The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

An Inconvenient Truth? Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away

November 26, 2006

An Inconvenient Truth? Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away (Nov. 26, 2006)


Posted by Noel Sheppard on November 26, 2006 - 18:18.

This is pretty hysterical, folks, and certainly requires all drinking vessels to be placed at a safe distance from nearby electronic equipment. Laurie David, the global warming alarmist and spouse of comedian Larry David (“Curb Your Enthusiasm”), wrote an op-ed published in Sunday’s Washington Post. In it, she stated that the company which produced Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” wanted to donate 50,000 DVD copies of the schlockumentary to the National Science Teachers Association so that educators around the country could brainwash America’s youth with Gore’s junk science. Thankfully, the NSTA said, “No Thanks”: “In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other ‘special interests’ might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn't want to offer ‘political’ endorsement of the film; and they saw ‘little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members’ in accepting the free DVDs.” Can I get a group “Hallelujah?”

Now, most folks would think that’s a reasonable explanation. However, if you are the type that buys into the global warming myth, reason is not your strong suit. As such, David sees mischief afoot. And, who’s to blame? Well, if you guessed “oil companies,” come on down and accept the keys to your brand new Cadillac:


Still, maybe the NSTA [sic] just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.

I bet many of you saw that coming from a mile away. Amazingly, she continued with this conspiracy theory:


That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it. It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.

It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, ExxonMobil’s going after our kids. Of course, you’ve got to wonder who you’d rather have influence your children: ExxonMobil, or Al Gore, Laurie David, and their ilk. While you ponder, here’s more of David’s rant:


In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school.

And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.

Horrors. ExxonMobil has given $42 million to schools by filling shortfalls in public education funding. The nerve of these people! But that’s not all. Read what other awful things ExxonMobil is doing:


The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.

Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.

How despicable. Wait a minute. I thought these folks support genetic engineering. Somehow, I think that sentence got by David and her editors. Regardless, David concluded with the following paranoid caution to her readers:


While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they're teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids' science homework.

Amazing. I don’t know about you, but I’d quite prefer it if anything this woman has to offer is kept as far away from my kids’ schools as possible. In fact, this woman should be affixed with a LoJack so that police departments around the country can make sure that she’s always at a safe distance from schools, ice cream parlors, video arcades, libraries, playgrounds, candy stores, toy stores, bicycle shops, pediatricians' offices, etc., etc., etc.

*****Update: I received an e-mail message from a science teacher and writer named John Borowski. He asked if I had the courage and fairness to post an article that he wrote today with a very different view of this subject than mine. The answer is "Yes": http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1127-20.htm.

nicksmith112 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 18:35

How about the hurricane season we had this year...lol.
Was there even one noteworthy hurricane this year. I can't remember...lol.

Noel Sheppard Says:
November 26, 2006 - 18:47


I thought NOAA was going to release it's final hurricane 2006 report the week before Thanksgiving. Sadly, they haven't, but I will be sharing it as soon as they do. :-)   ns

misterbill Says:
November 27, 2006 - 19:00

The picture implies to me that Al Gore is a contributor to Global Warming and it is unsafe to light a match or smoke behind him.

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 18:48

The short version; Al Gore can't even give away his propaganda, yada yada, Corporate interests exploiting the chilruns'.  How dare these Corporate interests!  Don't they realize only those that agree with Laurie David have the right to exploit others.

I wonder who else Laurie is exploiting, yada yada, my deepest and most heartfelt sympathies to Larry David.

Noel Sheppard Says:
November 26, 2006 - 18:57


The hypocrisy here is amazing. XOM is bad because it's giving money to public education. Yet, the libs are always complaining that schools are underfunded. Genetic engineering shouldn't be promoted, but these folks are all for cloning and stem cell research. Absolutely amazing!

The reality is that there is nothing that an oil company can do that will meet with these folks' approval except declare bankruptcy and go out of business. Of course, even then, these folks would protest the layoffs. Talk about a lose-lose situation.  ns

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:11

It could be worse Noel.  Can you imagine what life must be like being married to this space cadette?  On the bright side Laurie and her conspiracy-theorist friends must provide an endless source of material for Larry's comedy.

This story is just too funny - thanks for the laughs Noel.  Maybe Larry can get Laurie a horse and buggy (with a hand-crank powered DVD to watch Algore's propaganda of course) for a "holiday" present this year.....that Prius in the driveway is just so passe'.

SportPolitics Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:53

Laurie is married to Al Gore acumen:

[ Laurie David, a producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," is a Natural Resources Defense Council trustee and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org.]

