Robert Redford Bashes Al Gore as Greedy Opportunist

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

As irrefutable evidence mounts that Nobel Laureate Al Gore's climate alarmism is about nothing other than lining his supposedly green pockets with green currency, manmade global warming skeptics around the world wonder when the former vice president's house of cards will collapse.

Without question, if Gore were to lose the support of almost universally adoring Hollywoodans, the scam would implode quicker than a Democrat demanding a recount after losing a close election.

As such, the following comments by actor and environmentalist Robert Redford, reported by the New Statesman last week, should bring hope to folks not buying the snake oil Gore is selling (emphasis added, h/t NB reader Lee):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Redford was an early convert to the environmental movement, and talks proudly of having campaigned on it since 1969. "It was not a happy easy time, because those were the days that the oil and gas companies pretty much controlled the show on propaganda. Anyone speaking about solar energy would be smashed down as being a radical, a tree-hugger and granola-cruncher or what have you."

He is notably cynical, however, about Al Gore's recent award of a Nobel Peace Prize. "He's making a lot of money, he's having a belle époque, a heroic moment," he says. "It must have been really hard for Gore to suffer all that [losing the presidential election], so he found another thing to come back with: the environment. He had a lot of money behind him, because in Clinton's administration there was a lot of money. With that he was able to build himself a new campaign and pick an issue. And he picked an issue that just happened to arrive at its moment in time." The less-than-subtle subtext is that Gore is an arriviste, while Redford has been out there, a grizzled loner, bearing the jibes and right-wing clobbering before the environmental cause was fashionable. Asked why he thinks Gore is not going back into politics, he says: "What's most important - to be a hero to your country and go save it . . . or do you want to be happy and rich and be a hero and not get into the political scene?"

NewsBusters readers know the answer to that question.

For those unfamiliar with some of the more obscure references in this piece, belle époque is French for beautiful era, and refers to a golden period in European history from roughly the beginning of the 19th century until World War I when the continent experienced an unprecedented string of peaceful years combined with improving technologies and standards of living.

An arriviste is defined as "a person who has suddenly risen to a higher economic status but has not gained social acceptance of others in that class." A more modern term for such a person is nouveau riche.

This is NOT a compliment.

With that in mind, is Gore's belle époque about to come to an end?

Those that adore democracy and capitalism should certainly hope so.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No, no...

...I'm sorry, but you and Robert keep forgetting about the CONSENSUS!

Consensus trumps all, trumps science, and would even trump Trump if "The Donald" (what nitwit came up with that?), was into greenie goodness.

Al is in a 'no-lose' situation. He'll bail on his stock options at the first sign of trouble, and walk away more wealthy than he is now. Of course his venture buddies will be screwed, but, hey!

"You get what you pay for", isn't guaranteed!

America and the world is wising up to this rubbish. Scientists... the reputable ones are daring to show their faces, and the countdown is ongoing.

Bye Al! Thousands will come to empty their bladders on your grave.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Popular Tech, don't you

Popular Tech, don't you read professor truth? The science is in, the debate is over, and the consensus is that mankind is the cause of the catastrophic 1 degree farenheit, 0.6 degree celsius global warming. And, until all of the scientists and organization mentioned in your link conform to his prejudices, well, he will just rely on realclimate. It doesn't matter how much contrary evidence there is, or how many other hypotheses or theories there are, global warming is caused by humans, dammit!

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan

Oops, My Bad

I forgot about the computer illiterate, I mean "professor truth". I feel bad that for all his alleged science background he is unable to see through the overly wordy rhetoric and double speak at realclimate. I mean we all know that if someone makes a definitive unsubstantiated statement it is fact merely because it was stated at realclimate!

Proof via the scientific method? Who needs that when you have very expensive video game simulations of the earth!

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

-

Great, thanks for the link.

"Consensus" and "science" are two words that simply do not belong together.  There was once a "consensus" (but no scientific proof) about the medical efficacy of blood-letting.

Also...

