Maybe he's after the Manbearpig?

[Nightshade]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... openhagen/

Updated December 03, 2009
Al Gore Cancels Climate Lecture in Copenhagen

Former Vice President Gore cancels lecture, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

COPENHAGEN -- Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.

The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of \"all the events going on with the summit.\" Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a \"great disappointment\" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

[Nightshade]

December 5, 2009
- by AWR Hawkins

Former Vice President Al Gore is the most recognizable face of the anthropogenic global warming movement. He has authored books, starred in a documentary, and spoken innumerable times on the supposed threat global warming poses to life’s very existence.

Gone is the dry, stiff Gore who bored us to death in presidential debates during the 2000 election cycle. His passion for global warming has so enlivened him that he speaks of isotopes and carbon emissions with a fervor befitting an old-timey revival preacher talking about brimstone and fire. London’s Times Online actually went so far as to claim Gore’s passion “invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill” when Gore spoke on global warming at Oxford University in July 2009.

But putting aside the fact that Gore has honed his public speaking skills, the fly in the ointment is that he’s a fraud. Like the very global warming movement to which he has attached himself, he’s a snake oil salesman whose sales pitch is laced with scare tactics designed to push the public into embracing a radical, carbon-free agenda that rests on a combination of half-truths and outright fabrications.

And Gore’s fraudulence is not only seen in the fact that he pawns a lie, but also in the fact that he refuses to abide by the very lie he pawns.

After all his whining about the dangers of fossil fuels and coal-powered electricity plants, and after assuring us we can be “carbon free” by paying attention to “where we set the thermostat, [and] keeping [our] a/c and furnace filters clean,” Gore’s 2006 utility bills for his Nashville home topped $30,000.

His home energy use was literally 20 times the national average.

But Gore is as blind to his own hypocrisy as he is to reality. And he apparently doesn’t want to take the risk of being corrected. He has refused to engage in an honest debate about the doomsday claims he’s made since he grew concerned over the threat human beings posed to “the spotted owl and the snail darter” in 1992. This was obvious when Gore finished speaking to 500 “environmental journalists” in Madison, Wisconsin, on October 9, 2009. After the speech, Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer “[asked] Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.”

Gore dodged the question. So McAleer pressed further, and Gore had McAleer’s microphone turned off.

In other words, the same fraud Esquire magazine referred to as a “lunatic” for claiming “the Earth’s got a fever” is also a full-blown scaredy cat when it comes to undergoing a critical examination of his science claims.

And while everybody has known this, most have put up with Gore’s incoherent ramblings — until now.

In the wake of Climategate, his continued global warming proclamations and his refusal to debate are simply untenable. Thus after Britain’s Lord Christopher Monckton recently challenged Gore to a debate, Monckton afterwards added: “If you don’t dare [debate], I want you to remain silent about [global warming] forever from now on.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has grown so tired of Gore’s unwillingness to debate that they are openly mocking him — offering to pay him $500.00 if he’ll debate Monckton. But with all due respect to CEI, there’s no reason to believe a scaredy cat like Gore, who is positioned to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” will expose the error of his ways to a sound thinker like Monckton.

Instead, he’s more likely to make himself even harder to reach in order to be sure he doesn’t have to defend his global warming assertions. There’s a good chance this was the motive behind the cancellation of his scheduled appearance at the Copenhagen climate conference later this month. Although people had already paid $1200.00 to meet the former vice president, the outcry over Climategate may have persuaded Gore that allowing people to get close enough to shake hands would be tantamount to allowing them to get close enough to ask tough questions.

Regardless of Gore’s motivation in backing out of Copenhagen, it’s understandable that he avoids debate at all costs. He is, after all, a fraud — about whom Bob Carter of Australia’s Marine Geophysical Laboratory, said: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/al-gore-fraud-scaredy-cat/

[snoopy]

Those bloggers should be grateful that he invented the internet for them to blog on!

Somewhere along the way our nation stopped thinking critically, and starting going for whatever looked the shiniest.