I see, she helped make the movie, is an NRDC bigshot, and is founder of Stopglobalwarming. LOLOLOL

WaPo has another unbiased piece on science and global warming, and Al Gore, and his truther movie. LOLOL

Maybe they dialed 1-800-AL-whine, and Laurie answered.

7MS Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:07

How can it be propaganda if 99% of scientists are on his side, how can it be junk , i just dont understand your rationale

ChemicalOperator Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:11

Simple 99% of the scientists are not on his side. As a matter of fact, there are many scientists who have come out against global warming.  Global warming is a myth.

This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave. 

7MS Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:13

no your wrong all of the best scientists and scientific institutions are on his side , thats just the facts.

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:15

Of course they are......

ChemicalOperator Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:28

All the best scientists? Who determines who the best scientists are?  Instead of being a sheep to what the MSM wants you to believe do yourself some favors and do research

Here are some articles about the myth of global warming, if these arent enough I have more for you.





This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave. 

Unsane Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:12

So, 7MS, what are YOU doing to prevent it?  Have you stopped driving?  Are you reading by candlelight?  Are your powering your computer by hand crank power?

If 99.99999999999999% of scientists agree like sheep that the Evil First World is destroying the world via global warming, then maybe you can answer my questions (for some reason the guilt-ridden Left will not answer them):

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. 


"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

MikeB Says:
November 27, 2006 - 21:18

Unsane, how dare you introduce facts into the global warming debate.  Al Gore said it, 7MS believes it, and that settles it.

While you are at it, 7MS, please explain to me why, if it is greenhouse emissions, and not solar output driving any global warming, are Mars, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto all experiencing global warming, per articles by NASA, MIT, and other sources?  Is it your contention that North American white males are also driving SUVs and industrializing these other planets and moons?  Could it possibly be that if global warming is occurring on this planet that it has a cause other than America?

By the way, 7MS, where is the Ice Age and accompanying glaciation that was the consensus of "all serious climatologists" in the mid-70s?

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

NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:32

Name them.

SportPolitics Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:32

Mt. Pinatubo - an inconvenient truth for Global Warmers - erupting in 1991 - it lowered global temperatures by nearly 1 degree - now the global warmers can claim that degree for the 1990's- and ascribe it to carbon emissions... 


The volcano's eruption in June 1991 came after 500 years of dormancy, and produced one of the largest and most violent eruptions of the 20th century.

The effects of the eruption were felt worldwide. It injected large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere—more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone destruction increased substantially.


Oh boy, an ozone destruction benefit as well. Libs got a lot of mileage off this one.

Do you hear much the global warmers spouting about Mt. Pinatubo ? You'd think something that affects global temps by nearly one full degree would be important to them in 1991 and 1992 - etc....

I guess not...it's an "INCONVENIENT TRUTH".

NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:37

Sport, Pinatubo was small potatoes as volcanic disasters go.  I thnk the eruption was a moderate VEI level 5 event.  Check out the damage VEI level 6 and 7 events can do.

SportPolitics Says:
November 26, 2006 - 22:02

Looks like the libs have that VEI 6 or 7 yet to blame on GW. lol

This chart shows VEI 6 and 7 as 1883 and 1815, and millennia ago Yellowstone as an 8, has Mt' St' Helens as a 5.

Yes, I'd say "as the earth warms", a few years and of course the crust- mostly a solid like rocks that need to expand as heat is applied - will thrust open a few gigantic VEI 6's and 7's and that will cool the whole earth down again...

Oh well, so much for a "special needs lib Earth", maybe it will bark up it's own self sustaining solution - like a conservative. lol

i was just thinking Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:59

Given the high qualilty of 7MS' abilities to express himself (or herself) in writing, could it be that "7MS" stands for "7th grade middle schooler"? I teach middle school students. His/Her arguments don't sound much more intelligent that theirs.

Mean Gene Dr. Love Says:
November 28, 2006 - 14:40

"all the best scientists and scientific institutions" is code for: The ones I agree with.

Along the lines of because I own a certain brand product, it of course is the best.

'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh

whitetop Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:21

The sad truth is the US Supreme court is going to hear a suit to force the Bush administration to regulate CO2 emissions.  It is truly amazing how far an idiot like AlBore can take an issue based strictly on emotions and not backed by any scientific fact.  Any one who calls themselves a scientist and back this idiot's ploy is interested in one thing; getting government funding. 

7MS Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:27

wrong again scientists are not business, people they need money to seek answers not to buy houses and stuff , usa had better catchup with the rest of the developed world or it will find itself a 3rd world country.. forget politics on this issue , embrace the facts.

1sttofight Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:48

Hmmm, Why dont you give us some facts.

