Thursday, April 10, 2008

AL GORE IS STUPID: IT'S GLOBAL COOLING EINSTEIN!


April 10th, 2008 and it is freaking snowing...AGAIN! I am not kidding if global warming doesn't get here soon I am going to kick Al's girly, inconvenient BIG FAT BUTT! whew. I feel better now. I hate Al. He's a fraud.

15 comments:

Freadom said...

I wonder how many people will join you.

ba and the boys said...

i woke up at 5am to work out and it was still snowing! nothing like waking up to snow in april...

Nikki said...

It looks as though BA and the people in UTAH are going to join me! :)N

Firefoxcub said...

I don't think he's WRONG, per se. The effects on the environment are such that if you have temperatures rising in one area, they're likely to drop in another. Kinda like when there's flooding in one area, there;s drought in another.

A huge Antarctic ice shelf just collapsed mid-March. It used to be part of Wilkins Ice Shelf which was 5000 sq miles but is now connected to the mainland by a thin buttress.

Anthony Palmer said...

I get a kick out of people who call global warming a farce because it's unseasonably cool. Global warming is not about temperatures shooting up to 90 degrees for months on end. It's about the gradual warming of the earth due to greenhouse gases, which affects polar regions the most severely at first. So as the ice sheets melt, sea levels could slowly rise. And the change in climate could lead to more dangerous storms and droughts/floods, etc. So in short, global warming is not about getting rid of winter.

Nikki said...

ffc, thanks for commenting on my blog!! It doesn't really matter what Al has to say about global warming, I don't like him so I take every chance I get to make fun of him. I am going to let the scientists figure it all out and in the mean time Al can rake in billions suckering people into thinking we are going to eat eachother soon...it sure is cold here in Utah and it keeps snowing an snowing and snowing...I heard about the ice cap this morning on the radio, they also had an expert on who said that the antartica is too large and too cold to ever effectively study the entire region. unlike Al wouild suggest I think there is still room for debate on the subject. thanks again for the comment.:)N

Anthony, I don't claim to be a scientist I only bitch about them on my blog (and Al Gore). If global warming has nothing to do with being warm and getting warmer then the marketing crew better change the name. And I am not going to lie when you started talking about green house gases my brain collapsed. So like I said to firefoxcub, let the scientists work it out and make their billions using scare tactics (and then call Bush a fearmonger for his terrorism stands, hypocrites) and propheting by it. I see Al as a fearmonger and making a ton of money off of his little inconvenient truth crap, I doubt the debate is over, I just don't care enough about it to read up on climate crap. Just being honest. This green movement may be good for our environment but I can't even buy clothes nowdays without the sales girl saying that the material is organic and recycled, yadda ok great neat, maybe I should care but I don't. Thanks for the comment!! :)N

DB said...

Nikki, you obviously didn't take DB's Wager to heart. I don't know why the Right mistrusts science so much. (probably has something to do with science saying crazy things like the Earth is more the 6K years old).

I can agree that the PR game they are playing uses scare tactics. But how can you reject scare tactics when it is almost synonymous with the conservative strategy for everything else?

Maybe it is a "hoax," but at least our air will be cleaner from our efforts, maybe our technology will keep improving (I never see an anti-global warming person complain when "green" products save them money). I am fine with that. I am not buying no stupid carbon credits though. I don't mind being "scared" into turning off the lights to save power.

Nikki said...

DB, I think your point is well taken. I mentioned in my comment to Anthony that it is hypocritical of the left to say Bush is a fearmonger when Al and the crew are using the same tactics (funny how we both used the same argument for ourselves). I agree that either way we are better off because of the points you stated saving energy etc. I don't agree that we should listen to all of the scientists on one side of the issue. There are experts with opposing views and I think they should be heard as well. There is a problem with the deliverer of the message being Al Gore for conservatives. Though I did see a commercial with Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton last night plugging Al's new website. Those two give me the willys and then I wasn't so sure what to think. I only trust science so far. Contrary to popular belief I do think science and religion can work with eachother. A lot of science is based on faith in my opinion. People who choose to believe scientific answers or theories have either read it in a book or have done the research themselves. Religion is no different. We either read a book about someones eye-witness account or theory or we have experience ourselves. Unless the actual experiment was done by our own hands we are only trusting someone elses research. I have never seen an atom, I only trust that others have. I think that is faith. So at some point the theories are either proven or disproven. I think you bring up an excellent topic...:)N

DB said...

