Well, guess he proved them wrong, eh?

Must've been that Bush paying off all Al's professors ...

There is one award that Al Gore has not received:

Ad Age Marketer of The Year.

This is the one award he richly deserves, and I sincerely mean that. Marketing is the ability to sell people on something they do not need but you are able to present a convincing argument that they must have it (i.e. The Pet Rock). In other words marketing is the ability to con people into buying something that has no real use or value.

I cannot think of a more successful pitchman than Gore and companies like Nike, Coke and others should hire him. 

... it won't be long before some "esteemed" liberal will make the comparison with Einstein and the myth he failed at math. Einstein excelled in math.. unlike Gore who just sucked at science.

If he ran, he'd have to defend.  He'd get smoked. Now he just has to answer silly, pre-approved questions.

 *Argue for your limitations and sure enough you will achieve them.

Does anyone know al's IQ and hillaries,I also would like to know.

For years I have found speaches, writings and learned statements from Gore ponderous to say the very least.  He never seemed to be verbally adroit and always came off as a third rate lecturer.  His ideas always seemed to be borrowed and dumbed down.

And now we have the answer. 

The man is as dumb as a box of hammers. 

 Only the extreme inherited wealth from Occidental Petroleum has propelled him onto the world stage. Thank God Clinton didn't die when he was in the White house.   We would have had this Doofus running the show.

Well, in all fairness to Algore, he did get a double smiley face grade in the 'Environmental Friendly Cooking With Organic Cannabis' course at the Stoners Institute of Higher Learning in Amsterdam.

That would explain the Goracle's paranoia about the earth burning up...not to mention his weight.

bad grades should prevent someone from getting the nobel as much as bad grades should prevent someone from being president.

i can't believe intelligent people would harp about a progressives grades while endorsing the policies of a president with equal or worse grades.   http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp  notice the 69 (D) in science (astronomy), does bush think the sun revolves around the earth?

Hey, but he did graduate with a BSc with honors. That's a BullSh*t crapolla for those unfamiliar with the Harvard grading criterion.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Priceless. Simply Priceless.

A Nobel Peace Prize for bad science for a dingbat with an open pit zinc mine on his property. He could single handily destroy mother earth - certainly is doing more damage to it than any thousand of us will ever do.

Matthew 23:24-25

(24) Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

(25) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees [Democrats and liberals]! You are hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 

The Global Warming Petition [refuting AGW] has been signed by more than 19,000 scientists.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

Jude 1:14-19

(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [filthy dreamers, like Al Gore], saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

(15) To execute judgment upon all, and to convince [convict] all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

(16) These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration [like Al Gore] because of [political and spiritual] advantage.

(17) But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

(18) How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

(19) These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

http://www.answersin...

http://www.christian...

http://www.creationo...

http://trueorigin.or...

http://www.globalwar...

http://www.tysknews....

http://www.cei.org/s...

http://www.co2scienc...

http://www.sitewave....

http://www.sepp.org/

http://www.heartland...

http://www.oism.org/...

http://www.globalwar...

http://www.junkscien...

http://www.numberwat...

http://www.numberwat...

http://www.oism.org/...

http://www.canadafre...

http://www.useless-k...

http://www.heartland...

http://www.theconser...

http://www.globalwar...

http://www.marshall....

http://www.youtube.c...

I thought you all might appreciate this. I found it over at Climateaudit.org in the responses.

Michael Mann explains how to read the treemometer.

Here.

"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

I heard on Sean Hannity yesterday that Al "Genius" Gore bought a million dollar condo on the waterfront of San Francisco Bay. This after making claims in his POS Documentary that in the near future ocean levels would be rising 20 feet, so should we take bets on which will knock this idiots investment into the Pacific first, an eathquake or the flood

Let me take a stab at a few of them:

Q1: What do “folks in Norway and in the media consider him to be so expert at”?
A: Um, didn’t Gore get the Nobel not for being an expert on science, but for being a spokesman on it?