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:30

Here are some facts for our factless friend.  Fact 1 - Per the National Center for Policy Analysis, the earth has warmed one degree F in the last century (that's one hundred years for our factless friend).

Another fact - Per the BBC,  the UK is almost alone in Europe in honouring Kyoto pledges to cut greenhouse gasses.  Ooops - that ain't gonna work, but as long as Europe is talking the talk....

Another fact - Europe is wedded to a multiculturalism that undercuts its own confidence, a welfare state that nudges it toward sloth and self-indulgence, and a childlessness that consigns it to oblivion - hat tip to Mark Steyn -- America Alone

Yeah, if the US could only be more like Europe, the Islamic radicals could go on an extended vacation, get a fantastic tan (because of global warming of course) just in time to goosestep into NY (hope it isn't gay pride parade day) in twenty years like they own the place.  Maybe that will be because they in fact do own the place if they succeed in bringing the US to the same sad state that Europe finds itself in now while our young Americans are running around chasing Algore ghosts.  Sounds like great fun being Europe-a-doped but meanwhile we have this global warming thingy to get all freaked out about here in the US, right?

Please don't take my word for any of the above.  Read an opposing view for yourself and make up your own mind (I won't tell any of your friends).  As the years now seem to fly by, I probably won't be around to witness the inauguration of your new fanatical dictator, high ayatollah and all around bad guy running the show in the former developed world.  So either get up to speed or start picking out a nice prayer rug while it is still possible for you to make decisions for yourself.  If you think global warming is a problem, you ain't seen nothin' yet.  

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:45

Oooops.  I must apologize for assuming fact 1 above was correct but some new information has come to my attention from of all places, the liberal UK.  I realize the traditional wait period in the establishment media for offering a correction is somewhere between right after an election to never; however; being a stickler for the truth, I am compelled to retract my "fact" #1.  I apologize for any environmental discomfort my comment caused and offer the following correction to my embarrasing wrong "fact" #1 posted above:

New Report Refutes Global Warming

A recent report from Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern warned of the devastating economic effects global warming could have on the world in coming years.

But a British researcher has added his voice to those saying the "hysteria" over manmade global warming distorts the truth.

Stern — former chief economist at the World Bank — cautioned that if greenhouse gas emissions weren't significantly reduced, by 2050 the global economy would shrink by up to 20 percent, millions of people would be permanently displaced and droughts would plague the earth.

Now journalist Christopher Monckton, who was a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has published a detailed report attacking the manmade global warming theory from various angles — including the so-called "medieval warm period."

The United Nations, which has issued a widely quoted report on global warming, "abolished the medieval warm period — the global warming at the end of the First Millennium A.D.," according to Monckton.

A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in Britain's Sunday Telegraph.

"But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years . . . 

"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.

"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole — a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."

Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.

He calculates that global temperatures will rise only .18 to 2.5 degrees in the coming century, "well within the medieval temperature range."

And he suggests that rather than point to greenhouse gases as the culprit behind any measurable global warming, we might blame the sun. He cites a scientist who maintains that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years.

Monckton's conclusion: "Politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St. John the Divine than of science."

He also remarks: "Al Gore please note."

Laurie David might want to note this as well......

SportPolitics Says:
November 26, 2006 - 22:35

Scarey what the GW crowd comes up with isn't it acumen.

It proves the massive left wing liberal bias to me. It's amazing how many retardolibs they get clinging to their coattails. It's a great hate the USA whine. That's where it's power comes from. The haters, and their stupidity.

No repsonse to the Medieval warming period neccessary, the loonballs have hundreds of methods of changing the topic to another lie or coverup they have concocted. "Communism" and it's false propagation is alive and well.

What's sad is the true believers don't have the common sense or the IQ to go read the lies of their own global warming heroes. I wonder what they actually think when Eric the Red is brought up. It must be a standard "rejection". They must internally shriek " right wing necon warlord conglomerate corporate pollution greed master!"

 They like to believe fantasies, it gives them a sense of separation from real issues. If they can screw around in fake ideas and playful imaginings then everything else must be "just fine". The time to waste on their crap makes their existence " happy and feeling free " . They have their "struggle against the evil man", a lifetime goal, a real revolutionary dreamscape. They "know better" than those more powerful and connected than they are, those they can never beat, except by collective self deception. lol PATHETIC

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 23:31

SP - I would find their antics a bit more amusing if we were not in the middle of a world war with Hitleresque genocidal fanatics while most of the rest of the developed world (I think we used to call them allies) have long-ago had to forgo defense spending to support their lavish socialistic programs.  This is starting to get interesting Sport - at least to the grown-ups.

1sttofight Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:51


BTW, I am a scientist and think algored is full of crap.