Hold your breath, hear we go...

Valid point on it taking "faith" to trust science if we ourselves don't do the experiments. I would offer that plenty of people have done the experiments, read the research, check the points. Science doesn't present "brand new" ideas, rather it builds on established evidence (hence why everything always remains a theory). "Theory" in terms of "Scientific Theory" does not mean the same as "guess," as anti-science people would leave you to believe. Otherwise gravity, relativity, etc wouldn't be bothered with. But their theories have been tested, and validated as best as possible. It is easier to base my "faith" on testable and evidence backed claims than a guy who reads me bed time stories and says they are literally true. ;-)

Now, experts with opposing views are fine and should be heard, but with a grain of salt seeing as how they are the clear minority. Remember in the 70's how the tobacco companies got "experts" to say tobacco is safe. Or how Intelligent Design "experts" say evolution is a complete lie and base their "evidence" off bible quotes or shoddy experiments that don't hold up to peer review. I don't think science has to fly in the face of religion, it just flies in the face of fundamentalist views of religion. Otherwise all Christians would think the earth is the center of the universe (geocentric). Not just the nut jobs.

By the way, "faith" is trusting something without needing evidence. I just decided to elaborate on the issue!

Now, the messenger might be a biased, ultra-liberal fear-mongering douchebag, but does that invalidate the argument? Should I base my views of religion based on all the nut-job radicals views, or should I look at the message not the messenger?

Nikki said...

Where do I begin, seriously I have ADD (a scientificly diagnosed problem with attention span haha). Science isn't always right. Science over time has often been disproven, my point is that it could in fact be short lived with other scientists proving or disproving theories. You used the example of smoking. In 1833 mormons were given the word of wisdom and it said to refrain from smoking. Could it be said that faith was faster than science? It proved to be a correct principle over time. And since the law was given by revelation should it be disgarded as luck or proof that it was indeed revelation as it claimed? Plenty of people have followed other aspects of religios law that have proven to be beneficial to their lives, can this be ignored as phisical proof that certain christian principles are fact and not just based on faith? The case studies would be the same.
As for Al bringing to light a legitimate message aside from the fact that he is a dork...point well taken and I will stipulate that I will continue to make fun of the whole movement even though it may in fact be true. :)N

Khaki Elephant said...

I wrote something about the environment a little while ago. To be honest, I'm not sure if global climate change is a hoax or not, though there are a growing number scientists who are stepping forward to say that it is driven by agendas rather than science (like the head of NASA and the Russian space program). But, to be honest, it doesn't really matter to me. Do we really need the threat of global disaster to clean up the planet and make it a nicer place to live?

Of course, living in Michigan I have been tempted to stop recycling to kick up global warming a bit, just in case.

Thinking Sage said...

Anyon who believes Global warming is even .0000000000001% man made is an absolute simpleton with zero knowledge of hisory.
I mean how do they not remember the coming Ice age, acid rain and over population scares of the last 50 years?
Snake oil I tell you.

Nikki said...

Sage, I tend to agree with you. My issue is the arrogant thinking of scientists. turns me off. :)N

namaste said...

okay, i just saw a commercial on global warming. it said, "stop global warming... or all the reeses will melt." now you've stepped into my territory of concern dagnammit! call the townhall meetings! who do i need to email?! reeses are my LIFE! peanut butter & chocolate for god sakes! where do i send my check?! i want to help STOP GLOBAL WARMING! for the love of god!...

;)

~m

Nikki said...

Maria those are FIGHTING WORDS! Do not mess with ANYTHING PEANUT BUTTER! LOL! Let's start a movement of Reeses lovers for quick climate repair! the bumper stickers will say "Save the reeses peanut butter cups, turn off your lights"...you are a crack-up chickie! :)N