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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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.
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……
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.
It was the smell! It obviously got to her!
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/
And let’s not forget the Obama faint.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=obama+pregnant+woman+faint&qpvt=obama+pregnant+woman+faint&FORM=VDRE
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
Ummm, in the free world, it’s called an OPINION !!!
so’s AGW alarmism – and skepticism
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.
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” ?!!
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,
You want some “safe space” that you can retreat to?
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
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
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
i arrived years ago
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.
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?
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
now who’s making presumptions – “forever damage”? – again – more strawmen for to you tackle – best of luck – LOL!!
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
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
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!
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.
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 !!!
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.
So David she saved Algore by ringing the bell?
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!
She was simply a victim of a super chronic halitosis assault 😉
Next question: Why are we still breathing?
Why are we still using Fossil Fuels? Really!
How would they all get back home?
Hot air balloons.
It was obviously caused by all the Glo.Bull Warming he was breathing on her !!!
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.
excellent and thanks for sharing
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.
She’s as full as a state school. (That’s Australian for “drunk”.)
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?
“Hold on, hold on, I promise to use breath mints for the remainder of this circus show act”!
She had a …(wait for it) …Goregasm!
Nah. That surely would have left her for dead!
As a woman I disagree. A Goregasm would be about as debilitating as a hiccup. Or a yawn.
@Arphan – 100 Likes!! You gave me a great laugh.
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.
Cruel and unusual punishment, defined.
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.
Excellent! Put it on the Gore-a-thon page for future reference.
she had a Gor basim.
I’ve been snipped for less 🙂
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.