Unsane Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:15

Scientists are not a business, huh?  Too bad you fail to understand that they are out to feed at the government trough of cash too.  Therefore they have a vested interest in saying "global warming!" to keep the cash and grants rolling in for research.

Actually, it is YOU, 7MS, demanding the U.S.A. become a 3rd World Country...all to assuage your guilt in living in the world's most advanced economy.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Noel Sheppard Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:23


I'd also be interested in seeing a breakdown of scientists in the private versus the public sector. With all the tech, biotech, pharmaceutical, engineering, aerospace, etc., companies out there, could there actually be more "scientists" working for corporations than actually doing research at colleges and universities?  ns

NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:23

"embrace the facts"

You should try this some time.

The fact is, the alarmst global warming predictions made 10 and 20 years ago have simply not come to pass.  The predictors got it wrong.  These predictive models are inaccurate.  They were known to be flawed from the get-go.  All of them that I have ever seen fail to correctly regress over the 1920-1940 global data set.

ckc1227 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:33

usa had better catchup with the rest of the developed world or it will find itself a 3rd world country

a. Would that be the rest of the world that is only paying lip service to the Kyoto treaty that they signed because they finally figured out that 1. it is basically worthless and does nothing to solve the alleged problem of man made global warming and 2. it is a death sentence to their economies?

b. Last time I checked, the rest of the world was trying to catch up to us.

c. We may be on the way to becoming a third world country, but that has more to do with the unchecked invasion from the third world country to our south than global warming.

and finally,

d. If you have to create facts to prove a point, like al bore does, then you obviously don't have much of a point to begin with.

danbo Says:
November 27, 2006 - 19:03

There is another way we may be on the way to a third world country status. 1) create unnecessary restriction on industry to restrict CO2 which aids in plant growth. Then 2) not put those restrictions on other nations as India and China.

And the dems were complaining about exporting our jobs.

Let's send out jobs to china and india. After all. The chair of IPCC (an Indian) says we have to save the world from western co2. (Indian CO2 is healthy for you.) 

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."  Albert Einstein

Scout Finch Says:
November 26, 2006 - 23:07

I can't begin to tell you how disappointing it is when someone here asks you to show a link to prove your facts, and you come up with a big fat nothingburger.  Usually folks like you either cease posting on the topic, or you reply to another post while leaving the original post dangling.

Either put up or join the echo chambers you typicallly visit like Koz or DUh.

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:12

Of course you don't.......

NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:19

99% of scientists are not on Al Gore's side.  Huge tracts of scientists remain unconvinced one way or the other.  Many who were convinced have growing doubts.  Some who are global warming evangelists have recently revised their dire predictions drastically DOWNWARDS.  One in particular:  Dr. James Hansen

I don't understand you rationale.

sarcasmo Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:31

Maybe education would be less of a political target/problem if less government were involved altogether, rather than just less Al Gore or less Laurie David.

Noel Sheppard Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:36


Is this Internet-assisted home schooling?  ns

sarcasmo Says:
November 27, 2006 - 06:07

It's that and much more. It's a movement against public schooling, which -- rather than needing new, "conservative" leadership, needs to be entirely dismantled because government does not provide kids with good schooling any more than it can provide them with good milk. This is true regardless of the self-interested screams of public-schooling-bureaucrats (or 'private' dairy farmers -- who tend to all be on agricultural welfare, come to think of it) addicted to sarcasmo's tax-money. In other words, it's a stealthy small-l libertarian plot to get rid of yet-another aspect of government and thereby pay less taxes while getting better results (see the past few decades of continual homeschooler asskickings on everyone-else at the national spelling bee). To me, public schools are just like the FCC -- both are in the growing: "something government needs to quit-doing entirely" category of government, and both are practically-holy to their defenders.

rhayes Says:
November 27, 2006 - 11:53

Oil companies have done a wonderful job about saying that there is no global warming and no pollution...hmmm I wonder why they dont want us to know that burning carbon causes increases in co2?? They have already indoctrinated this site with the typical nonsensical talking points that 98% of scientists also realize are illogical.

neos love to attack public schools but never the military??

"It's a movement against public schooling, which -- rather than needing new, "conservative" leadership, needs to be entirely dismantled because government does not provide kids with good schooling any more than it can provide them with good milk"

Since most of the wealthy 1% send their kids to private schools which often are better because of the types of students that are only allowed at the school, these wealthy would just as soon as soon not spend more money. Isnt it better that we continue to spend all of our money on the military and finance another country??

"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we all are accomplices."

E. Murrow

Unsane Says:
November 27, 2006 - 12:34

Oil companies have done a wonderful job about saying that there is no global warming and no pollution...hmmm I wonder why they dont want us to know that burning carbon causes increases in co2?? They have already indoctrinated this site with the typical nonsensical talking points that 98% of scientists also realize are illogical.  A hearty thank you, neohayes, for showing once again that the global warming issue is NOT about global warming to Leftists...to them, it IS about destroying producers, like oil companies, and assuaging their guilt that they have because they live in the world's greatest and most advanced economy.

neos love to attack public schools but never the military??  The military does its job...the Stars and Stripes still flies.  The public schools fail at theirs...they turn out people who, if not illiterate, cannot critically think, do not grasp basic subjects, and are otherwise not prepared for the real world.  Next.

Since most of the wealthy 1% send their kids to private schools which often are better because of the types of students that are only allowed at the school, these wealthy would just as soon as soon not spend more money. Isnt it better that we continue to spend all of our money on the military and finance another country??  Well, at least we know you still despise people more financially successful than you are, just because they are more successful.  What did Iago say about jealousy?  Something about it being the green-eyed monster?

Oh, and if MORE MONEY is the only solution to have better educational results, I eagerly anticipate your explanation of the DC school system. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

kw Says:
November 27, 2006 - 12:46

DC Public Schools...should be the poster child for public education.  I mean they spend a ton of money per student, DC is 90%+/- liberal, school district and government is run by the liberals, there is no conservative voice of dissent to stop the "progressive" thinking...why does this school district FAIL OUR CHILDREN?

sarcasmo Says:
November 28, 2006 - 04:15

Ok, this clinches it. This hysterical Rhayes character now beats MassLiberal -- even at his nuttiest when I managed to make it into his sigfile. (Calling the likes of ME a "neo," hallucinating that I mentioned the military when I spoke instead only of public schools, spreading myths about how the wealthy school their kids...) You get the "biggest nutcase" title, buddy, and Manny must face nutcase-defeat in absentia. Anything goes to change the subject from the ever more expensive failure of socialist schooling, I suppose, even unintentionally-hilarious non-sequiturs. But hopefully this will make someone click the link above & discover why private enterprise works best for educating kids just like it works best for getting milk to them.

marvl Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:51

That's quite a large number of preposterous claims by Laurie David, and she offers not a single reference or shred of documentation to back her claims... not unlike what Al "ManBearPig" Gore did with his absurd docudrama.

Say, what is a nitwit like Laurie David doing writing op-ed pieces for the Washington Post? Have they considered letting someone more qualified write those, like Jessica Simpson or Kevin Federline?

1sttofight Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:55

Well they did open the moonbat gate when they let algored write one.

7MS Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:57

Listen if 99% of all the doctors in the world told you that you had cancer and had to treat it immediatly you wouldnt give a crap about that 1%

Unsane Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:19

Care to back up that 99% garbage?  I have had classes with scientists who aren't impressed with global warming theory (but like good scientists they are open to the possibility). 

Trusting scientists and doctors to do your critical thinking for you will simply lead you into trouble.  Even if 99% of doctors were crying to me that I had cancer, I would STILL seek a second opinion, because I live for critical thinking. 

I am waiting...what are YOU doing about it?  Or are you demanding we assuage your self-inflicted guilt FOR you?

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:26

Science is like any unregulated commodity.  It is like medicine used to be before state licensing, back when the local doctor was often also the undertaker and the local dentist was the barber. 

I would first try to figure out which of these 'doctors' were actually doctors and which are quacks.

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:38

Similar to the rational 99% of the commenters here disagreeing with you and you only give a crap about your 1% psuedo-global-warming-panic attack.  Is that you Laurie?

JamesonLewis3rd Says:
November 26, 2006 - 19:59

I needed a laugh and I got a few from your post and a few more from the comments.

Hebrews 11:8
Jeremiah 33:3

7MS Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:03

You believe that damn bible with no proof at all. strange.

1sttofight Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:24

Run along little boy, your 5 minutes are up.

Wonder95 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:30

I gotta jump in here. 7MS, you definitely don't know what the heck you're talking about here. You wanna debate Bible proof, you found the right person. Whether you're talking about historical, archeaological, scientific, or any other kind of proof, the Bible will stand up to any ciriticism you've got, and from the other comments I've seen you leaving in this thread, it's obvious you don't let things like facts get in the way of your opinions.

NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:30

Insofar as Archeology is able to ascertain, the stories of the Bible appear to be true.  The flight of the Jews from Egypt is a case in point, references to which still exist from Egyptian sources.

idahoguy Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:48

Hey 7MS, You're a pretty brave guy to insult the "damn bible" that way. I dare you to post to an islamic group about how they believe the "damn quran" with no proof at all. Be sure to leave them your name and address. Post the link here so we can check it out. Since you're so brave and all.

