YouTube - Al Gore Talks Extreme Weather, Climate

I've had a back-and-forth on this over on YouTube:

The same people who claim AGW isn't real also claimed (many probably still falsely believe) that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer or other diseases.

Burn all the carbon into the atmosphere you want; and on balance, it won't be bad. Is that what you believe?

Have another smoke. Take huge drags. Suck it in and hold it. Is it good for you (dupes and shills of Big Oil, King Coal, & fracked Gas) or even for Big Tobacco corporations that profit from such unhealthy ignorance and denial?
TomUsherRLCC 2 days ago

@TomUsherRLCC

Uhh you need to take another look at what you've written. The people, the very legal firms that defended the tobacco industry, support AGW legislation like carbon taxes and cap and trade. Oil companies are making MILLION DOLLAR COMMERCIALS in support of AGW. General Electric is pro-AGW, even though their reactors are melting down tight now in Japan.

Ignorance and denial is refusing to look at the exposed FRAUD that is AGW!
FreeinTX 2 days ago

@FreeinTX

Human carbon burning is raising the average temperature. Cap & trade is stupid but irrelevant to that fact.

Lawyers? Greedy lawyers milk anything.

Oil companies spend a small percentage with one hand looking "reasonable" while spending vastly more with the other increasing greenhouse gases.

GE's nuclear is not the answer, but that's irrelevant too.

Is the science against GMO's also "junk science"? Whole Foods has refused to label GMO "natural" foods as containing GMO's?
TomUsherRLCC 2 days ago

@TomUsherRLCC

1. "Human carbon burning" is NOT doing ANTHING to the average global temp that has NOT significantly increased, according to AGW scientists, since 1998. .15 degree C over the last 13 YEARS!

2. Lawyers are greedy, oil companies paired with the lawyers to write cabon tax and cap and trade legislation, GE is guilty of crimes against humanity for Fukushima, and GMO's are poison!

3. AGW is a SCAM to fund a world government with carbon taxes, and cap and trade is a mode of control.
FreeinTX 1 day ago

@FreeinTX

You're asserting aspects in isolation. Variables are beyond humans to enumerate.

Gore: "Nine of the 10 hottest years in history have occurred in the last 13 years. The past decade was the hottest ever measured, even though half of that decade represented a 'solar minimum'." Cap & Trade is irrelevant. You're overly conflating on the "NWO."

Point: Anti-GMO is no more junk science than Gore's environmentalism on AGW, but greedy lawyers/corporations will get in on the GMO issue.
TomUsherRLCC 1 day ago

@TomUsherRLCC

"9 of the 10 hottest years in history ...." What a joke! Prior to 76, we have almost NO data about global temps. From 76 to 2002, there were 3 main groups collecting data on global temps, and they have ALL been showed as flawed or FRAUDULENT! Since 2002, (and according to most scientists 1998) NO SIGNIFICNT INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE! 13 YEARS and no significant increase in temp. Now, look at the "hockey stick" graph and show me where they predicted 13 years of steady temps!
FreeinTX 22 hours ago

@TomUsherRLCC

When they thought they could convonce the world that population control was necessary to solve global COOLING, then global COOLING was a threat. Now, after a 15 year warming period that ended around 1998, the EXACT SAME PEOPLE believe they can sell you on global WARMING.

All they want is to put US coal out of business, and pay for a NEW WORLD ORDER with carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes. 1 tax dollar = $10 in loans, and $100 in credit default swaps, creating $110 in debt!
FreeinTX 1 day ago

@FreeinTX

You've been listening to people who lean too heavily toward paranoid schizophrenia & get carried away. Global cooling was a short-lived, minor theory relative to global warming, which was around then too and still more mainstream at the time.

There is such a thing as over-populating. The consequences for the species that do it are often catastrophic for them.

Warming did not end around '98. You're quoting junk science there.

