we might see you're UnderAware
 

A three step plan to end global warming.

Thursday, March 01 2007 - UnderAware Blog

But first, this just in.......

From Tennessean.com

I called it, Big Al took the trophy at the Oscars, although they made a slip and gave him the one for documentary which is a bunch of manure.

doc·u·men·ta·ry adj. 1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Al's movie doesn't come anywhere near #2 in the definition, although it is very close to #2 from a cow

Well, after the big event and picking up his trophy, hobnobbing with all the brilliant minds in California he hopped onto his private (burns lots of fuel, emits lots of greenhouse gasses?) jet, and it was off to the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II. To this I said, wow, we are seeing a shift in the media, there are those that want to try to reinsert ethics into the mix? What's next? Objective news broadcasting? Nahhhhh.

Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that....

50 People? What did I miss here? This is Al Gore, former VP, speaking at an ethics summit and it draws 50 people?

continuing on....... the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

I still wonder if he really believes all of this or if he's just lying to get his way on something. Neither one of which is good. If he really believes it, using Nancy (Whiner of the House) Pelosi's words (she said it about the President, not the actor Gore), if he really believes what he's saying, then his thinking is impaired.

If you read the article at the link above, there is a reader's comment section, most of which are not all that flattering to Al, anyway, one entry has a great point:

Saying that, "...essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise." shows Gore is being really stupid, or he is intentionally lying. Of course scientists agree that global warming exists. It exists in the form of the Greenhouse Effect and is a result of having an atmosphere. It is the Greenhouse Effect that keeps the earth from having temperature extremes likes those found on the moon. The disagreement lies with saying that humans going about their daily lives and the CO2 they generate are causing a net global temperature to rise. These two facts are not causal. I think all scientists agree that humans exhale CO2. I don't think they agree that exhaling is causing CO2 build-up. The issue Gore won't face honestly is that a lot of the skepticism (either in the "media", from scientists, or average Joes) comes from the fact that we are expected to believe that a natural compound that comprises 0.033% by volume of the atmosphere has a greater affect on temperature fluctuations than volcanic eruptions, cosmic radiation, solar radiation, sunspots, orbital variations, axis wobble, crustal rebound from the last ice age, continental drift, water vapor/cloud cover (a much greater percentage of the atmosphere than CO2), and numerous other forces and phenomena that we have no control over. Gore and his ilk never try to explain contridictory data, respond to data-supported counter claims, or actually debate qualified skeptics. No, instead they make a claim and brand any skeptic as a heretic.

Al goes on in his speach to give what he thinks is the reason for political inaction on his beloved topic:

"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias."

Hey Al, you remember when you told me to tell you when you are embarassing yourself by saying stupid stuff? You're doing it again. Your scientific consensus is based in bias, you and others that side with you have taken to a new approach, silence, shout down, or as the writer above stated "brand any skeptic as a heretic". Everything you have presented is only a sliver of what impacts the environment on our planet. For any person, scientist or otherwise, to say they have the answer, they too are either an idiot, an egotist, or impaired.

"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."

Again, if your conclusion is inaccurate (which based on the constant revisions to global warming outlooks look like your prediction is inaccurate), first off why should we follow your lead? Second, if we do follow your lead and in fact we find that WAS your ass you were speaking out of, what will we have accomplished? Spent billions for nothing, formed a new socialist tax base, created a deleterious effect on our economy as well as our lives in general. It's tough, but I have yet to see anything that can conclusivly say you are right, but I see many many things that are pretty conclusive to say that you are wrong.

Touching on the squelching the critics. It's funny to me, that the Democrats yell and scream that they will not be silenced on the Iraq issue, but when it comes to ManMade Global Warming we get the following:

From RFK Jr Speaking at Virginia Tech "But Kennedy's attacks weren't reserved for Bush. He criticized what he called a "negligent and indolent press" for perpetuating the idea that there's still a debate about global warming despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it is real. He went after scientists -- he called them "biostitutes" -- hired by big oil and big coal who churned out reports for pay after decades of not publishing anything."

Another quote at the end of the RFK Jr piece was hillarious, "We're living in a science-fiction nightmare in this country ... because somebody gave money to a politician," he said. So let me get this straight, we have a climate emergancy, we have to do something about it, the reason for the science fiction nightmare is someone gave money to a politician, and the way to the promised land is via carbon taxes, carbon exchanges, and more political crap not only from our own country but the United (irrelevent) Nations? Does that about sum it up?

in my February 12, 2007 entry, So now I'm a Holocaust Denier? I showed how that particular Op-Ed was trying to shut down discussion against the MMGW debate by labeling people that want to raise a hand and say, "wait a sec, what about....", as Holocaust Deniers.

In both Kennedy's and Goodman's pieces they reference "Big Oil", how they are "paying" for contradicting reports "after decades of not publishing anything". Well decades ago everyone was saying we were heading for another little ice age, so to publish studies (the studies that Kennedy are referencing I presume are the ones done by the American Enterprise Institute, not directly by "Big Oil") decades ago would have been irrelevant as there was no ginned up global crisis at that time.

There is the weather babe Heidi Cullen, on the Weather Channel that thinks "If you don't agree with me, you should be silenced, censured, and ostracized."

Then there is the Governer of Delaware telling her State Climatolologist to not use his title when speaking against man made global warming. Ok, you have a politician that is telling a trained enviromental specialist that she, in effect, doesn't want to hear what he has to say?

The list goes on and on, the left, which is alligned with this topic, wants no debate on the debate, shut up, we know what's right has become their line. And when confronted with real meat and potato, (or tofu and potatos if you go that way), issues and questions, especially if you try to point out a flaw in what they call logic, oh, Lord help you, you are gonna wish you had a Ponderosa salad bar spray shield in front of you from all of the saliva and foam coming your way.

Ok, so enough, my three step plan?

  1. Install a 100 amp circuit breaker panel in Al Gore's energy sucking house(s).
  2. Switch his jets and limo entourage to a set of Matchbox replacements. (Less burning of fossil fuels, also less speaking engagements, which would lead to less bloviating, and a large drop in greenhouse gas emissions)
  3. Last, take away his stylist's can of hair spray and blow dryer. Photograph with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back

powered by performancing firefox

Tagged as: ,

#1 on 3.01.2007 at 11:58 AM

Oh, I almost forgot, the MTSU Program stated on their website: "Honorable Al Gore, Jr., among others will hold a conversation with the delegates and elders."

Well Al didn't take questions and bolted after his little speach.  Some conversation.