Noel Sheppard Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:57
acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:04

"You believe that damn bible with no proof at all. strange."

Let's talk strange.  Yeah, it's that "damn bible"......that's the problem.  Some people actually thinking the ten commandments are good advice? How wierd.  Treating others as you would like to be treated yourself?  How absurd.  Loving others, even your enemy?  Get real.

Why believe that garbage when we could (and probably will if we follow the "new direction" the Democrats want to steer America) all be embracing the new, improved, radical Islam printing (RIP) of the Koran.  I especially like the part where women are to be treated special because they are the most comfortable piece of furniture in the house.  Not to overlook the zingy hate everyone that doesn't agree with us part.  Oh, those whacky jihadists.  And I especially look forward to the feast days where the saintly mullahs cut off an infidels head and stuff it in the mouth of a pig (alive of course).  But I digress, no, it's still that "damn bible" we Americans are stuck with.  Yeah, that's a real problem if not strange indeed.  BTW - How is that beginners course in suicide coming along?

danbo Says:
November 27, 2006 - 15:06

I'm an athiest here. Also a BA in archaeology/anthropology. And I think fairly well versed in the science and history of climate.

That being said. My personal opinion. There is at least as much if not more that can be backed in the bible. Than in "An Inconvient Truth". The story of the flood probably documents the reclaiming of the Black Sea, much as what will happen in the future with the Great African Rift Valley. Babel sounds like an incident as the 1908 Tunguska explosion.  That's after looking back millinea.

Where as Mann's Hockey stick is an example of tortured data. That forces us to ignore the past.

 "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."  Albert Einstein

Noel Sheppard Says:
November 27, 2006 - 16:00


Interesting you bring this up. I took a Bible as history course in college, and was fascinated by the accuracy of much of the Old Testament as it pertains to documented historical fact.  ns

danbo Says:
November 27, 2006 - 17:49


The bible and religion is an issue of faith. And won't argue over that. Though I differ from religous people of the faith issue. I find the bible an interesting study and source of information on history. Though written from the view of the jews. Much originally from oral history. There is as you point out a lot of history there. Including some very real, though, rare natural events (Remember there is a year without sun in the history books.)

AD 535


The Praetorian Prefect Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator wrote a letter documenting the conditions. "All of us are observing, as it were, a blue coloured sun; we marvel at bodies which cast no mid-day shadow, and at that strength of intensest heat reaching extreme and dull tepidity ... So we have had a winter without storms, spring without mildness, summer without heat ... The seasons have changed by failing to change; and what used to be achieved by mingled rains cannot be gained from dryness only."

Another historian, Procopius of Caesarea, a Byzantine, wrote, "And it came about during this year that a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear nor such as it is accustomed to shed."

John of Ephesus, a cleric and a historian, wrote, "The sun was dark and its darkness lasted for eighteen months; each day it shone for about four hours; and still this light was only a feeble shadow ... the fruits did not ripen and the wine tasted like sour grapes."

In the wake of this inexplicable darkness, crops failed and famine struck. Out of Africa, a new disease swept across the entire continent of Eurasia: bubonic plague. It ravaged Europe over the course of the next century, reducing the population of the Roman empire by a third, killing four-fifths of the citizens of Constantinople, reaching as far East as China and as far Northwest as Great Britain. John of Ephesus documented the plague's progress in AD 541-542 in Constantinople, where city officials gave up trying to count the dead after two hundred thirty thousand: "The city stank with corpses as there were neither litters nor diggers, and corpses were heaped up in the streets ... It might happen that [a person] went out to market to buy necessities and while he was standing and talking or counting his change, suddenly the end would overcome the buyer here and the seller there, the merchandise remaining in the middle with the payment for it, without there being either buyer or seller to pick it up."

Taken in the context of hard scientific evidence for a climatic event in AD 536 (and after), these accounts sound utterly clear and unambiguous. Three men, in three different locations, are recording environmental phenomena such as dry fog, darkness, cold, drought, and famine. And the records are in no way limited to these writers, nor even to these regions.

The dark ages may be appropriately names, not just because of the darkness of science and enlightenment. But also because they started "dark".

Likewise a climate change of global proportions may have triggered the biblical exodus


The warmers want us to forget the extremes of climate. The quickness of change. They wish to forget the raw power of nature. And worry about the tailpipe of my pickup.

 "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."  Albert Einstein

nicksmith112 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:04

Note to Laurie David and Al Bore.
Why note spend your time and money coming up with an alternative to fossil fuels.
Hey Al why waste jet fuel flying all over the world doing interviews when you can stay home and use a web-cam?
Remember you invented the internet.

