Al Gore can teach Tony Blair (heard of him recently?) a thing or two.


This today from other crap.

Al Gore, $100,000 Man “If you’re looking to book Al Gore for a 75-minute ‘Environmental Multimedia Lecture,’ the former vice president will cost you $100,000, plus travel, hotel, security, and per diem expenses. Gore’s standard speaker’s contract, a copy of which you’ll find below, also stipulates that the Democrat’s ground transportation be ‘a sedan, NOT an SUV.’” 

No wonder he can afford a house with 25 times the “carbon footprint” (whatever that is meant to be) of your average redneck, whom he must clearly despise. On the popularity ratings, I think Blair will probably have to start off by paying people to let him turn up and spout. As he gets better at it, he may be able to charge a few hundred or so.

Come to think of it, I’ve heard little recently from the UK arm of the Global-Warm-Mongers. You’d have expected them to shriek constantly that the unseasonal rains and cold are “All Your Fault” and “All Due To Global Climate Change” and “You Have To get Rid Of Your SUV, Now.”

Our potatoes are ruined; too dry too early, and too wet too late. And our Kohl-Rabi is not now going to mature in time for autumn. But the Greenazis are silent. I wonder why? Perhaps “the Science has not been settled after all”?

About these ads

3 responses to “Al Gore can teach Tony Blair (heard of him recently?) a thing or two.

  1. You’re right that Al Gore COULD afford a house with 25 times the carbon footprint of the average redneck. Although if you’re implying that he owns such a house, you are wrong. But since you admit you don’t know what a carbon footprint even is, it would not surprise me if you didn’t know that either. Yup, he’s loaded, but his bucks are mostly from Google stock options. Also, he is on he board of Apple. Interestingly, he got in on Google early and believed in Apple even people though Microsoft was going to bury it. Sort of like how he saw the potential of the Internet LONG before it was more than a closed network serving research universities, so much so that the real technical pioneers of the Internet like VInton Cerf have given him mad props for all he did to protect and foster it in the early days of development. Sort of like how he also saw the issue of global warming for the global threat that it is like 20 years ago. There is a reason they call him “the Goracle,” I think.

    Anyway, as for implying that Al Gore gives his global warming slide show for the money, come on! Do you really think he would put himself out there for all to attack, trying to convince people of something they don’t want to believe in, giving a slide presentation over and over again, just for some money when he is already LOADED from his successful business ventures? Which also include a successful investment firm and a TV channel, I might add? Gore’s commitment to environmental causes goes way, way back. He’s been following developments in scientists’ understanding of global climate change for over two decades. He knows that SOMEONE has to do the work of trying to get people to understand how serious this threat is. He’s decided to take that challenge on. Why is this so hard to accept? It’s really pretty straightforward.

    I assume you don’t know a lot about global warming or you wouldn’t be spouting off about Kohl-Rabi. I think that when the world’s scientific community is in the kind of agreement that it is right now, when all of the arguments against the scientific community are coming out of an oil industry-funded echo-chamber of pseudo-scientific organizations the sole function of which is to manufacture the appearance of a controversy, a smart person would sit up and take notice. Really. I think it is good to be skeptical, but it is also good to listen to people who really know what they are talking about. To compare the incentives, qualifications, and breadth of the people who are presenting evidence of a global threat and of the people who are trying to shoot holes in it. Science is never 100% “settled” in some ways. That is not really the nature of science. But science does give us answers and provide evidence that is too compelling to disregard. When scientific consensus reaches that point, only a fool continues to dismiss it entirely.

  2. Of course I know what the Statist definition of a “carbon footprint” is! It’s just such a sad, “politically-correct”, Statist, poor-person-persecuting concept, that’s all! It’s another way for the Enemy Class (see sean Gabb’s writings) to whip the poor, who for the first time for example have the chance to fly everywhere they look forward to going, into not being able to go, by whining about “binge flying”.

    And I teach science; I take every opportunity to tell my students that the global-warm-mongerists are deliberately talking crap, and are lying. I get cheered to the ceiling. Do you, for saying what you say? Moreover, a supposed “agreement within the world’s scientific community” about which you speak above, suggests to many other scientists of whom I am one, that something is being foisted on the world by politicians whose bread will be buttered on the side of higher taxation of all the things people want to do, like go where they want, when they want, and NOT WITH people they don’t want (that is one reason a “integrated public transport policy” will never work inside a society not already brutalised and pre-controlled by Terror-Police.)

    As Cromwell said: “In the bowels of Christ, I bessech you, to consider the possibility that you may all be mistaken”.

  3. Hey

    I was surfing the web and i saw this site, pretty cool.
    Currently im running and adult site:Reachton
    k, just want to say hi :)
    Can i link you from my site? im looking for quality content like yours. If no let me know if i can add u in exchange for a montly fee or something.