Monday, August 08, 2011

Gore losing it in Colorado speech, bewails state of climate change debate

Former Vice President Al Gore has gotten rich off the climate change financial manipulations, won a Nobel Prize for his advocacy on the issue, and generally made himself into the world-wide symbol of the global warming movement. And judging by his recent remarks to a liberal gathering in Colorado, it appears he is feeling like a loser these days. Speaking Aug. 4 at the Aspen Institute, Gore claimed global warming critics have used the same tactics allegedly used by the tobacco industry to prevent needed anti-smoking regulations for four decades, according to The Colorado Independent, a liberal website. "The model of media manipulation used then, Gore said, 'was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes. Bullshit! It may be sun spots. Bullshit! It’s not getting warmer. Bullshit!' Gore exclaimed," the Independent reported. “'When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again,' he continued. 'There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! … It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the g-----n word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.'"...more

1 comment:

Brett said...

You don't think the motivation behind these angry outbursts has anything to do with Al Gore visualizing a personal moneymaker going down the tubes, do you? Of course, he will always have the speeches. I hear he is presently working on reviving the ZPG movement. Remember that stuff?

By the way, is he suggesting that research funded by environmental groups and by government agencies does not have an agenda?