Q2: Are “liberals and dolts in the media are willing to bet their very lives on [Gore] when it comes to complex scientific issues surrounding meteorology and climatology”?
A: No, and neither are conservatives. Citizens and corporations all individually respond to AGW with their own interests in mind, and policy is decided by our elected leaders. No one is betting on Gore, but they are listening to what he has to say.

Q3: “On a regular basis, [do] such folk have the nerve to suggest that Gore is more knowledgeable when it comes to these matters than scientists who have spent their entire lives studying and educating others at the finest colleges and universities around the world”?
A: Maybe some, but again, Gore is NOT and does not pretend to be a scientist, but someone contributing to public debate. But do you suppose that Gore might know more about climate change than most politicians and pundits? And you think that only liberals and dolts in the media are listening?

Q4: Is America considering to “rest its financial and economic future as it pertains to environmental policy on the shoulders of a man who demonstrated virtually no expertise in science whilst attending one of the world's finest facilities for higher learning?”
A: See above.
FWIW, Gore is an obviously intelligent man and someone who has invested years trying to understand climate science as it intersects with the real world. But surely you are not suggesting that only real expert scientists get to discuss or make decisions relating to climate change? Isn’t this something we all play a role in, informed by what knowledge we can glean from others?

Q5: Think an expertise in chemistry and physics might come in handy to fully understand all the dynamics and variables involved with meteorology and climatology?
A: Yes. But again, we all have to make decisions with imperfect knowledge – and Gore is not making any decisions for us, is he?

Q6: And where are the media on this issue? As Gore travels around the country lecturing America about global warming, shouldn't the press point out how poorly the Nobel Laureate did in science while a college student? Or is that asking too much?
A: Apparently so, but for good reason. Just like the American people were willing to put aside George Bush’s distant academic record in electing him president, Gore’s college science record tells us little about either his ability to understand science or the quality of his current understanding. Of course, it is Gore’s CURRENT understanding of science that is relevant and on which people will judge him (along with Gore’s views on policy). Again, are you suggesting that all politicians simply shut up about public policy issues involving science? And should George Bush shut up too?

BTW, it looks like Gore’s academic record got a fair amount of play at the time WaPo brought it up. There was a similar article at the Washington Times, discussion on CNN and two books on Gore that covered it.

It is of course fair game to question Gore’s current views on science and policy themselves. Did you see the recent comments of Ken Green of AEI? Ken says:

It’s no surprise that Al Gore has added a Nobel Prize to his Academy Award. The political winds have been blowing in his direction for many years now. And to be fair about it, one has to applaud Gore’s climate crusade on several levels: his tenacity, effectiveness, and persuasiveness are all on par with other Nobel winners.

Few informed observers would deny the nugget of truth in Gore’s movie, namely, that the Earth’s climate is warming and that there is a plausible theory linking some of that warming to man-made greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions and land-use changes. It’s also clear that significant action is needed to address the risks of a changing climate. ... In this regard, Gore’s Nobel is certainly warranted. He has done more to raise awareness of the potential risks of climate change than any other individual in human history.

But there is a sharp distinction to be made between the scientific beneficence of Gore’s message and the destructiveness of his favored policy prescriptions. Although it has suited Gore and the environmental movement to claim that the dispute over climate change is about science—and a few vocal critics of climate science have enabled them to do so—the real fight has always been about the choice of response. ...

Yes, the climate is changing, and yes, some part of that change may be attributable to man-made GHG emissions. Even a modest change of one or two degrees over the next century could pose genuine risks to future generations. Gore deserves credit for raising awareness of these facts. But, again, the bedrock dispute over climate change has never been about the science—it’s been about the policy response.

http://www.american....

Here is another article strikes close to some of the flaws in Gore’s approach:

“Convenient Fibs about an Underlying Truth: Al Gore’s Tortured Brief on Climate Change’s Causes, Effects, and Solutions”, http://academic3.ame...

Has Ken Green and AEI (along with George Bush) gone off the deep end and joined the "liberals and dolts in the media"? Or are they right to concede that climate change is a serious issue, and to focus on policy?

Regards,

More BS

"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush