Al Gore practices stagecraft at Paris #COP21 climate meeting with "fainting woman"

There is a story on ClimateDepot,about a fainting woman at the COP21 climate conference, who “faints” into Gore’s arms. This just happens to be a TV news Anchorwoman from Bloomberg, who I’m sure is well past any stage fright associated with her job.

The caption reads:

Francine Lacqua, the London-based anchor for Bloomberg Television, faints onto former Vice-President Al Gore as he delivers a lengthy response to her question, “Why are we still using fossil fuels?”

I’m not at all convinced this is real, it wasn’t even a faint as the video title claims, just a stumble, and Gore seemed ready to catch her…and, it sure looks like stagecraft to me, something Gore is no stranger to.  In fact, there’s precedence for this behavior. Russell Cook writes to tell me:

As Al Gore said once, “We’ve seen this before.”*

Second to last paragraph, out of an Ozone Action Feb 24 2000 media release, second-to-last paragraph:  http://web.archive.org/web/20000902025335/http://commondreams.org/news2000/0224-08.htm

Throughout the month of March, Global Warming 2000 activists will continue to urge the candidates to lay out comprehensive plans to solve global warming. …

Yesterday, one team activist even feigned fainting into the arms of Vice President Gore to highlight the impacts of heat related illness due to global warming in Florida.

* At the 1 hour 13 minute of the Inconvenient Truth movie, after reading spelling out the “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memo phrase, “We’ve seen this before.” – whereupon he dived into the Brown & Williamson leaked tobacco memo, “Doubt is our Product”.  Do remember, the “reposition global warming” leaked memo set was “obtained by Ozone Action…

UPDATE: It appears Ms. Lacqua has fainted on live TV before, see this clip:

So perhaps it wasn’t stagecraft, but given Mr. Gore’s penchant for producing outright lies using stagecraft before, such as faking an entire scientific experiment and then refusing to retract it when called on it, it seemed entirely plausible this was yet another stunt on Gore’s part.

I hope Ms. Lacqua can find help for her condition.

Advertisements

164 thoughts on “Al Gore practices stagecraft at Paris #COP21 climate meeting with "fainting woman"

    • No, not staged at all. She merely suffered the normal reaction to being exposed to Gore’s tedious droning for so long, and at such close range. I challenge anyone here to last as long as she did under the same conditions. Just watching the video made me woozy. She has an almost superhuman constitution to have lasted so long.

    • I suspect to much partying the night before, and this was the result. You can see that she is slightly unsteady for close to a minute before she loses it. At least she didn’t throw up on Al the Gore.

    • I agree that it doesn’t look staged. I think AL Gore just put her to sleep with his rambling answer.
      His answer should have been: We continue to use fossil fuels because they are inexpensive and we currently don’t have any reasonable alternatives.

    • I say staged. If it was real, then the lady would have put the back of her hand to her forehead and, in an expiring voice, would have said: “Take me you fool!”
      I’m sure Tipper had a good “barf”, when she saw this.

      • Lookin’ over that video some more, I noted that as the lady began to wobble, Al grabbed her microphone. Also, I noted that Al’s subsequent orotund, resonant words of comfort and encouragement continued to be heard, without missing a beat, in the same high-quality, amplified sound-capture that was heard in the earlier part of the interview. Which would kinda seem to imply that Al held the microphone at just the right distance, throughout the lady’s ordeal, so that his beta-male (don’t jump on me, Al paid Naomi Wolf big bucks to call him that) chivalry was on full, heroic display without any loss-of-sound-quality of the sort that a sub-optimally positioned microphone might cause.
        One way to work the problem, of course. But if it were me, I would have tossed the microphone so as to have both my hands free to catch the lady in mid-swoon, if the need should have arisen. But, then, that’s just moi.

      • Right from the beginning the lady was exhibiting signs of distress.
        Her eyes were un focused.
        She was wobbling.
        Her mouth stayed closed and she stayed quiet without interjecting questions.
        A) Her blood sugar was plummeting; or if she was diabetic her insulin level was plummeting.
        B) Her blood pressure was plummeting, from standing upright perhaps.

      • Reading ATheoK’s above comment and that of some others on this thread who appear to have medical expertise, it seems reasonable for me to conclude, at this point, that Ms. Lacqua did, indeed, suffer a medical emergency. Accordingly, I owe Ms. Lacqua an apology.

      • Dear Ms. Lacqua,
        Please accept my sincerest apologies for my comments appearing on this thread that, in view of the genuine medical emergency, that I now realize afflicted you during your interview with Al Gore, lacked an appropriate fellow-feeling and sympathy. In that regard, please allow me to also extend my every hope that you will swiftly recover, if you have not already, from the effects of your recent distress.
        Respectfully

      • Mike,
        If you look at Laqua’s dreamy eyes and slightly parted lips, you can see that she is in a state of utter Gore adoration. She loves the man and would loved to be gored to death.

  1. Who cares about the feinting, I’m more worried about all the carbon dioxide emitted to provide all the electricity for that event! Did you see the lights, the massive screens?

  2. I love this website, but honestly in this instance whether they’re faking it or not, I don’t think it’s something to make fun of. Either it’s legitimate and serious, and good on them for recognizing something was off before she could have had an even worse experience, and quickly sorting it out. Or, she was faking it, and wasted everyone’s time, and distracted from any actual “debate” [if you can argue that listening to Al Gore waffle on is a relevant debate / use of people’s time….]. But honestly the setup looked stupid to have her standing there for so long in place, probably under some annoying stage lighting, and having to listen to someone gore her to death.

    • Are you really suggesting it’s wrong to ridicule a person so dense that she’s overcome by emotion after asking a man in front of hundreds of elites who have just burned thousands of tons of oil/gas/fuel to travel to meetings/parties where they will continue to burn tons of oil/gas/fuel to stay warm and commute between meetings/parties why they haven’t stopped burning oil/gas/fuel?
      Really?

      • Yes, I’m saying that ridicule is wrong in this instance because there could have been something actually physically wrong with her. Yes her question is irrelevant, as is the setting.
        However, if you want to discuss the setting and question [and not the fainting/”fainting”], then yes I completely agree with you and would even jest that her question might arguably be an excellent question given a different audience with a little more bite and willing to explore where that question takes them.

      • Craige,
        Could you point out which comments or language in the article you see as ridiculing her? The ridicule I see here seems directed at Mr. Gore.

    • It is absolutely something to make fun of: a phony fainting spell at a phony conference solving a phony problem with phony solutions.

      • @hunter
        Your trenchant comment has helped me crystallize my own thoughts on this deal–thank you, hunter. On the other hand, if it proves that the reporter really did suffer a medical emergency, then I’m going to feel like a real jerk (deservedly), given my comments up-thread. Hopefully, my subsequent, profuse apologies will be accepted. So I also see Craig’s point.
        To sort of hedge my “bets”, then, at this point, I offer Ms. Laqua my sincerest best wishes for a swift recovery from any harm she might have genuinely suffered during her interview of Al Gore, even as I remain highly skeptical of the whole episode.

  3. Vaudeville. And very revulsive. Listen to Gore talking. Big and Ostensive, Loud and deep, Sonorous and Looming. He’s so full of sh*t I can smell it through the weak bandwidth here in Salahaddin.

  4. Or this simply shows how much a good portion of the media is in the pocket of the climate alarmists.

    • Propranolol (Inderal)
      Possible Benefits. Used for short-term relief of social anxiety. May reduce some peripheral symptoms of anxiety, such as tachycardia and sweating, and general tension, can help control symptoms of stage fright and public-speaking fears, has few side effects.
      Possible Side Effects. Taken occasionally, propranolol has almost no side effects. Some people may feel a little light-headed, sleepy, short-term memory loss, unusually slow pulse, lethargy, insomnia, diarrhea, cold hands and feet, numbness and/or tingling of fingers and toes.
      Source: Anxieties.com

      • No one whose career depends upon maintaining composure in front of an audience wants to “loose it” on stage, regardless of their politics or beliefs. I think the comments suggesting this was staged degrade the forum. In spite of what I think of Gore, in her mind this was probably a big interview for her, and I imagine she was a little nervous – as evidenced by her inability to stop his boviating.
        I’ll never forget a conference in January 2008 where in front of a few thousand people I asked the Treasury Secretary why the government was refusing to address the obvious (at least to me) coming wave of mortgage defaults. His reply was “You are talking about a States Rights issue. Ask your Governor.” That left me speechless, which was or course his goal.
        These guys are pro’s.

      • “No one whose career depends upon maintaining composure in front of an audience wants to “loose it” on stage, ”
        “Loosing it” can indeed be bad, especially in the event of a little Montezuma’s Revenge. But “losing it” can be worse. If you do both, fuggeddaboutit.

    • The intellect of a perfectly normal human being can be compromised through extended sleep-deprivation, blood sugar-level swinging nibbles, alcohol, flashing lights and, then the AGW classic, by switching off the air-conditioning. Then apply some group pressure.

      • “Perfectly normal human beings” and “intellect” are incompatible in about 90% of the cases. Most of the people living today are descendants of serfs bred for strong instinctive obedience, gullibility (aka “faith”), and mindless reproduction.
        This is why our “progressive” society is fundamentally dishonest: the overwhelming majority of idiots needs to be calmed, entertained, and kept out of trouble somehow. Distraction (TV, sports, inculcation of fear and guilt, smartphones, video games, FaceBook, etc.) works for a while.
        The only long-term solution is evolution but we all will be pushing daisies long before it shows any results (results being some new kind of idiots, I suppose).

  5. What was obviously staged, on the stage in front of an audience, was the question and answer (previously known and prepared).
    The near-fainting was also staged.

  6. She just wanted to distract the audience to spare them from the stupid comment of Al Supreme, and was very successful at it… smart woman…

  7. Maybe they had the heating turned up too high.
    But the first question, “why are we still using fossil fuels?”, was a bit stupid.
    Because if we didn’t the world would stop functioning.

    • QV…to which, any tenured interviewer would have asked, “So, are you fossil-fuel-free, Mr Gore?”
      And, of course, his answer would be “No.” (If he were honest). Of course, we sceptics would have asked if he was BS-free. And we know the answer to that one.

  8. It must have been man-bear-pig’s chakra that caused her to swoon-she’s only human you know.

  9. Boy, I’d hate to have been out partying all night and then have listen to Al Gore drone on and on and on….
    I don’t think it was faked – she was trying gamely to hang on for quite a while, but was losing control of the microphone well before Gore stopped rambling.

  10. I’m not sure that it is. Notice what happens to her speech at 1:18. It appears to be an actual medical issue. Now Gore’s bloviating is certainly an issue. Maybe his hot air overwhelmed the poor woman.

    • Agreed.
      On the other hand, women faint in my presence, also.
      Well, they did before I was so old and ugly.
      Well, in my dreams, anyway.

    • You have a point there, the CO2 from the great Gores exhaling causing her to loose O2 may be the first video indication ever of real CO2 pollution.

  11. She had that “look in her eye and on her face” as if she may have been fantasizing about giving Gore a massage. lol.

  12. Big Al only took 1 enviornmental course in university , but he attended Divinity school for 2 years, they may cover the “Fainting Arts” at Vanderbilt.

  13. She fainted as he was delivering a lengthy response.

    Sounds to me like the Al Gore-effect on living tissue. As her blood cooled due to continued proximity and bloviations, the hemeoglobin in her red blood cells held onto oxygen molecules more tightly. This cooling effect effectively deprived the woman’s brain of adequate blood-gas exchange.
    No doubt many people have been put into a catatonic state by his mere physical presence
    /s

  14. Anyone who has stood in parade or at a wedding (mostly grooms) knows that if you lock your knees for too long you will become faint. But in this case I agree he probably bored her to sleep or perhaps he simply has bad breath.

  15. When you dont have anything worth saying you make things up or make a spectral happen… This has made up, fabricated, showmanship, written all over it. His name is Al Gore not Barrack Obama…/Sarc

  16. Not sure whether or not faked, but it was an idiotic question, and her standing there with that credulous up-gaze was too much too take. Whether she is in the thralls of the cult and experiences delusions or whether it was stagecraft doesn’t matter.

  17. She definitely fainted….I mean you could tell, while listening to Pope Gore babbling on and on, she was thinking to herself, “oh my god, this guy is an absolute idiot, I’ve wasted so many years on my knees praying to this lunatic”….then it all hits her and thinks, “no, I want my life back, the years without electricity living in a hut, no car, no travel, no computer or modern 20th century luxuries like simple tea with a hint of lemon (British leftist think about these things)”, and BOOM, down she goes……

  18. I feel terrible saying this but I am guessing Al has really bad breath and she just couldn’t hold her breath any longer. And, yes, I think it was real. My gosh, I wanted out of the room by the second sentence and I wasn’t even there. He really is full of hot, and probably really stinky air.

  19. We should really expect more of this sort of phenomenon.
    It is not unusual in religious cults, especially in female devotees of charismatic male gurus.
    But, can also be witnessed in the fainting of manic (also usually female) teenagers at pop concerts.
    “Mass hysteria is a term used to describe the situation in which physical or psychological symptoms appear en masse, spreading rapidly throughout communities, and occasionally across whole cities and countries. During an outbreak, afflicted individuals may experience uncontrollable laughter, fainting, fits, dizziness, muscle weakness, or any number of other symptoms that do not appear to have any physical cause. Cases of hysteria have been reported all over the world for centuries and provide a fascinating insight into the complex nature of human psychology.”
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/965393-strange-cases-of-mass-hysteria-through-history/

  20. so sad to read so many careless comments claiming stagecraft – they reveal a biased insensitivity to what’s going on – to me – she looks ill – wobbling and unfocused during Gore’s talk – causing many commenters to her think she was feigning adoration – people faint for various reasons – and too many WUWT commenters went to the same place that Alarmists go – cherry picking the answer

    • jeyon,
      ” …… wobbling and unfocused during Gore’s talk – causing many commenters to her think she was feigning adoration – people faint for various reasons ….”
      ===========
      I often roll over and faint after having sex and it often lasts for several hours, but that may just be cherry picking the answer.
      Maybe you need to lighten up. I don’t think many take Gore seriously nor those closely associated with him or holding his tool for which he spews his hot emissions, a scenario for all the world to hear and see.

      • eyesonu: Maybe you need to lighten up. I don’t think many take Gore seriously nor those closely associated with him or holding his tool for which he spews his hot emissions, a scenario for all the world to hear and see.

        maybe you need more gravitas – the effect of these ridiculous comments is to expose the illogical side of skeptics – if the comments were all intended as sarcasm – they should have labelled so – cuz too many of them seem to be making a genuine accusation – even anthony’s original article does – even tho he conditioned it with “So perhaps it wasn’t stagecraft” – “perhaps” ?!!

      • your “safe space” my lie behind your keyboard or your little mouse. Not so much where ‘political correctness’ is not the all encompassing mantra of the day. Eat it up as you don’t seem to get enough of it.

        someone who’s gonna to challenge ridiculous comments on this forum doesn’t need a safe space – whereas the ones who fall hook to sinker for a reckless explanation of a fainting woman are the ones who need a safe space where they can get an education

        • “someone who’s gonna to challenge ridiculous comments on this forum doesn’t need a safe space – whereas the ones who fall hook to sinker for a reckless explanation of a fainting woman are the ones who need a safe space where they can get an education”
          Someone who’s “gonna to challenge” comments in this forum might wanna brush up on proper grammar and use proper punctuation, if you want people to assume that YOU actually HAVE an education to speak of. No one here would say “hook to sinker” (is English a second language for you?) and no one here (except you that I can see) thinks that the comments made in this thread weren’t MEANT TO BE reckless and ridiculous. So the only one posting here that appears to be stupid, or uninformed, is you.

      • >>Aphan said “Someone who’s “gonna to challenge” comments in this forum might wanna brush up on proper grammar and use proper punctuation, if you want people to assume that YOU actually HAVE an education to speak of. No one here would say “hook to sinker” (is English a second language for you?) and no one here (except you that I can see) thinks that the comments made in this thread weren’t MEANT TO BE reckless and ridiculous. So the only one posting here that appears to be stupid, or uninformed, is you.”<<
        a paragraph load of ad hominem – look it up

      • jeyon-you should have kept reading. I already explained myself below and pointed out that I was only following your lead in the ad hominem attacks hon.
        English may NOT be your native language, but your arguments/insults were logically flawed before you posted them in any language. But thanks for bringing it up again more than a week later so I can point it out again.

    • Jeyon-
      People are allowed to “cherry pick” how they respond to anything, both WUWT commenters and Alarmists alike, ESPECIALLY in the absence of any evidence at all to prove what really happened and why. People laugh and joke for many reasons, just like people “faint for various reasons” and you attributing anyone’s response to personal bias would be correct, but not to biased insensitivity. It’s impossible to be sincerely “sensitive” to what is going on with her, when we don’t KNOW what is going on with her.
      Here’s the thing…Let’s say that I fainted on stage for some reason, but I was caught and did not injure myself in the process. My family and I would gather for years around that video and laugh about how my expression looked, or how wobbly and unfocused I looked. They would NOT laugh about what caused me to faint (and no one here is doing that) if what caused me to faint was not funny or beyond my control. THAT is where being sensitive or insensitive comes into play here. BUT if my own personal actions had caused me to faint…like being hungover or I’d drugged myself with something before going on camera etc, then they would laugh at that too. Not because they don’t love me or are insensitive, but because it was funny and it all ended well.
      When it comes to “science”, people do not get to do is cherry pick data from a given set and then pretend that the entire set proves their research to be true, be they WUWT commenters or Alarmists. Comparing behavior in one specific instance to behavior in another, totally different, irrelevant circumstance is about as flawed logically as you can get.

      • Aphan:
        and you “cherry picked” an interpretation of my post that seemed to imply that i was attempting to ban cherry picking – free speech includes the freedom to say stupid things too – my post was made under the premise that free speech includes the right to point out the bad logic behind stupid statements
        i don’t know where you got the notion that laughing at the fainter – you seem to have created a strawman – to – errr – laugh at
        the rules of logic are more pervasive than you seem to think – please show me the books on logic that is used for deducing the causes behind weather/climate, as opposed to one for deducing the motives of someone who faints – to me – both actions requires the same careful thought

      • jeyon,
        Sorry I hit the publish button before completing my comment. Anyway your “safe space” my lie behind your keyboard or your little mouse. Not so much where ‘political correctness’ is not the all encompassing mantra of the day. Eat it up as you don’t seem to get enough of it.

      • jeyon,
        It is obvious from all of your posts in this thread that you like to ignore the rules of logic just as much as you do the rules of punctuation and grammar. I attempted to address each logical fallacy you’ve presented so far in this thread individually, but the post got very lengthy and tedious. I decided instead to address two things:
        1) The rules of logic are very pervasive, and you seem to know little about those rules. Books on logic are (not is) not used to “deduce the causes behind weather, climate”. They are also not used to “deduce the motives of someone who faints”. The rules of Logic only apply to the way people form arguments and allow readers to determine whether or not those arguments make sense-logically. Arguments contain premises that are supposed to “prove” that the conclusion arrived at by the author of the argument is a valid one. Logic allows people to see whether or not the argument does that or not, and outlines the ways in which you can tell when someone has used faulty thinking/reasoning to support their conclusion.
        In other words, the causes of weather/climate are deduced by scientific observations, calculations, and a thorough understanding of the dynamics of the climate system-not by logic. A person who faints doesn’t logically get accused of having a “motive” because having a motive is defined as- “a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious” and implies a CHOICE or an act preceded by thought. Fainting is defined as “a sudden, brief loss of consciousness and posture caused by decreased blood flow to the brain.” Now, I can deduce with logic that if the woman was wearing really tight spanks or some kind of body control underwear, it COULD have restricted the flow of blood to her brain and caused her to faint, but even in that case, I find it illogical to assume she “made the choice to faint” or “thought” it would be a good idea. In other words, logic could help explain what happened, but it cannot prove that either she or Gore exercised “choice” or “acted after thinking”.
        2) You have arrived at a time when this forum is experiencing a very sudden, and very abnormal influx of first time commenters that seem to be very preoccupied with how Anthony’s blog might be/could be perceived. Comments range from what Anthony’s blog is “supposed to be about” to how some behavior might be inappropriate (like exposing our illogical sides). The timing of so many people arriving that seem to share these concerns triggers suspicion in my very logical and reasonable mind. You can say whatever you think or feel, but you don’t get to presume to know what everyone else thinks or feels or make personal judgments about them simply because they behave in ways you might not yourself. You will be called on the carpet for having irrational, illogical expectations just as you would in a scientific discussion for presenting irrational or illogical arguments.

      • Aphan,
        too bad you missed my point – and have wandered off in a different direction
        but first – let me point out something you said in a previous post which i left untouched before – i wasn’t talking about “sensitivity” about fainting women – you couldn’t have cherry picked that cuz it was never a cherry on my tree – so where did that statement come from

        1) The rules of logic are very pervasive, and you seem to know little about those rules. Books on logic are (not is) not used to “deduce the causes behind weather, climate”. They are also not used to “deduce the motives of someone who faints”. The rules of Logic only apply to the way people form arguments and allow readers to determine whether or not those arguments make sense-logically.

        sad thing is that you are missing the obvious thing – i AM saying that the logic behind drawing conclusions about climate AND fainting women ARE THE SAME – the metaphor I used treating them as separate books of logic was to SHOW how it was mistaken of to treat an analysis of fainting differently
        the other sad thing is that in your rant about my comment on the fainting woman – you focused on getting laughed at – which again wasn’t part of my cherry tree – that was an entire paragraph spent arguing with your strawman

        In other words, the causes of weather/climate are deduced by scientific observations, calculations, and a thorough understanding of the dynamics of the climate system-not by logic. A person who faints doesn’t logically get accused of having a “motive” because having a motive is defined as- “a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious” and implies a CHOICE or an act preceded by thought.

        here is how i would state that – it’ll clarify our different perspectives – note: these statements are based on the Merriam-Webster definition of deduction as “the act or process of using logic or reason to form a conclusion or opinion about something” – (1) global warming is deduced from observations, analysis, etc – and that deduction be judged as valid or invalid – (2) logically deducing the cause of fainting spell is based on observations, investigation etc – and that deduction can be judged valid or invalid
        in the case of the fainting women – i called anthony’s and other’s careless deduction invalid

        You have arrived at a time when this forum is experiencing a very sudden, and very abnormal influx of first time commenters that seem to be very preoccupied with how Anthony’s blog might be/could be perceived.

        i arrived years ago

        You can say whatever you think or feel, but you don’t get to presume to know what everyone else thinks or feels or make personal judgments about them simply because they behave in ways you might not yourself. You will be called on the carpet for having irrational, illogical expectations just as you would in a scientific discussion for presenting irrational or illogical arguments.

        evidently – you don’t know much about free speech if you’re setting boundaries – and the wrong type of boundaries – presuming what other people think or feel is the life blood of this forum – anthony did it when he accused the fainting woman of faking it
        you called me on the carpet – but failed to inflict any wounds due to your misunderstanding and poor logic – better luck next time

      • “presuming what other people think or feel is the life blood of this forum – anthony did it when he accused the fainting woman of faking it”
        Anthony never accused the fainting woman of faking it!!! THAT was your initial interpretation, followed by your PRESUMPTIONS that a) if the comments here were all sarcastic they should say so-even though YOU are the only one who ASSUMED they were not and b) that such comments would reveal the “illogical side” of skeptics that would forever damage their arguments against AGW. It was YOUR assumptions about everyone here, and how they SHOULD or should not act or speak, that started this whole ugly little ball rolling. You CAN call Anthony’s statements careless (opinion) but you cannot call them logical deductions (facts) because Anthony did not conduct an analysis or an investigation and you cannot call them invalid unless you have investigative evidence that PROVES Anthony is wrong. DO YOU GET THAT?
        And even at the end you PRESUME that my goal was to “inflict any wounds” and that I failed my goal. My goal was to point out that it was YOUR irrational, illogical, personal interpretations that started this whole dialog, and your opinion that I failed to do that is entirely your own.

      • Anthony never accused the fainting woman of faking it!!! THAT was your initial interpretation

        LOL!!! – please read the original article carefully – and read the comments – there are a few others who agree with me – the majority are those who are making a joke out of it – not saying if they believe it was staged or not
        now I recognize that Anthony has never been one capable of pulling off irony in service of a joke – so i re-read his original post a number of times – did you?

        your PRESUMPTIONS that a) if the comments here were all sarcastic they should say so-even though YOU are the only one who ASSUMED they were not

        i’m not the only one – but there were mighty few who came out and said one way or the other – remember – some are quite to close to Anthony by now – a good friends hesitate before correcting another friend – since I’m not a close – i called it as i saw it – and still see it – after another round of re-readings

        b) that such comments would reveal the “illogical side” of skeptics that would forever damage their arguments against AGW.

        now who’s making presumptions – “forever damage”? – again – more strawmen for to you tackle – best of luck – LOL!!

        It was YOUR assumptions about everyone here, and how they SHOULD or should not act or speak, that started this whole ugly little ball rolling.

        it looks like the only criticism allowed are the ones you approve – sorry – i’ll continue making my own interpretations and stating my own opinions – as i said – the bulk of this forum’s bandwidth has been criticism – correctly or incorrectly derived – all without your approval

        You CAN call Anthony’s statements careless (opinion) but you cannot call them logical deductions (facts) because Anthony did not conduct an analysis or an investigation and you cannot call them invalid unless you have investigative evidence that PROVES Anthony is wrong. DO YOU GET THAT?

        so angry – are you anthony in disguise?
        i can and do call anthony “on the carpet” when i see fit – when he doesn’t conduct and analysis or an investigation while posting an observation – he’s liable to criticism – you don’t get to tell anyone not to do that – glad i don’t live in a country where you are king

        And even at the end you PRESUME that my goal was to “inflict any wounds” and that I failed my goal. My goal was to point out that it was YOUR irrational, illogical, personal interpretations that started this whole dialog, and your opinion that I failed to do that is entirely your own.

        again – what’s with your mentality – why aren’t you able to process metaphor – “inflict wounds” – “point our my irrational…interpretations” – an intelligent person would have seen the analogy
        you failed to wound cuz you failed to make your point – you spent MOST of your verbiage arguing against things i never said – then you spent the next largest chunk indulging in ad hominem – what this makes clear is that you aren’t one capable of instructing others logic or debate
        i’m glad you did finally return to the actual point of origin – DID ANTHONY – OR DID HE NOT – believe that that the fainting was staged – if not – DID HE OR DID HE NOT make that sufficiently clear
        i say he wants to believe it was staged – and that he clearly felt it was more likely that it was
        you’re free to disagree and criticize – but you aren’t free to silence me – only anthony (if that isn’t you) can ban me fhis site – and that only keeps me from posting here – ain’t free speech a bitch!

  21. I’ve been following politics for quite a while, and the only pols who make women faint at their events are Gore and Obama – two famous frauds who would be forgotten in a trice if not for their “Emperor’s new clothes” followers, none of whom will ever admit that these men are not very intelligent and almost wholly dishonest.

  22. Oh come on, it should be obvious she was trying to hold her breath while he yapped so she wouldn’t spew toxic and noxious CO2 poison on her idol !!!

  23. I love Gore’s analogy. Its like the difference between 0 degrees (freezing) and 1 degree. Huge changes. HUGE I say! And that’s like what we’re doing to the atmosphere!
    No science to back that up, and her fainting (real or not) just left that statement hanging there unchallenged.

  24. How could anyone remain conscious whilst exposed to Gore’s tedious droning for so long, and at such close range? It is a miracle she lasted as long as she did. She must have an almost superhuman constitution!

  25. I wish to share my Algorhyme;
    Pinwheels and Mirrors
    A long time ago (in the 80’s or so),
    Al Gore warned that warming would soon be alarming;
    “Our children won’t know what it’s like to see snow!
    Our atmosphere we must stop harming!”
    He studied, in college, on James Hansen’s knowledge.
    Then, over years of political careers,
    He pondered this notion: The air and the ocean
    Are useful to raise public fears.
    He made presentations to all the world’s nations.
    His film (sci-fi trash) was a box office smash!
    Academy sensation! Oscars, nominations
    And copious currents of cash!
    Then unto him fell the Peace Prize, Nobel…
    His power in science was vested.
    Debates he must quell, for he knows quite well:
    Models failed when reality tested.
    So, grew the meme of anthropogenic extreme.
    While insiders profited highly,
    Those who objected were quickly subjected
    To ridicule (and regarded vilely).
    Pinwheels and mirrors now litter the lands…
    Power lines, mile after mile.
    On high plains, mesas and desert sands
    Our vistas, they now beguile.
    But collectors of government subsidies
    Find them a beautiful sight,
    Big mechanical menaces… begging a breeze
    Or a sunbeam to ‘make their cost right’.
    Decades upcoming threaten cold’s icy numbing-
    Nature’s cycles, in concert, are waning.
    The slowness to warm should have cancelled alarm,
    But Al never ceases campaigning:
    “We humans are bad, with our fossil fuel fad,
    It’s a fast-building carbon disaster!
    And now it’s two-fold! It’s causing the cold
    And the hotness to come so much faster!”
    Yet, while he’s pleading that all should be heeding
    His carbon reduction ambitions,
    He hopes you’re not seeing his own footprint being
    Hundreds of poor folks’ emissions.
    Let’s hope he’s thought out, while jetting about,
    The messages of his actions.
    By far they outweigh any words he might say,
    In the minds of the wiser factions.

  26. The globe is warming. At the start of the interview, the Earth’s temperature was T degrees. By the time she fainted, Gore had droned on so long that the temperature had risen to T + delta T, obviously above her fainting threshold. It was due to global warming. Science settled, case closed.

    • Now that I look again, that does appear likely. She seems to have trouble keeping her eyes open, and she seems unsteady.

      • Check out that fixed grin. She’s sloshed, and she wouldn’t be the only one. What else are you going to do at a pointless wankfest like COP21?

  27. Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
    We’re so glad you could attend
    Come inside! Come inside!
    There behind a glass is a real pain in the ass
    be careful as you pass.
    Move along! Move along!
    Come inside, the show’s about to start
    guaranteed to blow your head apart!
    Rest assured you’ll get your money’s worth
    The greatest show in Heaven, Hell or Earth.

  28. Global Warming? (by Al Gore)
    G-one are your days, trepidation now swarming?
    L-urking with obscurity comes a new age of warning.
    O-h you must listen and your questions must fold.
    B-ehold I’m Al Gore; it’s your future I’ve foretold.
    A-rmed with my models, indubitable facts have been forming.
    L-eer not elsewhere; it’s your fault the climate’s warming.
    W-eep all in disgrace, keep burning your coal.
    A-las, I exclaim, your surrendering earth’s soul.
    R-epent from this sin, withdraw the temptation.
    M-ark it forbidden to a developing nation.
    I-‘ve reaped its rewards, in plain sight for all to see.
    N-egating the others makes no difference to me.
    G-ather your senses, remain but slightly sober.
    ?-All I am asking, that you simply start over.

  29. while hiding a phallus shaped “insert”, our news reporter demonstrates the proper technique of both asking and receiving questions in the presence of an alpo male. hedging her bets. was it real or memorex? note the eyes. the eyes tell all.

  30. I watched and cut it off a livestream yesterday. After I cut and posted the clip, I found another YouTube video of Lacqua fainting on air. She may have a history of this…

  31. You’ve been healed, Sister Francine!!! Now go forth and pollute no more!! He’s just a slap on the forehead away from Benny Hinn.

  32. Anthony. I just visited tamin’s open mind Web site ,via your link. Here is part of her top story for today. I hope you will notice that your agreement with her to tone down the name calling is not working.
    Idiots
    Posted on December 5, 2015 | 9 comments
    Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.
    — Mark Twain
    Despite deniers’ neverending claim that they’re “winning” their campaign to spread doubt about global warming, they’re losing. Big time. They just can’t win against nature. With heat waves on four continents at the same time this summer, once-in-a-thousand-years drought and flooding, wildfire on the rise in western North America, sea level rise enough that coastal cities now flood at extreme high tide even without storms or rain, an astounding record-breaking hurricane year in the Pacific, their precious “pause” in temperature rise shown to be a sham all along, and two record-hottest years in a row, people are catching on. Even tea party republicans can’t swallow the lie any more.

  33. I think her brain went to sleep and she was trying to wake herself. Really, wouldn’t you fall asleep?
    Or maybe she forgot her tin-foil hat?
    other reporters babbling..

  34. “She’s as full as a state school” …
    and, Gore is
    ‘stuffed tighter than the Christmas turkey’
    as my father would have said.

  35. Can’t tell for sure if she was faking it. I can tell you what my USAF basic training instructor said when a fellow trainee appeared to faint during mail call. He said he was faking it because he didn’t fall backwards. I have fainted many times, once after getting several shots in basic training. I went over backwards every time.

  36. The high priest Goracle was casting out the global warming demons at the alter of Gaia – didn’t you hear her speaking in tongues before she was overwhelmed by the spirit of almighty greenness?

  37. Yes, I think she did faint, firstly she looked comatose with boredom then nausea which often precedes vomiting and fainting.
    Hope she didn’t make a mess of that nice green carpet.

  38. That used to be called a “swoon” before most women wised up. Shouldn’t have had the tofu I guess.

  39. I find myself weakened after just looking at an Al Gore Video, frequently even asleep. Exposure to the Mann himself must be even more weakening. She has suffered the normal reaction to exposure to the Gore’s tedious droning. She did well to remain standing that long.

  40. Bright light, big city, gone to my baby’s head
    Whoa, bright light, an’big city, gone to my baby’s head
    I tried to tell the woman, but she don’t believe a word I said
    It’s all right, pretty baby, (gonna) need my help someday
    Whoa, it’s all right, pretty baby, gonna need my help someday
    Ya’ gonna wish you had a-listened, to some a-those things I said
    Go ahead, pretty baby, a-honey, knock yourself out
    Oh go ahead, pretty baby, honey, knock yourself out
    I still love ya baby, ’cause you don’t know what it’s all about
    Bright light, a big city, they went to my baby’s head
    Oh, the bright light, the big city, they went to my baby’s head
    I hope you remember, a-some of those things I said

  41. The way in which you, Watts, and Climate Depot have responded to this incident makes you look callous, petty, and desperate. The faint/seizure may or may not be a genuine medical problem, but it’s none of your business. You should have the tact and good judgement to abstain from comment and mockery of what is most likely someone else’s medical problem.
    If there were a similar incident during a speech by a skeptic, and warming alarmists chose to focus on the medical problem instead of on the content of the speech, the skeptic blogs would rightly scoff at how weak the alarmists’ position must be that instead of commenting on the content they resorted to mockery and ad hominem attacks.
    Before you claim that you weren’t doing the actual mocking, it was only those article commenters over whom you have no control that did the mocking, remember that you are a community leader as a direct result of placing yourself in that position. You are responsible for setting an example. And the example you chose to set is sticking your nose in a issue where it had no right to be.
    Lastly, her episode bears all the signs of a genuine loss of consciousness or seizure. Your opinion that it was faked just shows how ignorant and lacking in compassion you are. You make Gore look downright gallant in comparison. If you had had the sense to keep your mouth shut on this topic you could have seized the moral high ground.

      • the whole global warming thing is a fraud and there seems to be no normal people around any more ,GOD please bring us some normal people

    • You’re right, of course. I hope Francine is doing fine. But keep things in perspective. People who perpetuate fraud on the public belong in prison, and even more so when the public has been forced to fund the fraud through no choice of their own. That is the seriousness of what is going on here.
      The meeting at issue here is nothing more than an instance of the machine’s marketing arm. A trade show. Marketing dollars spent with the hope that people will finally agree to tax themselves, further enriching the UN and all of their crony associations.
      These are the same people (roughly) that bilked the “oil for food” program for enormous amounts of money. So, while I sincerely hope Francine is doing well, Gore deserves all the criticism people can muster. And it seems to me most of the insult here is directed at Gore, not Ms. Lacqua.
      Also keep in mind far worse things are done to those who challenge the “consensus” in a serious manner. People have lost livelihoods, been sued, mocked far worse in public and in the media, etc. Gore and the alarmist crowd have a pretty long list of casualties they’ve inflicted.

    • “Lastly, her episode bears all the signs of a genuine loss of consciousness or seizure.”
      No, it doesn’t. In all due respect may I ask if you’ve ever been either the object of a 911 call or the maker of one? I’ve been both. Trust me, they’re quite a bit more dramatic than what you’re seeing in that video.

      • Yes. I have been the patient and the caretaker for serious 911 calls.
        More importantly, I have been the primary care provider many times for people having seizures. I am trained specifically in the handing of an array of seizure types. Most seizures don’t require a call to 911. Some do. Those that do are indeed much more dramatic than the above video. I have had numerous patients who have mild seizures routinely, sometimes as often as several every day. Obviously, a 911 call is not advisable when seizures are mild, frequent, and there is a caretaker present.
        Not all seizures cause loss of consciousness. Not all loss of conscious is accompanied by seizure. I have myself experienced loss of consciousness a few times under widely differing circumstances: once due to orthostatic hypotension (wasn’t well, stood up, all the blood ran out of my head), once due to blood loss following a wound, and once where the cause was never determined.
        The last one was the most freaky. It happened in stages, rather than all at once (like the other two times). I felt empty (hollow, cold, very weird), then sounds began to echo strangely, then there were pinpoints of light before my eyes, I had vertigo and my legs gave way, I reached for the kitchen counter, and with my arm jerking spasmodically clutching the countertop with all my remaining strength and muscle control, I managed a reduced-speed crash on the hard tiled kitchen floor, before I blacked out completely. The whole thing took probably 30 seconds, with the bulk of the time being spent in the preliminary stages before my legs gave out, while I was trying to resist what was happening to me.
        Ms Lacqua seems to be going through the resisting stage before and as she gradually loses control of her limbs and balance.

  42. Remember, Gore’s breath is probably 10% CO2. Combine that with his halitosis and you have the makings of a lethal weapon. Gore breathes, people collapse. Is it any wonder he blames CO2?

    • I understand that during Apollo 13, the astronauts were beginning to lose their mind after deactivation of the CO2 capture device.
      Could the entire climatism craziness be the result of rooms with too much CO2, possibly caused by energy saving measures?

  43. I think we can all agree that she increased the entertainment value of that event by 100% and at least gave the audience something REAL to care about for a few, brief seconds. 🙂

  44. I sincerely hope Ms. Lacqua has fully recovered. It looked frightening to me. If this is recurrent condition I commend her bravery for staying in a job so public and I commend Bloomberg News for keeping her on air and standing by her. Her CV available off the Bloomberg News website is impressive to say the least. My best wishes go out to her and her family. I wish her a complete recovery. I hope this thread ends with a report that she is in good health and back at her job. As far as I know she may have a family and to them I express heartfelt wishes for a quick recovery with no lasting after effects.

  45. I agree with others here. The reporter was just seconds away from being bored to death by Al “The Bore” Gore, but thankfully recovered before receiving a fatal dose of hot air.

  46. The difference between 0 °C and 1 °C?
    Apparently this clown doesn’t know water remains liquid at 0 °C (if it was liquid) and solid (if it was solid).
    And seawater can get past 0 °C and still remain liquid.

  47. Perhaps too much champagne ? I’m told the booze that flows at these events is stupendous! Or perhaps she tripped over the truth about AGW?

  48. Sense of humor failure by some people here.
    She got hot standing under the lights listening to Gore and fainted. Could have happened to anyone, most people would laugh it off and be on the receiving end of jokes about it. Don’t make out she is stricken with epilepsy or some terminal condition, nobody here would be joking about it if they thought that was the case.
    She fainted while listening to Gore, in this context that’s funny, get over it.

  49. The opulence of the hall in which she was interviewing Gore, coupled with pictures of the opulence of Obama’s dinner in Paris, allied with the luxurious lifestyles of all the attendees, was on such a higher plain of extravagance than anything she (as a common person) had ever witnessed before that it presented such a level of hypocrisy so unbelievably massive that her mind was unable to function correctly. In brief; she short circuited.

  50. Big Pharma needs to start developing anti-MHOS (massive hypocrisy overwhelming syndrome) pills NOW.

  51. She had that big smile of relief at the end. Some of us have seen it before. Those that haven’t are doing something wrong.

  52. It could be anemia. American football player fainted on tv from anemia. It looks very similar:
    44 second video:

  53. That looked pretty genuine to me.
    Might it just be that the lady was shall we say, “indisposed”; or perhaps is in the early stages of a certain “condition” – as in “a lady in her condition should not be standing for so long?”
    Lay off the poor lass, sceptics really are better than this.