[Will Robinson]

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a \"great disappointment\" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

The fact that people actually pay to hear that man talk is both amazing and alarming! Gore is the Jim Bakker of the enviromentalism faith.

[Nightshade]

Just like Bakker, Gore is getting lots of profit from the global warming hysteria.

And just like Bakker, Gore is the epitome of hypocrisy when it comes to his own \"carbon footprint.\" He may talk about reducing pollution (namely carbon emissions) as if he believes it, but doesn't LIVE like he believes it.

Talk is cheap. Al Gore's standard of living isn't.

[woodchip]

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

The fact that people actually pay to hear that man talk is both amazing and alarming! Gore is the Jim Bakker of the enviromentalism faith.

Perhaps Algore just has a better "package".

[Gooberman]

My view on this whole Global warming thing has always been one of indifference. As, what they are asking of us, is just fundamentally good rules to live by.

Whether it global warming happens or not, Recycling will still be a good idea, Driving less and riding your bike when you can, is a good idea, not polluting the waters, is a good idea, not wasting water, is a good idea, etc. etc.etc.

Trying to convince people that they *have to do it* because of this looming threat is going about it all wrong. People should be convinced to do it, because its the right thing to do.

It shouldn't be legislated, but it should be the culture we all promote.

[snoopy]

My view on this whole Global warming thing has always been one of indifference. As, what they are asking of us, is just fundamentally good rules to live by.

Whether it global warming happens or not, Recycling will still be a good idea, Driving less and riding your bike when you can, is a good idea, not polluting the waters, is a good idea, not wasting water, is a good idea, etc. etc.etc.

Trying to convince people that they *have to do it* because of this looming threat is going about it all wrong. People should be convinced to do it, because its the right thing to do.

It shouldn't be legislated, but it should be the culture we all promote.

x2. What did I just agree with Goober?

My 2c.... make it pay to be environmental, rather than trying to punish for not.

[Lothar]

what they are asking of us, is just fundamentally good rules to live by.

So-called “global warming” is a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clear our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it.

A sentiment I mostly agree with... recycling is good; using less energy to do the same task is good; polluting less is good; using less water is good. You don't need to convince people there's a looming catastrophe to get them to do these things, just convince them that they can save money and live a more pleasant life in a better environment.

Unfortunately, that's not ALL they (Al Gore and his ilk) are asking of us. They're also asking that we buy into a whole host of so-called solutions that may not have any effect whatsoever on the environment, but will take our money and put it in their pockets, while quite possibly devastating parts of our industry/economy.

While I don't 100% agree with this video on cap-and-trade, it demonstrates much of the same skepticism I and many others have. I'm all for doing things that will leave a better environment for future generations -- but I'm skeptical about the doom-and-gloom predictions and the solutions we're often presented with, and I'm VERY skeptical of those who argue that because the consequences are so great, we should leap into action and do whatever the experts tell us. My wife recently argued with someone who claimed that we should act on the precautionary principle:

Are you also a fan of Pascal's Wager?

I personally do not find persuasive the idea that decisions involving high stakes should warrant an approach which embraces risk management over skepticism. All things in proper order.

It all depends on the probabilities you assign things. If Traditional Christianity has a 50% chance of being true, then of course the risk mitigation of heaven and hell dominate decision making. But I should like a better assessment of the odds before entering risk management mode. If the odds are near zero, I shall ignore the claim--however horrid the hell or enticing the heaven.

So with AGW. Perhaps the doomsday is quite terrible (though even this does not seem obvious to me). I should like to see sound evidence that results in--at a minimum--clear odds before I am willing to worry about it.

After all, as with Pascal, I may have other doomsdays to worry about. Perhaps the real doomsday event is a killer asteroid, and nothing matters except a relentless pursuit of technology aimed at a robust presence in space. If that were the case, retarding industry out of a concern for your bogeyman might actually be the cause of doom.

One cannot worry about every street preacher who claims the end is near.

No, Pascal's Wager is foolish since you could not possibly select the correct god from the myriad of gods available (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) given that belief is mutually exclusive.

