Gore to attend Corzine bill signing

Why isn't he in California bailing his son out of prison?

"Any Nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one" -Alexander Hamilton

MartinOne,

Ronald Reagan said it best: "It's not that liberals are ignorant; it's that they know so much that isn't so."

"The ultimate decision about what is acceptable as right and wrong will be made not by individual wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the 'wrong' beliefs." - F. A. Hayek

From Tom Friedman two weeks ago.

[W]e're in a green bubble -- a festival of hot air by the news media, corporate America and presidential candidates about green this and green that, but, when it comes to actually doing something hard to bring about a green revolution at scale -- and if you don't have scale on this you have nothing -- we wimp out. Climate change is not a hoax. The hoax is that we are really doing something about it.

Jon Corzine has now joined forces with Al Gore to rid the world of ManBearPig. I'm super, duper, cereal.

Excelsior!!

"Any Nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one" -Alexander Hamilton

Do not be stupid enough to fall for it

Martin and SJ, as I said many times before, Gore is an Idiot - nothing more than an empty suit. He lost the election fair and square in 2000, infact, he and his minions are the ones who attempted to steal the election. Face the facts. As in my profession as a real environmentalist, global warming as brought about by Gore and other so called environmentalists is nothing more than a sick joke; a method to bring Gore back into the spotlight. Many other countries have yet to achieve even to get close to what the U.S. has done in terms of reducing greenhouse gases and other pollution. When it is proven that the earth is not in a natural climate cycle, then I will believe we are truly in global warming. Fact: it cannot be proven at this time. So please, Martin and SJ, quit worshipping false gods.

While Gore has done a great deal to bring environmental issues to the forefront -- most noticably global warming -- he has also generated both a torrential backlash against otherwise valid scientific inquiry and given ammunition to his opponents by engaging in often gross exaggeration of circumstances and theoretical possibilities.

For instance, his claim in "An Inconvenient Truth" that the seas would rise 20 feet in the near future was relegated to rank alarmism when the IPCC came out with a figure in the neighborhood of 23 inches.  Moreover, he continues to use the tragic events of Hurricane Katrina to peddle his objectively nonsensical blather that global warming serves to intensify hurricane systems (many of his most ardent supporters openly question Gore for this tactic).  While scientists supporting global warming tend to give him a pass by saying that he gets the big picture (code for yes, he's an embarrassment, but he gets us media exposure), Gore is not someone who should be considered heroic. 

This is especially true in light of his personal lifestyle, which is utterly inconsistent with what he preaches to us common folk.  In this regard, most people don't realize that much of the Gore family wealth was derived from his father's interest in Occidental Petroleum (Al Sr. was affectionately termed the "Senator from Occidental" for his feckless support of this oil giant).  His personal carbon footprint resembles that of a T-Rex rather than a sparrow. And please don't tell me he buys carbon offsets (the market for which has been exposed as riddled with shams) to render his 20X normal energy usage "neutral". It is hardly a sign of heroism or aspect of leadership to pay a mango farmer halfway around the world a few bucks to plant a couple dozen trees so you can live la vida loca. 

Sadly, Al Gore is to the environmental movement what Don King is to boxing . Then again, as Don King always says, "ONLY IN AMERICA"!

For some luddites, the concept of global warming being a real phenomenon is seemingly akin to medieval theocrats coming to grips with the reality that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. Denial only seemingly occurs within pop culture but not within the scientific community and in journals such as Science and Nature, both highly respected. If global warming is indeed not real, it would have to constitute the largest global conspiracy created in modern times. Perhaps such things as facts, objective data and scientific consensus can help defeat such myopic blindness, though, including far-fetched theories about Mars weather creating global warming or sunspots doing the same.

Further, personal attacks on Gore – the carbon footprint of Bush, Giuliani, or any other Republican is surely much longer – distract from the issue at hand, that is, that global warming is not only a real phenomenon but that states such as our own must make up for federal level incompetence when it comes to implementing carbon emissions caps and cutting down emissions through regulations. While the puppet master of special interest groups, big corporations, and other entities who have a stake in no government regulation of environmental safeguards continue to pull the strings of Doherty, Pennacchio, Fred Thompson, Jim Inhofe and others, icebergs continue to melt, global temperatures continue to rise at unprecedented levels, and species continue to disappear because of global warming. It is therefore incumbent upon us to support the courageous efforts of VP Gore, Edwards, Corzine and others who want implementation of specific environmental safeguards rather than blatant dissembling (Doherty) and calling for more tests on a phenomenon that is indeed real.

Is Al Gore smoking the same weed as his Son ?? or better still taking the same pills ? Given that there is Solar warming at a rate of 2 degrees per 100 years. What arrogance to believe that us mortal souls can effect the climate. Even the worst case humen event a Nuclear Winter would only last 80-100 years. This is a blink of an eye in historical terms and Mr Gore and his potsmokers will be well gone by then.