  54. Nada beneficiará a la salud humana e incrementará las probabilidades de supervivencia de la vida sobre la Tierra como la evolución hacia una dieta vegetariana.” (Albert Einstein)
    En la Conferencia sobre Cambio Climático que se celebrará a finales de año en París, estamos ante la última ocasión para frenar el cambio climático, cuyas consecuencias serán terribles para las próximas generaciones, con unas temperaturas más extremas -en el Hemisferio Norte inviernos más gélidos, agravándose cuando la corriente del Golfo no llegue a Escandinavia al descender la salinidad del Atlántico Norte por el deshielo del Ártico; en el Hemisferio Sur veranos más tórridos-, con una menor pluviosidad en todo el Planeta, lo que provocará la expansión de los desiertos -especialmente en el centro de Asia, sur de África y Sudamérica- y un drástico descenso de la producción agrícola, lo que extenderá la hambruna por todo el Planeta.
    Hasta la fecha se ha cometido el error de pensar que el responsable del cambio climático era el CO2, pero el brusco aumento de las temperaturas en las dos últimas décadas y la aceleración del cambio climático demuestra que hay otro componente que está detrás, y ese es el metano. El metano CH4 es un gas veinte veces más nocivo que el CO2, pues a diferencia del CO2, que es absorbido por las selvas, los bosques, las praderas y los arrecifes coralinos, el metano permanece en la atmósfera durante años hasta que se precipita en los océanos -fenómeno que se puede observar en Titán, el astro de nuestro sistema solar más parecido a la Tierra en densidad atmosférica- y acelerando el aumento de temperatura, de ahí que el metano haya estado detrás de todos los cambios geológicos por los que ha pasado el Planeta y que se caracterizaron por temperaturas más altas y menor pluviosidad, cambios que provocaron la extinción de especies animales y vegetales. De hecho en Marte se ha detectado metano atrapado bajo su superficie, lo indicaría que hubo un tiempo en que ese gas formaba parte de la atmósfera de Marte, determinando incluso unas temperaturas más elevadas, lo que podría haber provocado la desecación del planeta rojo, que en su día debió albergar océanos de agua, como la Tierra, agua que se escapó al espacio, como ocurrirá con la Tierra si aumentan las temperaturas y se cambia la composición de los gases de la atmósfera.
    Pues bien, los gobiernos de EEUU y especialmente de la UE están detrás del aumento del metano en la atmósfera, al subvencionar las vacas y apoyar el fracking y las prospecciones petrolíferas en fondos marinos, especialmente en el Ártico. Las vacas son las mayores emisoras de metano, gas veinte veces más nocivo que el CO2, y del óxido nitroso, gas que es doscientas noventa y seis veces más nocivo que el CO2. El fracking libera a la atmósfera el metano acumulado en el subsuelo. En los lechos oceánicos, especialmente en el Ártico, se almacenan las mayores concentraciones de metano, gas que es liberado con las prospecciones petrolíferas en los fondos marinos, especialmente en el Ártico.
    Por ello le insto a que, desde el cargo que ocupa y la responsabilidad que detenta, lleve a cabo las acciones necesarias para convencer al gobierno de su país a fin de que se una al resto de países que desean frenar el cambio climático, países que serán los más afectados por el mismo, para que presionen a los dirigentes de EEUU y especialmente de la UE, con el objetivo de que adopten las medidas urgentes y necesarias para frenar el cambio climático. En la Conferencia sobre Cambio Climático que se celebrará en París, los dirigentes de todos los países deben subscribir los siguientes puntos:
    1º. Supresión de toda subvención a actividades que generen gases de efecto invernadero -vacas, carbón, etc.-
    2º. Cambio en el modelo de alimentación de EEUU y UE, reduciendo drásticamente el consumo de carne y leche de vaca, y de aceite de palma.
    3º. Cierre de las centrales térmicas.
    4º. Prohibición del fracking y de las prospecciones petrolíferas en lechos oceánicos, especialmente en el Ártico.
    5º. Libre acceso a la energía solar basada en el fulvaleno y grafeno, especialmente en países subdesarrollados.
    6º. Repoblación forestal a escala planetaria con especies autóctonas.
    7º. Trasvase de agua oceánica hacia grandes tanques en el interior de los desiertos, donde las elevadas temperaturas harán que se evapore, conduciendo el mismo hacia un lugar más elevado, donde por condensación se licuará y desde allí se distribuirá hacia las zonas limítrofes del desierto.
    La clave está en EEUU y UE, pues mientras no cambien el modelo de alimentación no se logrará nada, así como en el modelo energético de estos países y de China, con el cierre de las centrales térmicas.
    Es necesario que se reduzca drásticamente el consumo de carne y leche de vacuno, pues las vacas están detrás del aceleramiento del cambio climático -tal como le expongo en el artículo que le adjunto- y del consumo de aceite de palma, pues para obtener aceite de palma se arrasan selvas tropicales, especialmente en Indonesia, lo que provoca la extinción de numerosos animales, como el orangután, y el cambio del ciclo de lluvias, reduciendo drásticamente la pluviosidad en países que dependen de las lluvias monzónicas para su subsistencia. Selvas que son uno de los principales sumideros de CO2.
    Un informe de la FAO demuestra que la ganadería genera más gases de efecto invernadero que el transporte, y es la principal causa de la degradación del suelo y del gasto hídrico.
    Las vacas emiten el 9% del CO2, el 30% del metano – 20 veces más nocivo que el CO2-, el 50% del amoniaco y el 60% del óxido nitroso -296 veces más nocivo que el CO2-.
    Para alimentar a las vacas se destina un tercio de la superficie terrestre. La mayor parte de los bosques y selvas están desapareciendo para destinarlos a forraje para vacas.
    Las vacas consumen miles de hectómetros cúbicos de agua, y sus residuos van a los ríos, al mar y a los acuíferos subterráneos, contaminándolos con los antibióticos y hormonas que arrastran en su orina.
    La desaparición de las abejas, además de otros animales necesarios para el equilibrio del ecosistema, se debe al empleo de herbicidas en los pastos para vacas, además del 90% de los incendios forestales provocados para obtener pastos.
    Una parte de la población del Planeta no tiene acceso a cereales debido al encarecimiento de su precio por destinarlos al engorde de las vacas.
    Junto a las vacas, el otro emisor de metano lo constituyen las prospección petrolíferas en el Ártico, donde se almacenan grandes depósitos de metano.
    Para lograr un cambio en el modelo de alimentación de EEUU y UE debe lanzarse una campaña de información, basándose en datos científicos, en la que se advierta que la carne de vacuno es grasa saturada y que su consumo multiplica el riesgo de padecer enfermedades cardiovasculares, neurológicas -Alzheimer vascular- y determinados tipos de cáncer -páncreas, colon, próstata-; que el consumo de leche de vaca multiplica el riesgo de padecer cáncer de mama y de próstata, puede sustituirse la leche de vaca por leche de soja, avena, alpiste; que el aceite de palma es grasa trans, y cuyo consumo multiplica el riesgo de padecer enfermedades cardiovasculares y Alzheimer vascular.
    Deben cerrarse inmediatamente las centrales térmicas, pues las mismas son las mayores emisoras de CO2, azufre y vapor de agua -mucho más nocivo que el CO2-.
    Hay que modernizar la industria de China para hacerla menos contaminante, y cambiar el parque automovilístico de EEUU por el mismo motivo.
    La repoblación forestal con especies autóctonas es fundamental para absorber el CO2 de la atmósfera, y proteger con especial esmero -deberían considerarse santuarios de la Naturaleza, como la Antártida- los arrecifes coralinos, pues son los grandes sumideros de CO2.
    El convertir los desiertos en desaladoras y hacer que el agua sea empleada en sus inmediaciones, además de beneficiar a las poblaciones de dichos lugares, que podrían emplearla en la agricultura, se frenaría el avance de los desiertos, pues una parte de dicha agua se destinaría a la repoblación con especies autóctonas que frenen la desertización, absorban CO2 y generen humedad.
    José María Álvarez Álvarez
    Trubia-Asturias-España
    [En Ingles, por favor. .mod]

Comments are closed.