BWT: CDS's are far from created uniformly.
TomUsherRLCC 1 day ago

@TomUsherRLCC

On global cooling - while YES! it was short lived, the CURRENT SCIENCE CZAR along with the Bush LEAD SCIENCE ADVISER wrote a book that insisted that we needed to sterilize and lower the fertyility of people by adding things to their air, food, and water, THEN make women get permits to reproduce, and said we needed to do all this because of global COOLING! Now, it's global WARMING, and these exact same people have the exact same solution!
FreeinTX 22 hours ago

@TomUsherRLCC

And on the no temp rise - You tell me, because I know what DOZENS of AGW scientists have said, and would like to see if you know. Tell me, how much has temperature changed from 1998 to 2010 (the stated warmest year of the decade).? Can you say .15C? Fifteen one hundreths of a celsius degress over 13 YEARS! Which is why they call the lack of an explination for this a "TRAVESTY!"
FreeinTX 22 hours ago

@TomUsherRLCC

And finally, on the GMO's. The EXACT same companies that promote AGW, promote the use of GMO frankenfoods! Bill Gates is a MAJOR shareholder in Monsanto and Monsanto's security arm, BLACKWATER (Xe). He is also a MAJOR shareholder in a company making 250 ROBOT CONTROL NUCLEAR REACTORS, and through the Bill and Malinda Gate Foundation is using people as experimental animals for big Pharma to get food that sterilizes as it vaccinates!
FreeinTX 22 hours ago

@FreeinTX

On cooling, you ignored "minor." It was a relatively minor speculation that has been blown way out of proportion by oil, coal, and gas shills to dupe mostly libertarian capitalists.

I don't understand why you think .15 °C in 13 years isn't significant. That's about the average over the last 50 years. The trend is up. How many decades of this do you think won't matter? All other things being equal, the temperature will also spike up during solar maximums.
TomUsherRLCC 3 hours ago

@FreeinTX

If you were to take the climate scientists who say there is AGW and poll them about GMO's and Monsanto, you'd find many are anti-Roundup, etc. Don't ignore that. Contrary to the impression you're trying to leave, they are not all the "exact same people." Nearly all environmentalists are anti-Exxon and anti-Monsanto at the same time and based upon consistently applied scientific methodology. It isn't junk science on one hand and "good" science on the other.
TomUsherRLCC 3 hours ago

@FreeinTX

You've used the term "travesty" as if it's revealing criminality rather than that it was self-spurring. Have you read what the scientists in question, such as Michael Mann, had to say on it; or do you only read and listen to the Alex Jones side, so to speak? I do both.

You're also still ignoring the solar minimum and likely other factors, such as the economic depression and less use of carbon fuels than would otherwise have been the case.
TomUsherRLCC 3 hours ago

@FreeinTX

"Prior to 76, we have almost NO data about global temps." The farther back you go, the fewer readings there were with thermometers. World major-metro areas were all reporting though long before 1976. Even still, it sounds like you're admitting that temperatures have been and are going up.
TomUsherRLCC 3 hours ago

@FreeinTX

You say the data was/is "flawed," but there isn't anything humans do that's perfect. Michael Mann is not working to bring forth carbon taxes to fund further entrenching global hegemony by banksters. He's doing "pure" science. He doesn't have an axe to grind. If the data were telling him it's getting colder, that's what he'd report.
TomUsherRLCC 3 hours ago

@FreeinTX

As for the Hockey Stick, it has been revised to not "depend" upon tree-rings. It jibes with sediment and ice core records. The closer one hones in on the graph, the greater are the times when short-term temps go down. The overall trend is the issue. What the Hockey Stick did not predict is the global economic depression with its slowed carbon burning.
TomUsherRLCC 3 hours ago

@FreeinTX

You're still ignoring that the oil, coal, and gas industries fund the anti-AGW lobby, etc., to a sum far exceeding anything they do that admits much to the serious warming and many other problems they are causing.
TomUsherRLCC 3 hours ago

@TomUsherRLCC

The guy in this clip has an INTIMATE relationship with Occidental Oil. Are you suggesting that Al Gore's friends, who make MILLION DOLLAR commericials supporting AGW claims at the PEAK of AGW sckeptisism, fund the anti-AGW movement? Despite the fact that Al Gore, along with Ken Laye (convicted felon from Enron) wrote the cap and trade legislation to drive the coal industry, it's #1 competitor, out of business?

Why? PR? Yea, right!
FreeinTX 3 hours ago

@TomUsherRLCC

So that's the oil. On the gas, the ONLY groups buying up gas companies in the US are greeny meanies like T. Boone and Buffet, and OIL COMPANIES! These are the ONLY groups that have enough influence in our government to stave off MASSIVE lawsuits as a result of fracking, to the water tables. ONLY MASSIVE MULTICONGLOMERATES are allowed to play in gas.
FreeinTX 3 hours ago

@TomUsherRLCC

On the coal - Coal, the oil companies #1 US competitor, owned and operated by Americans, using American UNION waged and benefitted employees, is the nations largest energy producer at 40%. The cap and trade legislation was written by Al Gore's law firm, Bloode and Gore, who was at the time consulting with Ken Laye, who at the time was a "genious," to SPECIFICALLY drive the coal industry out of business and hand over that 40% marketshare to the OIL COMPANIES!
FreeinTX 3 hours ago

@TomUsherRLCC

BP was in Obama's top 5 campaign contributors, AND Bush's top 5. The major share holders of the top 5 oil companies, are also major share holders in the top 5 banking institutions, AND are swignificant shareholders in virtually every single one of the Fortune 500. These people want us to pay for a one world government with them in charge, and these people want us to stop living the lives of free people, and go back to living like slaves, serfs, peasants, peons, and plebs.
FreeinTX 3 hours ago

@FreeinTX

Without the Wall Street scam that is (hopefully was) Cap & Trade, the oil, coal, & gas industries hate the AGW Movement and want to kill it and pay to try to keep it as weak as possible. You don't know that? Just look at which members of the House and Senate get huge contributions from carbon suppliers and burners.

Al Gore is right about AGW but is not infallible about everything.

I've had friends in all sorts of industries. It doesn't mean I agree with them on everything.
TomUsherRLCC 3 minutes ago

@FreeinTX

Cap & Trade wasn't written to drive coal out of business. It was written to cause endless trading fees and commissions and to provide another platform for "exotic" investment vehicles. The carbon-suppliers, including coal, were going to be deeply involved in manipulating the whole thing along with the Wall Street banksters, etc. Al Gore was naïve about it and shouldn't be doing any face saving about it.
TomUsherRLCC 2 minutes ago

@FreeinTX

Also, unbeknownst to Al Gore, Kenny Boy got coal-fired plants to help Enron with his fake brownouts. Think about it.

You think King Coal is good? Mountaintop Removal is evil! Coal causes huge mercury pollution. Their slag ponds break. Their mines cave in. They have a terrible safety & environmental record. They've used goons to keep the Unions in check. They've been lying about "clean coal" for decades just to string the people along while coal adds to Global Warming.
TomUsherRLCC 2 minutes ago

@FreeinTX

I agree that Big Oil and the Bankster/Plutocrats are in bed together. I agree that elitists, such as the Koch Brothers, want slave-wage earners working for them so they, the elitists, can take an ever-larger slice of the pie just for themselves and posterity be damned — Let the next generations worry about the cancers from Koch formaldehyde, etc....
TomUsherRLCC 2 minutes ago

@FreeinTX

We can though have solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other forms of energy that, while far from perfect, will be vastly better than what we have now.

Well, I bid you peace. I must get on with other things. I have enjoyed our back-and-forth.
TomUsherRLCC 1 minute ago

I just added a final comment because "FreeinTX" just is obsessed with that video and subject and posted another 4 comments before mine even cooled off.

@FreeinTX

You have the priorities of Cap & Trade wrong. You don't get it. You're buying into the surface statements about it. The scam was a Wall Street scam. The government could have regulated coal out of business long ago. Cap & Trade was/would be smoke and mirrors so the traders could have made a fortune on it all (without doing any real work) just as with all the CDS's, etc.

I'm spilling insider beans here. Savvy?

Peace! Gotta go....

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.