TexasOptimist Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:27

Throughout my middle- and high-school years, I and my fellow students' science classes were filled with doom and gloom scenarios. I remember in 7th grade when we spent several weeks watching a "documentary" called "Race to Save the Planet." It was hosted by Meryl Streep, and it claimed that we had no more then ten years left before the earth was too hot, no longer inhabitable.

Well, that was more than 15 years ago, and I'm still here.

The Reagan conservative formerly known as Texaswolf77.
I am not a Trot, that was an act.

Indiana Joe Says:
November 26, 2006 - 23:48


I'll see you, and raise you. When I was in middle school, about 35 years ago (sigh!), the environmental scare was global cooling, and the Coming Ice Age!!!

Caused, IIRC, by these same "greenhouse gasses." Only they didn't call them that then, since the term implies heat. The argument was, "pollution" would reflect the sun's heat into space, causing the Earth to cool.

Funny how the same gasses now cause the exact opposite effect....     ;^)

ent Says:
November 27, 2006 - 00:05

And let's not forget Acid Rain, which was going to completely annihilate our ecosystems.  I don't think I've heard a peep about AR in a decade.

Indiana Joe Says:
November 27, 2006 - 00:14

Yeah, but AR was MURDER on Yugos and Chevy Vegas.

Drove them to extinction....     ;^D

TexasOptimist Says:
November 27, 2006 - 00:55

Come to think of it, acid rain also was one big danger we learned about, in addition to global warming (which back then was referred to in our lessons as the "greenhouse effect"). I do remember both being blamed for our yet-to-be-seen demise.

The Reagan conservative formerly known as Texaswolf77.
I am not a Trot, that was an act.

ent Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:37


There is plenty of disagreement among scientists about the causes of global warming.  I have a science background and I have done some digging and my conclusion is that the contribution of humans to global warming is little to none.  I suggest that you do some digging yourself, instead of accepting the claims of a politician who is running for president and says that he knows how to save the world.  Or the claims of know-nothing media scaremongers who stifle (or attack) anything that doesn't fit their far-left worldview.

Here's are some very interesting links:


(You might have to use Firefox to view the last one.)

There are many, many more such pages to be found on the Internet, if only you would look.  Don't expect to find anything useful in the mainstream media.

crshedd Says:
November 26, 2006 - 20:58

Even the oil companies are starting to get it.


"We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?" (my emphasis)

"And on Nov. 2, the company (ExxonMobil) announced that it will contribute more than $1.25 million to a European Union study on how to store carbon dioxide in natural gas fields in the Norwegian North Sea, Algeria and Germany."  Why spend that amount of money if there isn't SOMETHING to all this?

Damn those liberals at Shell!! 

rhayes Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:12

way to go cr! yeh these damn liberals rigged the elections and now they have brainwashed 98% of the scientists and even our terminator repub Arnold.

"While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable."

and the next confession by the oil companies is their interest in middle east black gold!

"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we all are accomplices."

E. Murrow

Free Stinker Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:16

Why are *you* an accomplice?

NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:34

Hayes, your non-sequiturs are legendary.

Do you realize there are more proven oil reserves in the Canadian tar sands than there are in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia combined?

rhayes Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:40

here the neos bring up canadian tar sands...dont you think oil companies already have connection with our ally? Do you think they dont have connections with australia ...currently do they have connections with Iraqi oil?? What imbecile said that oil would pay for this war ?? did they think that terrorists would pay for the war with oil?? neologic astounds me!

"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we all are accomplices."

E. Murrow

Free Stinker Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:42

RHayesbat - don't you get tired of making no sense, even to yourself?

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:50

Cut em' some slack FS.  I think that Turban look is going to work for Rhayes.

Free Stinker Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:51


NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:50

Hayes, I trampled your sorry ass into the sand on the forum. It will be  a pleasure to repeat the performance here.

If oil were actually the primary motive for war in Iraq, there would be no war in Iraq.  The war would have occured elsewhere.  The presence of oil in Iraq does not by itself demostrate a cause and effect relationship between that oil and war.  There is more readily obtainable oil in half a dozen other locations.  Were your thesis true, there would be war there as well.  But there isn't.

Correction:  Logic astounds you.

Uncle John Says:
November 26, 2006 - 23:19

What, no broken links for us?

acumen Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:16

I don't dare presume the outrageous hostility directed at "big oil" has anything to do with this PR move which was delivered (coincidentally of course) at the notoriously "unbiased" National Press Club.

This was my favorite part from the article:  "Paul M. Anderson, Duke Energy's chairman and a member of the president's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, favors a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas. His firm is the nation's third-largest burner of coal."