Flat Earth, using Mercury to cure everything from gas to baldness, that disease came from "bad air" (mal aria)... the list is endless.

Anytime anyone says "there is no doubt....

Doubt.

(And keep your hand on your wallet.)

If Gore is a greedy opportunist

If GlobAl Gore is a greedy opportunist, then that makes Robert Redford a fornicating, Godless, greedy opportunist raping the wilderness for his mansion home.

Robert Bob, don't start a cat fight when you are the biggest pussy in the liberal cat cage.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

REDFORD

REDFORD'S NEW MOVIE BOMB! yea!!  ALL ANTI-AMERICAN TRASH. PERSONALLY, I LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND TRULY DO NOT WISH FOR SOCIALISM/MARX SOCIETY. REDFORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE LIGHT (MENTALLY) AND ALWAYS BEEN A LEFTIST. and perhaps a bit light in his loafers)

PERSONALLY, I HAVE MET BOTH AND WOULD NOT WALK ACROSS THE ROOM TO GREET EITHER OF THEM. gore, does not have all the spots on his dominoes. He recently signed on with a major corp., set up only to make $$$$$ off you, if you buy into his hysterical (no data) ,,,U.S. could spend $$$$ TRILLIONS, & STILL NO ONE KNOWS IF IT WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT.  IT WOULD HOWEVER, RUIN THE ECONOMY OF THIS COUNTRY, LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING OF ALL, BUSINESS'S OUT OF BUSINESS, LOSE OF JOBS, WHAT YOU DO, IF YOU CAN, WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR HOME, HOW MUCH, IF ANY, YOU COULD DRIVE, ETC... 

I JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO BE CONTROLLED BY GOV'T AND PAY DEARLY IN TAXES (ON EVERY ITEM) ETC... WHERE ONLY THE ELITE COULD AFFORD NICE THINGS...SOUNDS JUST LIKE A MARXIST SOCIETY.

 

Redford

I also remember him building a ski resort way back when.That must of been to protect the enviroment also.Him and Al are two peas in a pod.Al Came out with a book on the enviroment yet he had zinc mining done on his land.

You guys need to some material for your lies!

And, gee, I don't see anywhere in that article where Mr. Redford states anything about the Nobel Peace Prize, only the writer making that false statement.

And while you continue your lies, even though Mr. Gore is successful in his own right, which bites your butts, he still donates most of the monies he receives on the Global Warming efforts to solvling the Climate Crisis. His book, the movie, and his latest new position with the VC firm goes to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

 []  a virtual tissue for you. 

 

Superman wears Al Gore pajamas.

  

 

 

Lindain....

Here Lindy.....let me give you another glass of that kool-aid.

neighb

 

Al Gore's pajamas come straight from Victoria Secret.

al gore

FUNNY BUNNY.  AL JUST WANT TO MAKE MONEY..PEOPLE ARE CATCHING ON TO HIS PHONY BLABBLING.. IF PEOPLE ARE DUMB ENOUGH(EMOTIONAL OVER FACTS) THEY SEEM TO FORGET IT WOULD COST THIS COUNTRY $$$$ TRILLION, & STILL HAVE NO IDEA IF ANY OF THE IDEAS WOULD WORK!! IF HE CAN SELL THIS PROPAGANDA TO ENOUGH, HE WILL BE ONE WEATHLY MAN. AL-SUCCESSFUL IN HIS OWN RIGHT? SHOW ME WHERE?  HE DADDY MAKE ALL HIS MONEY WITH ARMAN HAMMER (WHICH WAS LATER DISCOVERED -IN FINANCIAL BED WITH RUSSIA) ..GORE DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL, AND DADDY PAID SO HE COULD HAVE HIS DEGREE.  DID YOU NOT READ COMMENTS MADE BY HIS SCHOOL MATES FROM COLLEGE.  HE WAS ON THE OUTSIDE.. EVERYONE THOUGH HE WAS--SQUIRRELY.

HO. OR DID YOU NOT RECALL, THAT HE GAVE ONLY $350.00 TO CHARITY LAST YEAR.

"TRYING TO SOLVE" NOW THAT IS A GOOD ONE. HE SIGNED ON WITH A MAJOR CO. WHO, WAS SET UP ONLY TO MAKE PROFITS ON THE "PRETEND" SOLUTIONS.  BLESS YOU, HAVE YOU EVER MET HIM? IF SO, YOU WOULD REALIZE HE IS AN EMPTY SUIT & DOES NOT HAVE ALL HIS SPOTS ON HIS DOMINOS. ETC. I HAVE NO IDEA "WHERE YOU OBTAINED YOUR INFO" BUT I SUGGEST YOU READ A BIT MORE.

 

 

 

 

Migtex, turn off your

Migtex, turn off your caps.  There is no need to shout or scream on this site.  Rude, dude. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Well, DUH!

Wow, another sleeper cell.

"even though Mr. Gore is successful in his own right, which bites your butts, he still donates most of the monies he receives on the Global Warming efforts to solvling the Climate Crisis. His book, the movie, and his latest new position with the VC firm goes to the Alliance for Climate Protection."

Of course he doesn't need the money. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, grew up living in a fancy Washington DC hotel, and had two gigantic estates even before he became Vice President, thanks to his Dad's and his deals with the Halliburton of the left, Armand Hammer.

Is that enough Kryptonite for you, laddy?

Ummm...

The founder and current chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection is...(ta-daaaaa!) Al Gore!

So he gets a tax writeoff for the donation, and still controls the dough... Sweet! How very... hypocritical.

Is there anything The Goracle won't do for us?

Besides the multimillions in stock options are where the real money is, and when questioned about them, he had "no comment".

Awwww.

Greed: thy name is Gore!

-

he still donates most of the monies he receives on the Global Warming efforts to solvling the Climate Crisis.

If you won't do the research on the woefully inadequate science that is AGW, at least do it on this point.  A couple of clicks would tell you that money has already gone FROM the global warming cause (carbon credits) TO Al Gore.  And soon, that flow could turn into a deluge:

Gore has pledged to hand over his KP "salary" to Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit he chairs. But the gift is more symbolic than material. Gore's salary-his cut of the 2 percent "management fee" that KP partners get on all investments-is typically a sliver of the total compensation that VCs receive. If Gore's profit-sharing deal is anything like the firm's other 23 partners, he's also in line to collect tens of millions of dollars a year. That's because partners carve up 30 percent of the profits if and when the alternative-energy start-ups that KP supports go public or are sold.

You guys need to some material for your lies!

LindainSFNM, don't quit your evening job of standup comedianne!
What you mind-numbed liberal robots never ever seem to give a sensible answer to, is our charge that if Algore TRULY was concerned about teh environment and what is happening to the earth, then he wouldn't go through this B.S. tactic of so-called "carbon credits" and truly do something to personally conserve.
As it stands, he doesn't, so he's nothing but a hypocrite. PERIOD.
As for the Nobel Prize, it lost its credibility back when Yasser Arafat and Jimmuh Carter won it. It means nothing now.

 

I Got Your Material Right Here:

Al Gore's climate change film 'is propaganda' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)
- Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine)
- Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK)
- British Schools Ordered to Offer 'Balance' When Showing Al Gore's Global Warming Film (FOXNews)
35 Inconvenient Truths (Science and Public Policy Institute)
25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore (The National Review Online)
23 Scientific Errors (Science and Public Policy Institute)
16 Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (Science and Public Policy Institute)

Al Gore only has a B.A. in Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degrees)
The Education of Al Gore (The Washington Times)

"Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.

As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore
received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record."

Al Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)
Al Gore, polluter? (WorldNetDaily)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's (CNSNews)
- George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine (USA Today)
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)
Hypocrite Gore Should Practice What He Preaches (The Tech, MIT)
Meet the real Al Gore (WorldNetDaily)
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Connections (The Wall Street Journal)
Old-Growth Timber used to Rebuild the Veranda of the Vice Presidential Mansion (Newsweek)
Whose Ox Is Gored? (The Wall Street Journal)

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns (WorldNetDaily)
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade (Human Events)

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

PT - can I add your links to my list?

PT - can I add your links to my list? ;-)

Of Course

Please add all my links, that is what they are for. They do not do any good unless people see them.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

 As far as Robt Redford is

 As far as Robt Redford is concerned..there goes the pot...

Or Something Else

Redford's little-known secret is that he was thrown out of college for being drunk.

Wonder where he learned all those fancy French words?

If only Robert Redford's

If only Robert Redford's parents had divorced BEFORE he was born.  If Redford does not like Gore, then I like Gore.  Redford is the scum of the earth.

What's common between

What's common between Algore-the internet inventor-bogus environmentalist and Redford? They're both losers. Gore lost the '04 election and still whining, while Redford's movie tank at the box office. I can't wait to see Algore's response to Redford's whining... 

Watchout, the leftoids are imploding!! 

Past His Prime

Redford hasn't made or starred in an interesting film in many years. His best work was 35 years ago, and with the exception of The Horse Whisperer in the 1990s I can't think of any he's done of merit before 1980 or after 1998.

Contortions and Contradictions

The Right's effort to portray Gore's involvement in the climate issue as a scam designed to line his pockets probably says more about the Right's world view than it does about Gore. Having gone into contortions attempting to explain away the science and turn the issue into a cause peopled by "alarmists" misled by scam artists, the only thing left to do is to portray the alleged scammers as either (1) closet socialists out to rob us of our precious freedoms or (2) greedy capitalists out to make a profit on the issue. Of course those options are contradictory, and for conservatives, portraying Option #2 in negative terms is deliciously ironic.

Agrarian, Your comment

Agrarian,

Your comment shows your ignorance.  True Capitalists find a service or product that the public wants to make their money.  They don't spend tax dollars to spread a fear.  I have know problem with Mr. Gore making money.  I do have an issue with HIS hipocracy that those of us in the middle class or below have to lead one type of life, when he gets rich and thumbs his nose at what he preaches. 

 

http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/

For Ag-Collectivist

Agrarian-Collectivist: you can't even enjoy a holiday without being consumed by guilt. What are YOU doing to assuage your guilt?  Or are you just demanding that WE go Fourth World on your behalf?

Which reminds me: 

1) If the Kyoto Protocol addresses a GLOBAL problem called GLOBAL warming, why are China, Mexico, and India, among other countries, exempt from it?

2) Why does the Kyoto Protocol not address, at all the issue of tropical deforestation, which is the cause of 20% of global greenhouse emissions?

3) Why no major Atlantic hurricanes this year?

4) How come the world's highest recorded temperature was recorded in 1922?

5) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow.

6) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006 during the austral winter?

7) Exit Glacier has been melting since at least 1780. What human activity back then was causing the glacier to melt?

8) Explain the appearance of icebergs in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea in the Barrow area at the end of July 2004.

9) Why aren't you and your guilt-ridden fellow travelers protesting at the Chinese embassy for their preparing to overtake the United States as the #1 greenhouse gas emitter in the world?  COuld that be because Communist greenhouse gases are more beneficial?

10) I take it you will support the United States getting 78.5% of its electricity from nuclear power?  It works for France...

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

-

[ahem] 

Sorry to interrupt, Unsane.  But regarding #9, China surpassed the US and became the number one emitter of carbon dioxide back in June.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/74352.html

Your comments are otherwise exactly on point and I await with interest a substantive reply to them.

<edit>  P.S.  Someone could lobby the embassy of India if they wanted ...

Comments on comments on questions

Really?  I have heard both...that China will overtake the United States in 2015 in greenhouse gas emissions, and that it already has.  Much thanks for your contribution.

But if you are looking for a substantive reply...well...hope your patient.  :-) 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

They've Bought the Lie Hook, Line, and Sinker

"Global" warming is their god ... their going to bow to it to their dying breath.

Even if it were snowing at the equator they're only going to say it was caused by global warming.

They're mindless lemmings who have bought the lie hook, line, and sinker ... in fact, they've crapped out the hook, line, and sinker.

unsane, here are some answers

answer to (3): AGW makes no predictions regarding the NUMBER of hurricanes, only that their INTENSITY will be greater than in the past because warmer water feeds energy to hurricanes. (4) answer: if true, this is an ANOMOLY. This number may be from older, unreliable measurements, the last 10 of 11 years have been the warmest. (5,6,) relates to local weather which can vary from place to place. (7) answer: REGIONAL climate warming may be the reason . The melting of ice worldwide has been INCREASING over the last 50 years.(8) I honestly have no idea. It's not relevent to GLOBAL climate trends however. (9) This is a critical problem. Unless actions to mitigate climate chang are global, the actions of any one country are useless.

Rebuttals

Rebuttal to 3) when why aren't we getting hurricanes that make Gilbert and Mitch look like spring showers every damned year?  You should be aware that for most of my life, as currently, I have lived in cities that are either directly threatened by hurricanes (Houston) or get after-effects in the form of severe weather or evacuees (San Antonio)

4) TO THIS DAY you will hear meteorologists around TX tell you the 1950s were the worst as far as droughts go.  And again, if 10 of the last 11 years were the warmest on record, you have a LOT of explaining to do.

5,6) Excuses, excuses.  If this GLOBAL pheomenon is in fact occuring, I want to know why some places are seemingly exempt.

7) As pointed out elsewhere, Exit Glacier, for one example, has been melting since 1780.  The Industrial Revolution was only just taking root at that time, and that tells me that something more is going on, if temps are rising, and that something more is a teensy bit beyond our control.

8) It absolutely is 100% relevant to global climate trends, as every example I cite is on this exact same globe.  I have yet to cite evidence from, say, Chryse or Valles Marineris, which would be irrelevant in these cases. 

9) Good luck.  It seems you are 100% unfamiliar with the Kyoto Protocol.  I, of course, note you didn't bother with 1 or 2, OR my comment on increasing our reliance on nuclear power.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

"1) closet socialists out

"the only thing left to do is to portray the alleged scammers as either (1) closet socialists out to rob us of our precious freedoms or (2)
greedy capitalists out to make a profit on the issue. Of course those
options are contradictory, and for conservatives, portraying Option #2
in negative terms is deliciously ironic."

Next you'll be telling us that Castro, who has hundreds of millions stashed away, isn't a socialist.

And by the way, in the real world, it doesn't have to be either or. In some cases, like global warming, it's both. The cherry-picked science is wrong, and Gore is out to make a buck. Some of us are willing to call him on it.

Typical liberal response to

Typical liberal response to any problem:  more goverment control, and just throw more tax dollars at it until it goes away.  Screw the consequences; we'll just have to adjust our lifestyles accordingly because they're the experts and know better!

It's Algore's chance to make big bucks and the UN's chance to implement soft Marxism (FINALLY!!) in the USA!

If you're so guilt-ridden, Agrarian-D, the you're certainly welcome to donate as much $$$ to the cause as you please.  I'm keeping mine.

Somehow 0.6 degree C increase (assuming that's even true) just doesn't impress me.

What Science?

Oh you mean "science" derived from computer models...

FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming.

People do not understand that there is no proof of "Man-Made" Global Warming without using irrelevant computer models. Yes computer models have a place in engineering but are utterly useless at fortune telling, I mean climate prediction.

All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something is done on a "super computer" that costs "millions of dollars" it is infallible. The more complex the model the more "mysterious" it seems to the average person. Plugging in biased, incomplete or flat out wrong data combined with poorly understood climate physics into a "model" that includes god knows how many guesses and assumptions will give you junk. Garbage in = Garbage out. I am a computer analyst and can make a computer model do whatever I want by "tuning" it (adjusting variables until I get the answer I want or think is right). Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing. Processing more complex data in more complex ways via guessing gives you more complex junk results. But since the models have been "tuned" (guesstimated or deliberately altered to get the results they want) they get results that "seem" likely or even convincing to the average computer illiterate, except it is all based on a complex serious of guesses and assumptions and absolutely meaningless for prediction.

The problem is computer models need exact information (accurate data and the correct procedure to process the data) to get exact answers, without that you get junk results, period. The public gives computer climate models this mystical aura because they are largely computer illiterate about how they actually work and when they hear the term "computer" they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their heads and go along with it.

Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical machines, 1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use random numbers to get a right answer on a calculator but you do not know if you are to add or multiply those numbers and you have no way to confirm that "right answer" except to wait 50-100 years. Sound crazy? Welcome to Global Climate Modeling.

What the modelers do is they keep playing with the numbers in a much more complex way until they think they guess right. A useless exercise. These same climate model computers are used to predict your weather and you know how accurate they are. But damn! Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can certainly tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now! Give me a break. Don't be fooled that modeling climate is different then the weather and one is more accurate than the other long term.

Why are we not turning to models to predict the future for everything? Because they can't, not even remotely. Some of them work "sort of" for the weather in very, very short term results (1-3 days) until all the data they are processing that is wrong combined with all the data they are missing and the millions of variables they are not accounting for start to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out the model runs and wham - the model is wrong. No kidding, there are simply way too many variables that they cannot account for and the computer power necessary to even start to take these variables into account does not exist.

You are expected to believe that they can "model" the climate 50-100 years in the future when they cannot even give you accurate weather 3 days out? Don't be fools, I do this for a living, Computer Models cannot predict the future with anything as complex as the Earth's climate.

Climate Modeling Errors:
- Clouds
- Convection
- Eastern Boundary Regions of the Oceans
- El Nino
- Evaporation
- Mountain Range Circulation
- Multi-Decadal Variability
- Near-Surface Temperatures at Night
- Precipitation
- Regional Climate Change
- Seasonal Variability
- Stratosphere Climate Change
- Upper Tropospheric Humidity

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Don't forget solar maximums

Don't forget solar maximums and mass coronal ejections.

mass coronal ejections

That stuff makes me puke too.  Maybe it's all the lime and salt, though

Cool your nuts lol.Maybe you

Cool your nuts lol.Maybe you need to go with a Pilsner. 

an inaccurate model may still be a useful model

Think about Ptolemy's model, which used epicycles and deferents to predict planetary positions. It was reasonably accurate for predicting planetary positions even though it was inaccurate. Even if models are inaccurate with some predictions, they can be and still are useful in many cases. Particularly James Hansen's model which has accurately forecast temperature changes for 20 years. How does someone have the balls to discredit a model that has proved to be ACCURATE FOR 20 years??? If you can just put in any values and get the answers you want, why haven't denier models been created to demonstrate the unreliability of climate models? The answer is that these climate models are reliable predictors for many scenarios.

But for those obstinate deniers who insist models are useless, there are other independent lines of verification. Ice core records show correlations with high CO2 present with warming periods. Carbon isotope studies conclude that manmade CO2 is responsible for the

increased CO2 in the atmosphere. And most importly, all denier "evidence" contradicting AGW has been debunked again and again. But like the Phoenix, deniers keep trying to rise out of the ashes of their discredited ideas.

Propaganda from a Computer Illiterate

Evaluating Jim Hansen’s 1988 Climate Forecast (Prometheus)

Hansen's graph starts in 1958 yet his "predictions" start in 1988. What is he implying? He is propagandizing a larger coorelation as predicted when all he did was curve fitting. He then gives three scenarios:

Scenario A

CH4 0.5%
N2O 0.25%
CO2 3% developing, 1% developed

Scenario B

CH4 0.25%
N2O 0.25%
CO2 2% developing, 0% developed

Scenario C

CH4 0.0%
N2O 0.25%
CO2 1.6 ppm increase annually

Observed:

CH4 0.46%
N2O 0.95%
CO2 -0.52% (Annex 1 Countries 1990-2003)
CO2 >4.5% (Non-Annex 1 Countries 1990-2003)
CO2 1.5 PPM (1990-2005)

Comparison with Scenarios

Most Accurate CH4 Assumption = Scenario A
Most Accurate N2O Assumption = each
Most Accurate CO2 Assumption = Scenario C

In none of the three emissions assumptions did Scenario B contain the most accurate emissions assumptions. Which means his "predictions" are worthless. Throwing out various graphs of future predictions that do NOT even remotely match up to observations based on incorrect calculations proves that climate models cannot predict the future. Not to mention even prediction B is so far off observations it is beyond worthless on it's own for anyone that understands computers.

Thank you for providing me with more proof that climate models are worthless at long term predictions. And thanks for proving you are an absolute computer illiterate. Please I have already read your worthless how to talk to a skeptic site(s). I now need to make one called how to talk to Computer Illiterate Alarmists.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

-

What Popular Tech said.  Hansen made a range of predictions; the only ones that came true were the least extreme ones and didn't require or demonstrate the existence of AGW.

No one denies that the planet has warmed .7 of a degree over the last 100 years.  The question is whether the 6% of greenhouse gases that man contributes to the planet is responsible for that warming.  More and more, the answer is "no".

Further, as to evidence, it is those who have put forth AGW as a theory who are required to come up with evidence.  The scientific method then requires that it be thoroughly examined.  This has been done and the evidence has been found to be weak, compromised and/or lacking.  The next step in the scientific method is not for the theorist (you, James Hansen, Al Gore) to petulantly fold his arms and continue to loudly promote his damaged theory but to go back and either adjust the theory or look for other convincing evidence to present. 

hi Dahlia

you know I've been telling the Profff that the burden of proof is on the AGW side I don't think he gets the concept.

GoHunter08

-

the burden of proof is on the AGW side

Hi, Botg.  Thanks, that's what I was trying to say. 

The standard of proof has been considerably lowered for some reason in this case and it is not acceptable. 

-

for some reason

it's popular so the abstracts won't be questioned and there's a lot of money in it

GoHunter08

Actually NONE of them came true

See this is the propaganda they want you to believe. If Hansen makes a prediction of X amount of gas produces Z amount of temperature and it winds up it doesn't, they cannot cherry pick another temperature line that sort of half-ass goes in the same direction as observations but is based on totally bogus gas amounts! This is the scam. If the predictions were accurate then the line would match up EXACTLY with observations based on the observed increase in gases. CH4 went up like A, CO2 like C and N20 4 times all of them, yet the observation line lines up with none of them. Why? Because you cannot predict the future of climate more then 3 days.

It is all propaganda and the reason they have been able to push it so long is because not enough REAL computer scientists have been part of the debate. These sort of halfass coorelations fool only the computer illiterates like professor truth.

All of the graph pre-1988 is propaganda and merely an exercise in curve fitting. The later has been PROVEN WRONG. Climate Models are a scam as prediction tools.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

PopTech

G.I.G.O. Remember it? 

Who's blaming computers?

Redford was an early

Redford was an early convert to the environmental movement, and talks proudly of having campaigned on it since 1969. "It was not a happy easy time, because those were the days that the oil and gas companies pretty much controlled the show on propaganda. Anyone speaking about solar energy would be smashed down as being a radical, a tree-hugger and granola-cruncher or what have you."             "He's (gore) making a lot of money, he's having a belle époque, a heroic moment,"

  Redford is probably bitter that after all the years of environmentalists being considered left wing kooks the public is ready to take seriously alternative energy and other environmental changes.  But al with his overblown rhetoric and money making schemes may cause the public to look at environmentalists as phonies and just stop listening.

<<...the public is ready

<<...the public is ready to take seriously alternative energy and other environmental changes....>>

The public is being forced to consider these things because of  the very same Redford-type environmentalists being successful in the efforts to ban drilling off our shores and in Anwar; we also desperately need new power plants because the one newest of them were built in the 1970s. (New Nuclear powered power plants too!)

