Though Austin Chronicle writer Robert Bryce is likely not a household name, his column published in Thursday's Energy Tribune is a must-read for all anthropogenic global warming skeptics.
In "Al Gore's Zero Emissions Makes Zero Sense," Bryce not only skewered the Global Warmingist in Chief's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth," but he also deliciously mocked all the sycophant devotees of the former vice president that have failed to recognize the obvious as they tour the country professing imminent planetary doom at the hands of a naturally occurring gas that happens to be a necessity to all forms of life.
With that in mind, Bryce marvelously began with one of the world's greatest truisms (emphasis added throughout):
It is the nature of civilization to use energy and it's the nature of liberalism to feel bad about it.
Honestly, have you ever heard any statement that better describes this whole debate?
Fortunately, Bryce wasn't even warmed up yet:
Here's my review: it is an overly simplistic look at a complex problem and it concludes with one of the single stupidest statements ever put on film. Yes, that's harsh criticism. But it's the right one, given that just before the final credits, in a segment addressing what individuals can do about global warming, the following line appears onscreen: "In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."
This statement is so blatantly absurd that I am still stunned, weeks after watching Gore's movie, that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie - including, particularly, Gore himself - paused to wonder aloud something to the effect of, "Hey, what about breathing? Don't we produce carbon dioxide through respiration?"
The answer, is yes, we do. Thus, by including the claim that you can "reduce your carbon emissions to zero" the film's producers might as well have hung a sign around Gore's neck that says "I'm an idiot."
Does that mean all of the folks that are buying Gore's snake oil must also be wearing such a sign around their necks?
Regardless of the answer, the reader is encouraged to review the entire piece for more chuckles.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel, that is hilarious.
August 16, 2007 - 16:49 ET by bassndudeNoel, that is hilarious. And true.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
And not to be too crass about it, buuuut....
August 16, 2007 - 16:53 ET by Bean97...you have to pee and poo, too :)
They both have carbon in them.
aaaand.....
August 16, 2007 - 17:04 ET by BarkerConsidering where his head is firmly planted, Al Gore can recycle his own emissions.
Zero. Carbon. Buttprint.
That reminds me...last week
August 16, 2007 - 17:53 ET by motherbelt..you have to pee and poo, too :)
They both have carbon in them.
That reminds me...last week my son was telling me how they feed their 7 month old baby food that "must be good, because it's organic" and I told him, "I've got news for you, what comes out his other end is organic too!" LOL
And you're still
August 17, 2007 - 10:24 ET by pbanks7And you're still producing carbon after you die. It's called decomposition.
Remember the first Star Trek movie? The aliens (or was it a computer?) referred to humans as "carbon units."
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
That's funny! And it now
August 16, 2007 - 16:52 ET by balboaThat's funny! And it now becomes my excuse for not reducing my carbon emissions: I need the air.
How long until someone
August 16, 2007 - 17:05 ET by SoftRightHow long until someone finally points out that there are numerous natural sources of CO2 and that for millenia...... ... .. .. for millenia these sources of CO2 have been absorbed by plants and plankton and coral to form the incredible natural deposits of limestone and hydrocarbons that we find here in the present??? How long must I wait for someone with a brain and an ounce of scientific knowledge to wonder where all of that carbon came from???? It was absorbed out of the air (and the oceans it dissolved into) to be formed into other carbon molecules like coral reefs, limestone and ultimately coal..... When are the eco nuts going to realize that carbon dioxide is not some new radioactive element created by the evil men that inhabit their sacred planet? But instead is a rather small, almost inconsiderable fraction of the natural atmosphere, and more importantly that the planet has obviously managed to maintain some semblance of an equilibrium by the simple process that raising CO2 levels speeds its absorbtion by the ocean and plants and rapidly locks that CO2 away.
Until then, I guess we can at least ask them to put their philosphy where their mouth is and stop breathing.
Back up the concrete trucks
August 16, 2007 - 17:11 ET by Cool ArrowThe EVIAN spring comes to mind.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
One of my favorites: More
August 17, 2007 - 10:26 ET by pbanks7One of my favorites: More CO2 in the air will lead to - wait for it - crop loss.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
The Need for the Liberal Inquisitor of Idious Lefticus
August 16, 2007 - 17:11 ET by Lame CherryThis was perfect Mr. Sheppard, absolutely perfect as it exactly shows what I profiled long ago in liberals in they are guilty ridden and fear laden in dealing with life to a phobic psychopathy.
For generations people have either turned to God or the Catholic religion took that over in unburdening masses of people, but liberals reject God so I submit they need a Liberal Inquisitor to help them heal from their wealth of sin and addiction to energy.
I, Lame Cherry, hereby submit to the title for Liberal Inquistor of Idiocus Lefticus in the secular religion of liberalism. Leftists can come to me in my confessional (the liberals will donate a huge ranch to me where they can come to my horse barn to suffer in stalls as they confess all the fuel they burn and electricity they use).
I then as Liberal Inquistory will levy taxes on their wealth which will be spent on Conservatives in hunting trips, fishing trips, football games and NASCAR where Conservatives will be shown how evil they are in enjoying themselves.
We must love our liberal brothers and sisters to relieve them of their burdens of wealth and give them penance of not using electricity for 30 days.
Let me deal with your pain liberal Americans as feeling your pain only got Bill into trouble with women.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I will share this burden
August 16, 2007 - 17:34 ET by general companyThis is to much work for one man, you will need help. I will suffer through the Football and Racing too.
This myopic twit continues to show his ignorance.
August 16, 2007 - 17:38 ET by Army BratHe's on a mission! The earth must be saved from all breathers of air! They consume the life-giving oxygen from air, and release the poisonous planet killing gas, CO2!
His stupidity knows no bounds.
Happy Trails...and...PLEASE... More chlorine for the gene pool.
CENSORED????
August 16, 2007 - 17:36 ET by mattmIf my last post was deleted because someone thinks I was suggeasting that people should die, then there are some pretty stupid people around here.
Al Gore said you can reduce your carbon emmissions to zero.
Bryce said (correctly) that you'd have to stop breathing in order to do that. This means you will die.
Therefore - USING LOGIC - it is AL GORE who is (either knowingly or unknowingly) suggesting that people should die in order to save good ole Mother Earth.
I'm not suggesting it, but if Al thinks the world would be better off if people were dead, maybe he should lead by example.
Anyone who tries to equate this with the crap spoken by idiots like Bill Maher or Rosie O'Donnel, is seriously missing the point!
Bye now...
mattm
August 17, 2007 - 10:29 ET by BarkerI read your original comment and, as you noted, it would be funny if it weren't so serious. What Gore and other radicals propose as "solutions" will actually seal the fate of untold millions around the world. Here is an interesting interview with Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death:
http://www.larouchep...
Fodder for Bill Engvall's
August 16, 2007 - 17:49 ET by motherbeltFodder for Bill Engvall's "Here's Your Sign" LOL
This one is as good as the
August 16, 2007 - 17:51 ET by danboThis one is as good as the two bullets the woman dug out of her wall.
It's obvious these people have no understanding of the carbon and carbon dioxide place on plant earth.
If they could rid the world of every trace of CO2 these idiots probably would.
And they probably sip a glass of neat wine as they complain about big oil and that horrible CO2. .
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Thank your lucky stars that
August 16, 2007 - 18:02 ET by dabalThank your lucky stars that conservatives have these kinds of logic-impaired people as opponents!
Conversely, imagine how they must feel. I just bummed myself out.
;-)
Yikes.
Wow.
August 16, 2007 - 18:44 ET by c5thenMakes you wonder about the stuff that was left on the cutting room floor because the producers thought it was "too stupid".
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
I think we can agree that
August 16, 2007 - 18:52 ET by 4arrowI think we can agree that human endevours, ie: factories and mills used to pollute the rivers, lakes and streams that belonged to all of us. Pressure by the public helped to stem this. That said, I think global warming is a red herring.
Agree in principle, but...
August 16, 2007 - 19:20 ET by c5thenSometimes it is taken too far. As an example take the foam insulation used on the Space Shuttle's exterior fuel tank. Up until 1997, it was made with formaldehyde. The EPA made them eliminate the formaldehyde because of envireonmental concerns. The result is that the foam no longer adheres to the tank as necessary resulting in pieces comming off on every launch. The Columbia disaster can be laid squarely in the lap of the EPA for being stupid and forcing an ideological decision over any logical process. The current mission is at extreme risk because of this issue, too. The way to fix the foam problem is to go back to the original formula. Think that the EPA will allow it to save the lives of future astronauts?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
All we need is for Bill
August 16, 2007 - 19:45 ET by Tom1969caAll we need is for Bill Engvall to walk up to AlGore and say...
"Here's your sign!"
~~~
"I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me."
- Lt. General George S. Patton
Need Help!!
August 16, 2007 - 21:08 ET by TruthMattersRequest to all the intelligent commenters... Please suggest one good question I can teach my kids to ask their teacher(s) that clearly frames up the absurdity of the global warming alarmist when the teacher either makes the class watch An Inconvenient Truth or when the teacher starts the psycho babble that man is causing global warming. Please submit your suggested questions. Thanks in advance.
TM
August 16, 2007 - 21:25 ET by Noel SheppardTM,
"As virtually all forms of life on this planet require CO2 to exist, and oxygen comes from the photosynthesis of CO2 by plants, why is CO2 bad? Don't we need plants to produce oxygen, and won't they produce more if there is more CO2, and less if there is less? With that in mind, isn't 'too much' CO2 better than 'too little,' and what do you think is the perfect amount of CO2?" ns
I actually had one of my
August 16, 2007 - 22:41 ET by TruthMattersI actually had one of my kid's teachers last year show Al Gore's movie. The following is an excerpt of my letter back to the teacher. I expect more of the same from teachers this year, thus my request for more help.
Although I am a Professional Environmental Engineer, I admit that I am not an expert on the issue of global warming. However; to borrow words from someone else, I support the principle that young people should be educated, not propagandized -- and I know something about what that means.
One of the most important differences between education and propaganda is how they deal with great controversies.
In education, students are taught about the controversies. In propaganda, they are shielded from them.
In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they are taught only one.
In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they are taught only its strengths.
In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democratic republic, the public schools should not propagandize, but educate.
The mandatory curriculum guidelines for Texas, called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), agree with me. As we find in the science section of these guidelines, students must learn to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information." - 19 TAC Chapter 112.7(b)(3)(a)
If the TEKS guidelines agree with me, then what is the issue? The issue is that although students should be taught about both sides of a scientific theoretical controversy, your assignment, based on the description in your permission request, appears to only present one side and are shielded from the weaknesses contained in Al Gore’s video. How can a 5th grade student write a critique about assertions made in a global warming video without having anything to compare and contrast the assertions to? Your permission/assignment sheet gave no indication as to how, if any, the views counter to Al Gore’s video would be taught. In addition, it is not clear what alternate assignment is available to the student should they choose not to view the video.
If the theory of global warming is to be taught in your classroom, I urge that the topic should be taught like the other sciences and like other controversial theories -- with honesty about both sides.
To the Honorable members of the Board:
When classroom activities and/or textbooks are biased, you (and the Texas Education Agency) are the check and balance. If global warming is to be taught within PISD, I urge you to require that the scientific data to both sides of this controversy be taught and that not one side be suppressed. To do so would be not only good training in science, but good education in citizenship.
How about: "If CO2 is a
August 16, 2007 - 23:59 ET by lnthompHow about: "If CO2 is a pollutant (as has been declared by the EPA), why do nursuries around the world artificially increase the concentration of CO2 inside their greenhouses in order to promote plant growth?"
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Here are a few I can think of....
August 16, 2007 - 21:37 ET by c5then* What was the cause of the medievil warm period from about 1100 - 1400 and why would a new warm period, if it is occuring, have a different cause?
* What was the cause of the "little ice age" from 1400 - 1900? Why did it start and why did it end?
* If CO2 is the cause of atmospheric warming, what % of the total atmospheric CO2 is being added by human activity and what % is from natural causes?
* Doesn't the Sun have an effect on global temperatures when it cycles through active and less active periods?
* Since the global temperatures are well documented to be cyclical, why should we expect the cycles to suddenly become static?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
AGW QUESTIONS
August 16, 2007 - 21:54 ET by NNNorton- Is the current warming period a normal, planetary phase? During the Medieval period, for instance, the earth was likely as warm as or warmer than the present. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the earth underwent another cycle, this time cooling the planet, sparking fears of a coming ice age.
- What about the fact that 97% of carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere originates—not from man—but from oceans, swamps, plants and other natural means?
- What about the fact that temperatures dropped during the post-World War II period when man-made carbon dioxide emissions dramatically increased?
- What about the fact that Mars also appears to be warming up? And Venus, and Saturn, and Jupiter, and even Pluto?
NNNNorton get down here
August 16, 2007 - 22:02 ET byHa! Pluto is not even a planet and besides who wouldn't want to be touched by Sheryl Crow?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Pluto is a dog. On Disney
August 16, 2007 - 22:20 ET by bassndudePluto is a dog. On Disney with Micky Mouse.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Me. If she's only been
August 17, 2007 - 09:09 ET by steviep831Me. If she's only been wiping with one square I don't want her anywhere near me! Plus I don't find her attractive at all.
Hey Truth, what about us
August 16, 2007 - 22:14 ET by bassndudeHey Truth, what about us here unintelligent commenters? Dont we count? MM's feelers will be hurt now.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Yeah! What Bass said! You
August 17, 2007 - 09:06 ET by MightyMouthYeah! What Bass said! You want to hear from both sides then open it up to us rednecks! We gots opins too! As fer as i'm concerned this here global warmin is nutin' but hot air!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
One question. Mine would
August 16, 2007 - 22:19 ET by bassndudeOne question. Mine would be, what makes us so smart that we know what the best temperature for the world is?
Without a little varity, wont it get pretty dull around?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
From a physical chemistry
August 16, 2007 - 22:31 ET by third eyeFrom a physical chemistry position, it is a fact that the specific heat of Nitrogen, which makes up close to 80% of air, is significantly higher than that of Carbon Dioxide, which makes up about 385 parts per million of the air we breathe. Since nitrogen has a higher specific heat capacity it does a far better job of retaining heat it has gained than Carbon Dioxide. You know what has the highest specific heat capacity of anything I am aware of? Water and water vapor. So what chemical property of carbon dioxide traps heat?
Speaking of Water Vapor
August 17, 2007 - 02:19 ET by nofateAlong that same vein, here is what Dr. Roy Spencer writes at the conclusion of a very well written paper, Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat :
The whole paper is a slog, but well worth the time to read. He also has a more educationally oriented site at weatherquestions.com.
It appears that these manbearpig shouting doomsayers are losing the advantage they had for a while, but if this article at American Thinker, by Marc Sheppard, is any indication, it's still an uphill battle:
TM: Good luck. I once found the WHO paper that blew the theory of second hand smoke harming non-smokers out of the water. I was helping my daughter (now a college sophomore) write a paper on second hand smoke that her fourth or fifth grade teacher had assigned, the tone of the assignment implying that she was expecting to hear how harmful it was. Imagine her surprise when my daughter nuked her preconceived ideas using an official UN report that was done on a very large population, making it all the more likely to be accurate. Liberals nuking liberals. The rumor is that this report was suppressed because it didn't come to the conclusions the UN wanted. I know I can't seem to find it anymore.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Let us also not forget
August 17, 2007 - 09:40 ET by dscottLet us also not forget, insolation, density, atmospheric composition and albedo in addition to specific heat. Venus is hotter because the atmospheric pressure is 90 bar (90 x more molecules to retain heat), Mars is cooler because it's atmospheric pressure is 7 millibar (less molecules to retain heat), earth is 1 bar. Any excess insolation that can not be absorbed by the atmosphere is radiated back to space. So when you add the fact that Venus gets twice as much solar insolation as earth and earth gets twice as much solar insolation as Mars you begin to understand that there are a number of variables that determine the temperature of the planet.
Global Average Temp. in Absolute
Venus = 737K, 75 albedo, 90 bar
Earth = 293K, 30 albedo, 1 bar
Mars = 215K, 15 albedo, .007 bar
http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/GLBLWARM.HTM
If all three planets had the same atmospheric density of 1 bar, atmospheric compostion and albedo, then in absolute terms Venus should be 586K and Mars should be 146.5K. So Venus is warmer (by 151K) because of its atmospheric density, i.e. holds more heat whereas Mars should be colder (by 68.5K) but because of albedo (reflects half of what the Earth does) it is warmer than it should be.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Bars without insulation
August 17, 2007 - 13:17 ET by nofatedscott: please define your terms more precisely, i.e., do you mean there is only 1 bar per block, mile, county, state or country on earth? If Venus has 90 bars per, and the insulation is better in those bars, I say we all move to Venus, at least if they are not charging more for their beer and ale. BTW, I can't figure out how a supposedly intelligent person such as yourself could consistently combine and misspell two words like ale+beer and get "albedo"??? Sheesh! Perhaps you should speak to your local tavern owner about increasing the insulation in that bar.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Since the earth has a fever
August 17, 2007 - 13:54 ET by dscottSince the earth has a fever and man is connected to the earth, I was delirious, slurred my words and couldn't think straight. Or was I drunk...
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Why are ocean levels
August 17, 2007 - 07:50 ET by dscottWhy are ocean levels falling and not rising?
If the ocean levels were 18 inches higher during the Medieval Warming, didn't they have Global Warming then? If so, were the CO2 levels higher than today?
Have CO2 levels gone up, down or stayed the same since 1998? If CO2 is driving global temperatures, why hasn't a new record been set globally since 1998 (I mean 1934 in US), 9 years ago?
If it is a global climate effect, why hasn't the US seen higher temperatures since 1934, after all the country spans an entire continent, 5 time zones (not including Hawaii or territories) and has climatic zones from Arctic conditions to deserts?
Do grown ups lie? When they do, is there a reason for it?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
D, Send me a reference
August 17, 2007 - 11:09 ET by Sick-n-TiredD,
Send me a reference link on that. From some studies I was involved with in the Caribbean on Holocene sediments never did we see sea level higher than today. Based on radiocarbon dating of mangrove peats (proxy for sea level) and peritidal dolomite crusts we have a pretty good resolution of sea level rise. It was quite drastic up to ~4500 years ago (2m/500years) and then slowed to rise only another 3 feet in the ensuing 4500 years---with a rise of about 1 foot in the past 1800 years.
I would love to compare the Medieval warming period data with that from the Carib.
There are a few sources:
August 17, 2007 - 12:38 ET by dscottThere are a few sources:
In North America, pollen and charcoal in sediments from Chesapeake Bay record climatic changes over the last 1000 years (Brush 1991). During the Medieval climatic optimum, large influxes of charcoal, sediment, and metals indicate more frequent forest fires and higher rates of erosion in the surrounding basin. Forest in the Chesapeake basin recovered, and erosion diminished, during the following few centuries of cold climate. In southern Florida, sea level was at least ½ m higher than now from the first through tenth centuries (Froede 2002).
.....
Across the Pacific Islands, the period AD 1270-1475 was a transition interval, often called the "AD 1300 event" (Nunn 2000). Sea level fell, perhaps in two stages by more than 1 m, and temperature declined an average 1½°C. El Niño increased in frequency, and precipitation increased. These climatic changes resulted in a serious decline in productivity for near-shore coral reefs, and significant shifts in human culture took place. Most notably, the long-distance voyages of the previous period came to an end.
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/lec19.htm
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years By Dennis T. Avery, Siegfried Fred Singer
http://books.google.com/books?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=medieval+warming+sea+level&source=web&ots=vYjSz8nHWN&sig=d2pRWcM0ybgvgSLRTwVxNxBSH6U
http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~adejong/radiocarbon_dating/Sea-level/discussion_&_conclusions.htm
Rhizolith evidence in support of a late Holocene sea-level highstand at least 0.5 m higher than present at Key Biscayne, Florida
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/203
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Great! Thanks D, I'll
August 17, 2007 - 12:53 ET by Sick-n-TiredGreat! Thanks D, I'll check it out.
By the way, one of the
August 17, 2007 - 12:58 ET by Sick-n-TiredBy the way, one of the things that was 'felt' in our sea level curve was a 'rapid' jump in sea level of about 1-1.5' that does appear to correlate the timing of the the earth coming out of the little ice age.
Hey Teach
August 17, 2007 - 15:07 ET by SPRENDid Al Gore invent global warming just like he did the internet?
Yeap, just like the
August 17, 2007 - 15:21 ET by dscottYeap, just like the internet. He took credit for someone else's idea and ran with it, in this case, he ran in the wrong direction. But unlike with the internet, he is making a financial killing. It is kind of ironic now that I think about it, Gore championed the internet, a positive thing and didn't make any money out of it; yet Gore pushing AGW, a negative thing, he makes gobbs of money... I guess that's the primary way Dems make money, off the fear of others.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Sorry Al. I like breathing.
August 16, 2007 - 22:26 ET by rbosqueSorry Al. I like breathing. You can hold your own breath.
* Fat Albert and the junk science gang
August 17, 2007 - 07:40 ET by rob6677Come on everyone, the debate is over, I have found the proof!!!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
}}---> GW not so bad
August 17, 2007 - 10:11 ET by Cool ArrowBit of a trend there. Are there any outlying factors?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
* It's trendy alright!
August 17, 2007 - 10:32 ET by rob6677No outlying factors here, just lying outloud!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
}}---> Any less
August 17, 2007 - 10:36 ET by Cool ArrowAny less and we could air all our differences
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Sign Around their Necks
August 17, 2007 - 09:59 ET by Senior Chief"I'm an idiot."...
"I'm a ho", "I'm a wuzz and I like farts", "I'm a whacko", "I'm stupid, and a big fat liar", "I'm a leftoid and I'm a democrack, so kick me in the rear, I deserve it!"
nicely said
August 17, 2007 - 11:28 ET by wallymanExcellent post Truthmatters.
Nothing is too dumb for big Al
August 17, 2007 - 15:06 ET by SPRENAl Gore is pretty tough to misunderestimate.
Remember him in Monticello asking the curator while looking at the sculptured busts around the rotunda "Who are all these guys anyway?" Bill Clinton walked very quickly in another direction while the curator very matter of factly replied "Washington, Jefferson, .........."
Just think what a debt we owe to the people of the great state of Tennessee. If they weren't smart enough to reject one of their own, we would've had him as President.
How About The Obvious
February 16, 2008 - 18:16 ET by Wildcatter1980Yes, you CAN reduce your carbon footbprint to zero. You could kill yourself.
Just my $0.02