At any rate it's not the same thing. The precautionary principle is an insurance sale, not some metaphysical nonsense.

And you're being unfair about your characterization of Global Warming. It is just not any doomsday scenario. There's enough reputable scientists getting their panties in a knot that it should be cause for concern.

It is not being metaphysical in nature that makes Pascal's Wager nonsense. It is that it demands action without sufficient rational foundation.

The rational reaction to a possible crisis in which one lacks information is not to jump immediately away from what looks like the scariest outcome. That tends to make things worse. The right reaction is to focus on research until a decision absolutely cannot be avoided--and even then, make the minimum decision the evidence warrants.

I view that as the case here. If the evidence is sufficient to convince and act on, okay. Act on it. But if it is not, the stakes being high do not change anything. By all accounts, there's time yet to be more certain, so let's take the time and be more certain.

Incidentally, "a lot of reputable scientists are concerned" is a statement about state of the evidence, and not a very persuasive one to me. I know a thing or two about simulating complex systems; a non-predictive simulation, a theory concerning a single variable input, a loose-but-not-awesome correlation? In a complex system, that really is street preacher kind of evidence. Absolutely it warrants theoretical concern; follow that line of research. But as a call to action? Nah. Call me when you've got a robust enough model that you can use it to win wars or make money, and we'll talk.

[TechPro]

Perhaps Algore just has a better "package".

Oooooh, Thanks for painting that picture ...

[Lothar]

Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.

He's doing his part to combat global warming by removing one limo and one private jet from service that day. That only leaves 1200 limos and 140 private jets for the rest of the summit.

[Will Robinson]

....what they are asking of us, is just fundamentally good rules to live by.

Whether it global warming happens or not, Recycling will still be a good idea, Driving less and riding your bike when you can, is a good idea, not polluting the waters, is a good idea, not wasting water, is a good idea, etc. etc.etc....

If that was all they are asking of us I'd be Will "Green" Robinson!
But instead they demand billion$ from us and have given exemptions to countries that are some of the worst offenders on the list! The regulations they seek to impose are impossible to meet and it seems they are trying to set up a system not unlike a credit card company's interest schedule....you owe for your pollution, you can not meet the payments so you are forever sending them money and you never see a reduction in the overall pollution because they hand out exemptions to the "less fortunate" and "under developed" countries because to even attempt to meet the standards would be too much of a hardship to them.

The U.N. is the last place we should ever turn for practical solutions to anything! It is, and always has been a repository for nations to either pay extortion money for geopolitical favor or a place to post their extortion demands.

It's kind of like going to the New Jersey Waste Management Union and asking them to help you fight organized crime!! Tony Soprano is going to be there saying 'Sure, start sending me payments every week and I'll see what I can do about it!'

The U.N. as an authority on Climate regulation?!? Fuhgettaboutit!

[woodchip]

If the UN was truely worried about a carbon footprint, they wouldn't be having their big meeting in Copenhagen. Seriously, could they not just have everyone video conference? If they do not understand the concept, why should we trust they know anything about climate management?

[Will Robinson]

If the UN was truely worried about a carbon footprint, they wouldn't be having their big meeting in Copenhagen. Seriously, could they not just have everyone video conference? If they do not understand the concept, why should we trust they know anything about climate management?

Most of them can't even feed themselves for crying out loud! Don't expect them to understand anything that doesn't come announced from the user end of an aimed and loaded weapon....

[Nightshade]

The delegates at Copenhagen are just SO CONCERNED about carbon emissions that they...




Arrived in 1,200 limos.

...and 140 private jets.

(A total of 5 ground vehicles were counted as hybrids...out of the 1,200 limos.)

[fliptw]

As Lothar, with a sense of irony, previously pointed out.

[Tunnelcat]

Arrived in 1,200 limos.

...and 140 private jets.

(A total of 5 ground vehicles were counted as hybrids...out of the 1,200 limos.)

I wonder what the 'carbon offsets' for all those vehicles are and how much do WE pions have to give up for all those muckety muck 'experts' to travel there?