Its like reading of 2 trolls discussing Nuke Science. For Gods sake these guys dont even know how to make a good ol fashioned American Apple pie. I forgot they threw the American Apple pie out in exchange for Fois Gras  in the same manner they have thrown American Traditional values down the toilet. Enough already with these idiots.

for those that don't believe in Global Warming, can you disprove the science that's been put forth by NASA, NOAA, Al Gore, etc. Or is it enough for you to just say "B.S.!" and put forth no proof of your own?

 I wonder if you people know how foolish you sound. Even mainstream Republicans believe in Global Warming. Its really just the fringe at this point who thinks its a Liberal conspiracy.

a scientific phenomenon.  One studies it hoping to gain increasing knowledge regarding same.  The fact that so many people "believe in" global warming blurs the line between science and the new secular religious faith that has arisen in recent history.  I offered an example -- that being Kilimanjaro -- where initially it was thought that global warming was responsible for the glacial decay.  Further extensive study dispelled that notion.  If you actually read the article, it is interesting how many variants are subsumed in the term "warming".  Mote and Kaser go into detail regarding the mechanics of the warming plaguing Kilimanjaro and show how warming occurs apart from standard greenhouse emissions. 

Thus we learn that "warming" can occur absent the influence of greenhouse gases.  Does this mean that greenhouse emissions do not contribute to warming under any circumstances?  Of course not.  That would be as presumptuous as saying greenhouse gases are the only mechanism causing warming.  The point is that simply labeling a complex natural phenomenon "warming" and considering the heavy scientific lifting done is at best intellectually dishonest.  Ironically, it is the secular counterpart of what Christians often do regarding creation.  They merely label the event without digging deeper scientifically to discover the mechanics behind the creation of the universe, mankind, etc.     

The climate changes all the time - deal with it morons

wow, some of you nay-sayers have no idea what you are talking about, yet you think global warming is the biggest hoax ever created... how so? what are you basing this on?

earth is warming, there is no debate

the debate is whether or not we are causing and it and whether we can do something about it 

every scientist agrees the earth is warming, and most have said that we are causing it and can do something about it.. what is wrong with enacting legislation that would take precautions towards earths environment?

for the record... i do agree that some politicians are taking advantage of the hysteria aspect of all this.

i dont care for al gore, but it doesnt take away from the actual issue

Mt St Helens spouted more crap in a few days than all the "suvs" made in a decade. If the libs really believe that they can stop global warming by not wiping their ass ( as per Sheryl Crow) or by stopping cows farting, how come that they wont give up their lear jets and mc Mansions. ? Hypocrites all !!!

Global Warming is about as real as the word "scientifical".

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."- Ronald Reagan

Wow!!!

What I could say to this but there would be no room left for idiot's and morons like sjblue and martin123456789 or whatever that stands for.

Anyway, whose cares about what the earth is doing or whatever it is going to do on it's own while not having to listen to some overweight fathead person who last claimed they invented the Internet.

Maybe at the signing than can share a JOINT. Al can asked his son or I am sure they can come up with one from their Liberal friends at this useless bill signing at the Meadowlands where another DEMOCROOKS boondoggle just took place a week or so ago.

Their great idea for the Meadowlands seems to be falling through that BIG BLACK HOLE that DEMOCROOKS always seen to create wherever they go.

Now chew on that or in Al’s case put that in your pipe.

"Would it be the worst thing ever to stop polluting, to find more effective sources of energy, to improve the air quality."

Who's debating that here? Nobody last I checked.

This isn't a debate about ending pollution. You see, this is what liberals do all the time. They attempt to cover up their radical agenda with a good cause and when they're called on it they ask, Don't the ends justify the means? That's nothing but a bunch of B.S..

Nobody here who doesn't believe in global warming wants to wrecklessly pollute just for the hell of it. That's complete and utter nonsense.

As far as C3PO or whatever his name is who believes that we are gods who have the ability to change our climate because some Ivy League college professor told him so goes, all I can say is, ding ding! Plenty of people go to regular colleges to learn the same garbage.

The only difference is that your parents had to pay a lot more money in order to have Marxist, Leninist, athieist propaganda poured into your head than everybody else.

I guess that makes you special.

"Any Nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one" -Alexander Hamilton

yea, that's all college is... Marxist, Leninist propaganda

The brightest, young minds in the world have been brainwashed by closeted, communist professors. Oh, no!

who are you? McCarthy? Get out of the 1950s, please.

"yea, that's all college is... Marxist, Leninist propaganda"

You left out athiest. I wonder why?

"Any Nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one" -Alexander Hamilton

Though certain foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalist conservatives (Networker, Dino, the appropriate nom-de-plume “Mad Max”) may want to deny that global warming is real and continuing living in their glass bubble, the facts, as those pesky facts are wont to do, continue to get in the way. We know that the past decade was the warmest on record, that this past January was the warmest on record, that entire ice shelves are breaking apart, that global temperatures are rising at rates that are unparalleled in human history, and that multiple scientific organizations, from the National Science Center to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to nearly every scientists who has studied the phenomenon contend that global warming is very real.