Unfortunately, some of the jellyfish in Congress have been swayed by phonies like Redford and their arguments.

ban drilling off our shores

Meanwhile, countries like Brazil are doing just that and actually finding lots of oil. I take it they don't have those pesky enviro-wackos like we do. Is there some way we could export ours so we can get down to business and find our own oil?

Hippo

we don't even need to find it we know where it is 

Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde.  the EYE

Hypocrite

Even the ignorant left loons must realize it's not just that gore is a greedy scam artist selling ice cubes to eskimos, it's also that he is a greedy energy consuming pig that won't follow his own advice.

 It appears the

 It appears the Neo-Stalinist have infected this site,  at least for Thanksgiving.  Well, knowing that they all have empty magazines it is really no problem handling them. 

Their defending of algore says all that needs to be said about them.  Honestly,   I don't believe there has ever been,  in this country, a more gullible peoples.

Well,  after all, all of their beliefs have on the long run proven to be false,  empty,  and a detriment to any free society.  They'll not gain a thing in 2008, and will in fact lose what little they have.  AMF, trolls.

I'm still waiting for that

I'm still waiting for that 1000 AD norse tribe driven out by returning glaciers explanation, how global warming caused that!

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

LindainABCDEFG


[] a virtual tissue for you.

Thanks. You can have it back when we're done with it.

  "What's most

 

"What's most important - to be a hero to your country and go save it
. . . or do you want to be happy and rich and be a hero and not get
into the political scene?"

 

Hey Robert, did you forget the 90s when Gore was in the political scene and did virtually nothing to solve this crisis he has been soooooo concerned about for, what, 20 years or more?

 

"And while you continue your lies, even though Mr. Gore is successful in
his own right, which bites your butts, he still donates most of the
monies he receives on the Global Warming efforts to solvling the
Climate Crisis. His book, the movie, and his latest new position with
the VC
firm goes to the Alliance for Climate Protection."

 

Yes, how sweet of Gore to donate all this cash....to his own company, LOL. What a philanthropist he is.

Meanwhile, he's cleaned up a bit for himself outside his company too, being worth over $100 million bucks, 99% of it generated after he left office pushing this scam.

According to Redford,

According to Redford, "Anyone speaking about solar energy would be smashed down as being a radical, a tree-hugger and granola-cruncher or what have you."

What a bunch of crap.  Back in the late '60s, solar energy was many times less efficient than other forms of energy.  The mistake he makes today is solar energy is still many time less efficient than other forms of energy - even at oils elevated price.

Don't believe me?  Hire a contractor to totally displace your present electric or gas powered HVAC system with that of a solar system powered system.  Beside the ridiculous cost, depending on where you live, your likely to burn up in the summer and freeze in the winter. 

Meanwhile, Redford will still going on making anti-American films and AlBore will still front, among other things, for a VC to goad congress into legislation diverting billions to his goofy GW theories. 

They are both ignorant socialist - are those terms redundant?

Global warming and the

Global warming and the environment is so last year. Mankind has moved on to destroying the universe now.

Redford the "Scientist" oops Dropout

Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama (no science degree)
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout

Robert Redford, College Dropout

Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout + College Dropout

Hell even Gore graduated from College:

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degree) 

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

And these are the people

And these are the people that are trying to tell us how to live our lives? I have an AA degree in Industrial Maintenance plus years of experience in repair of mechanical systems. I have more of a science background than them.

Democracy: Three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

What the hell do we know?

I mean I have only been a computer analyst for over 15 years, how the hell could I know that computer climate models are scam? I mean these computer illiterates obviously know much more than me with their degrees in dropping out.

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

I love it when jerks fight.

I love it when jerks fight. Even if they are both so girly.

If it were a movie it would be called Dr Strangegore.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Redefining star struck

I was green before green was cool...er...hot....no...cool....uh...hot...

Yeah, try lame.  And I'm supposed to take these two clowns seriously?