What's this?  A member of President Bush's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in favor of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide?

Those damn liberal pro-environmentalists at the Bush Administration!! 

NL207 Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:32

I notice that Hofmeister was speaking to the National Press Club when this statement was made.  Seems to me he was trying to gain some favorable prees before the liberal politicians who have announced their intention to INVESTIGATTE THE OIL COMPANIES for price fixing  take power in January.

Hofmeister is not a scientist.  He is a business executive.  There is a large difference there.

Why spend money as Exxon-Mobil is?  To buy off the politicos.  The oil companies are the targets of a propaganda war funded indirectly by the government.  they have no hope of winning on their own, so they are trying to by favor.  It won't work, but I can understand why they are tying.

The plain simple fact is, 98% of qualified scientists are not convinced the CO2 levels are the problem the alarmists claim they are.  All of you clowns on the left continue to trumpet about his 'consensus', yet not one of you tripe vendors can identify five scientists by name who say this CO2 increase will produce a global catastrophe.  I can produce something greater than 10,000 who say it isn't.  You need to produce 490,000 who say that it is a serious problem for the 98% number to be true.

Care to debate the science?  

crshedd Says:
November 26, 2006 - 21:52

Care to debate the science with Science Magazine?


"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed (that means papers researched and pulished in scientific journals) literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." (myemphasis)

Unsane Says:
November 26, 2006 - 22:12

Here we go with this "peer-reviewed" business again!

Guess what, crshedd?  Peer-review doesn't mean a damn thing!  A peer-reviewed article can be JUST as wrong as one that is not.  You MAY remember the whole tussle that occurred earlier this year in South Korea over cloning claims...

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

crshedd Says:
November 26, 2006 - 23:04

Yes, I remember that South Korean fiasco.  It was a study that did NOT survive peer-review. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. (Wikipedia)

The South Korean fiasco fell apart during peer review. Thank goodness scientists don't just take someone's word for something. Maybe that is why it is called science and not faith.

Unsane Says:
November 27, 2006 - 12:37

Peer-review is just another excuse for you to turn over your critical thinking skills to someone else.  It is not foolproof. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

danbo Says:
November 27, 2006 - 15:27

Get your facts straight. The Korean research fell apart not because of peer review but because of bloggers started ripping it appart.

Oreskes, failed my own personal peer review. I've looked at her research. Her design.

Do you know enough about research to tell me where the problems are in her design?

 "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."  Albert Einstein

SportPolitics Says:
November 26, 2006 - 22:26

crshedd - here debate the LONG discredited Naoimi about her political goals.

[ A Science Magazine essay claiming there is a "scientific consensus" about human-caused "global warming" was ridiculed Monday by a British scientist, who compared such a "consensus" to the near-unanimous elections that existed in the old Soviet Union.
"Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked.

"Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added.

"Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood in an erstwhile reputable, peer-review publication (Science Magazine) demonstrates either a new low in desperation or a new generation believing there are no checks and therefore no limits," Horner told CNSNews.com.

"I was surprised to see Science publish an article crowing over the existence of a scientific consensus on global warming and then advancing the non-sequitur that political action is therefore needed. Neither is a point worthy of consideration in an objective, scientific journal," Murray wrote in his letter to the editor, dated Dec. 6.

"So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added. ____________________________________________


crshedd Says:
November 26, 2006 - 22:43

Oh, well, one guy says Science Magazine is crap. Must be true.  Oh, maybe if you find two then we might as well shut down every science program in the country.

Unsane Says:
November 26, 2006 - 22:51

This comment from one who is ready and eager to turn all of his critical thinking skills over to the said magazine, and anyone who agrees with him that global warming is happening.

crshedd, how's that wheelbarrow of guilt treating you?  Kind of hard to push around, isn't it?

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

SportPolitics Says:
November 26, 2006 - 23:00

crshedd - not correct again. Three people are quoted, one of which was surprised Science magazine posted such a lame article.

One pathetic article doesn't make a whole magazine crap forever does it ? Under that rule of thumb, your idiot posts would make this whole site worthless, is that what you argue ?

( You do, because you're a lying gasbag.)

Uncle John Says:
November 26, 2006 - 23:22

Please stop shacking the trolls. You don't want them to go away, do you?

crshedd Says:
November 26, 2006 - 23:29

Geez, 3 people against global warming?  Man, you got me convinced.

In case you don't understand sarcasm, my 'crap' comment was a sarcastic response to a post saying that  a single (or 3 now, don't know if the other 2 were scientists or not) British scientist (Social and Sports! Anthropology)  said that the peer review article in Science Magazine was crap.

Free Newsletter

Email Address:

Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.