Xenu’s contention that there may be other factors contributing to warming is a very fair question to ask (the aforementioned January rise in temperature, for example, may also be attributed to weather patterns in the Pacific), but that shouldn’t take away from the objective findings that global warming itself, from man-made carbon emissions, is a very real and threatening phenomenon.

A recent poster made the erroneous conclusion that the market should regulate itself (!?) when it comes to global warming, which is akin to saying let K Street lobbyists or Enron correct their own corrupt practices without any governmental interference. The cap on emissions and increased fuel efficiency standards are the only ways to spur development of future green technology and reduce the carbon footprint of American industries. It needs to be stopped before it reaches the consumer.

Sadly, it was a California Republican who initiated the boldest global warming initiative in American history, and the Corzine bill is partly a product of that vision. Talking with some of the Republicans on politicsnj, though, one wonders whether they are so blinded by a pernicious and fundamentalist ideology that they substitute fallacious ideas for proven fact.

The worst instances of pollution on the planet do not occur in free market economies. On the contrary, the most horrendous examples of environmental devastation exist in countries scarred by decades of communist oppression, such as the former Soviet Union (can you say Chernobyl). In these situations, the market is replaced by absolute state fiat which is neither responsive to the will of the people nor takes into account consumer preference. Contrast that to a free market economy, where consumer preference is the ultimate arbiter of which companies survive and which go the way of the Edsel.

The problem with the American market is that an efficient free market no longer exists. For instance, if you wanted to start an energy company to produce alternative fuel, your path to entering the market is not only cluttered with excessive bureaucratic red tape (which makes the cost of starting a company prohibitive for most independent entrepreneurs), but competing industries such as "big oil" use their massive lobbying influence as a club to beat back any innovations that pose a threat to their monopoly.   Add to these impediments the fact that those who dole out venture capital have much of their own investments tied into the very industries you may be making extinct if you succeed. 

That said, a truly free market would effectively respond to consumer demand for "green" products.  New companies who meet the criteria established by consumers would spring up and enter the marketplace to compete for their share.  The old adage about building a better mouse trap is still true today.  Unfortunately, it has become virtually impossible to get to the point where you can actually start building.  So let's not blame free enterprise for pollution.  If we are to be honest, the blame lies squarely with us for not demanding greener production methods, not taking down bureaucratic barriers to market entry and not ending the corporate political influence that causes technological stagnation. 

“United Nations actually reported recently on three things. It reported that there is a general consensus that over the 100 years that the earth has gotten warmer and that that is probably true for about 400 years. But as the National Academy of Sciences reported several years ago, the fact is we don't have enough data for more than about 400 years of knowledge and we're not actually sure what happened earlier in terms of the planet. And a good example of that would be the fact that 11,000 years ago the Gulf Stream stopped and for 600 years Europe had a little ice age, which then the Gulf Stream started back up and Europe lost the little ice age. There is today no consensus about why the Gulf Stream stopped or why it started again. But there is a consensus that for the last 100 years the planet's gotten somewhat warmer.

The second consensus is that humans have contributed to that. I don't think there's any consensus that we are the only contribution, but there is a clear agreement that human activity has helped increase the level of warmness. Third,

I believe it is a fact that the computer simulations -- which are only computer simulations -- show that over the next century there is a probable increase in the sea level between seven and 23 inches.

…

But let me, if I can, let me explain partly why this is a very challenging thing to do if you're a conservative. For most of the last 30 years, the environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore, if you're a conservative, the minute you start hearing these arguments, you know what's coming next, which is bigger government and higher taxes. So even though it may be the right thing to do, you end up fighting it because you don't want the bigger government and higher taxes. And so you end up in these kind of cycles. And part of the reason I was delighted to accept John Brademas's invitation and I'm delighted to be here with Senator Kerry is I think there has to be, if you will, a green conservatism. There has to be a willingness to stand up and say, "All right, here's the right way to solve these, as seen by our value system," and now to have a dialogue about what's the most effective way to solve it rather than to get into a fight over whether or not to solve it.”

-Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

I was lucky enough to see him debate John Kerry in April on the issue of Global Warming. The most encouraging fact wasn’t that they were debating or who won, it was that both parties generally agreed with each other. The main difference came between enforcing changes. Newt made a great point that if we create incentives for the free market, we will produce faster and better results than through regulation. Personally I would like to see a mix of both market driven incentives as well as some regulation by the federal government. But either way, it’s positive to see a conservative like Newt proving his case for global warming.

those who believe in the global warming hoax sure do get upset when logic and facts are shown to contradict their beliefs. The Global Warming believers remind me of those in the middle ages who kept insisting the Earth was flat even after they were shown proof otherwise.