|
Energy
“Because what all three of those issues have in common is a group of advocates trying to bring about a morally-based change in policies that have caused tremendous harm,” Gore said when an NBC News reporter asked him about comparing his work to the civil rights and gay rights movement.
“In all three of those cases, there has been ferocious resistance to the change being advocated, and in all three of those cases, there have been advocates of change that were tempted to despair,” Gore said.
Gore said all three cases eventually “boiled down to a pretty simple choice between what’s right and what’s wrong.” Gore went on to quote Nelson Mandela about the anti-apartheid movement in 1990s South Africa. Gore was recently criticized for comparing his crusade against global warming to the abolition of slavery, ending apartheid, and the civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights movements — something he’s done many times in the past.
The global warming fight is “in the tradition of all the great moral causes that have improved the circumstances of humanity throughout our history,” Gore said in Australia in July, according to Climate Depot.
“The abolition of slavery, woman’s suffrage and women’s rights, the civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the movement to stop the toxic phase of nuclear arms race and more recently the gay rights movement, Gore said.
Gore made similar comparisons during a 2013 interview with The Washington Post. In 2011, Gore compared winning “the conversation” on global warming to building support for civil rights.This time, black conservative activists criticized Gore’s comparison of slavery and civil rights to the fight against global warming.
“When Al Gore, Jr. associates these moral movements of history with one grounded in questionable data, he gives climate change activists unearned moral credibility they haven’t earned and don’t deserve,” Horace Cooper, co-chairman of the Project 21 initiative with the group Conservative Black Leadership.
Horace also pointed out that Gore’s father, a former Democratic Tennessee Senator, opposed civil rights initiatives in the 1960s, though he did support the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
“Fighting people being owned as property and debased in an entrenched system enshrined in law is akin to worshiping the idea that humans can materially impact the climate?” Project 21 co-chairman Stacy Washington asked in a statement.
“He cannot be serious!” Washington said.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I see, so now it’s racist, sexist, and discriminating…but what happened to the children?
It is like Cow is white and Wall is white, so cow is wall or wall is cow type logic.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I can see it as an example of “history repeats first as a tragedy, then as a farce.”
Cow is white and Wall is white
=================
ManPigBear is white and Slave Owners were white, therefore ManPigBear supports Slavery. Otherwise he would have been born black.
Last time I looked, ManPigBear is the last person to be preaching Morality. But maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps Tipper and the Masseuse can cast some light on the matter.
Why is it the climate hypes like Packy and ManPigBear can’t keep it in their pants? One way or another they seem bound and determined to screw the rest of us.
ManPigBear, No means No.
Perhaps once the Climate Estrangement fiasco has drawn to a dull thundering close, the Climate realists can finally stand up and declare “Free at last, Free at last, AlGore stopped bloviating were free at last”
They are depressed at the mess we made of the world. If we try to fix the mess for their benefit, their depression and sadness might lift and then where would the movement be?
The children stunt didn’t work I suppose. I smell desperation in the air. Perhaps even Gore has noticed the big South American freeze and realises time is short.
They asked Al Gore to clarify his reasoning, and he said “Because HITLER!!!!”
A false moral equivalency appeal… I am really growing tired of this type of B.S. from these alarmists..
It is and will be their undoing. There’s one thing to make a mistake, another to be deceived. People can forgive one, never forget the other.
This the same faulty thinking as when he called Justin Trudeau a “breath of fresh air” In reference to saving the Paris Agreements?
Check the ‘Globe and Mail’ for the actual video of this.
The evidence is that Al Gore is an exploiter on a scale far beyond most of the South’s planter class – notice his fortune on false climate alarmism promotion, his carbon foot print, and his self embarrassments as man-bear-pig. One can only marvel at his exploitation, but then he needs to be put in prison…
Al Gore is not noted for making credible claims. It is difficult to tell if he just lacks the ability to do research of a very simple kind, or just does not care if it sounds good in a speech. Inventing the internet, discovering Love Canal, and global warming are reasonable compared to his grasp of economics.
The really scary thing is that he was almost President of the US.
Here are a few interesting quotes from the book, The Stupidest Things Ever Said by Politicians:
On Illegal Fund-Raisers at Buddhist Temples, Al Gore on:
Explanation number 1: It wasn’t a fund-raiser, it was a “community outreach event.”
Explanation number 2: It wasn’t a fund-raiser, it was just “finance-related.”
Explanation number 3: It wasn’t a fund-raiser, it was a “donor-maintenance meeting.”
There’s also this amusing tidbit:
On Historical Knowledge, Vice-Presidential:
“Who are these guys?”
Al Gore, referring to the busts of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Lafayette on a televised tour of Monticello. (p. 109)
And this:
“A zebra cannot change its spots.” (p. 54)
And this:
On Senator’s Sons, Typical Days of:
“[My father] taught me how to clean out hog waste with a shovel and a hose. He taught me how to clear land with an ax. He taught me how to plow a steep hillside with a team of mules. He taught me how to take up hay all day long in the hot sun and then, after a dinner break, go help the neighbors take up hay before the rain came and spoiled it on the ground.”
Vice President Al Gore on the virtues of farm life, not mentioning that, as a rich senator’s son, all this was presumably learned on summer vacation from Harvard. A real farmer’s son, Republican National chairman Jim Nicholson, replied, “Mr. Vice President, with all due respect, you’re shoveling a lot more of it right now than you ever did back then.” (p. 141)
And this:
On Timing is Everything:
“[Due to pollution, cars pose] a mortal threat to the security of every nation.”
Senator Al Gore in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance.
“Here in Motor City we recognize that cars have done more than fuel our commerce. Cars have freed the American spirit and given us the chance to chase our dreams.”
Vice President Al Gore — while gearing up for his 2000 presidential run — in a 1999 speech to the Economic club of Detroit. (p. 253)
The man is cultist insane.
Explanation number 3: It wasn’t a fund-raiser, it was a “donor-maintenance meeting.”
I think he was referring to calling the Senate into session.
Donor maintenance? Wasn’t that what he was attempting to do with that masseuse?
(Follow the money)
Herd the sheeple to the shearing ….
The Gore recipe .
Mr Gore seems to have the slavery issue exactly backwards. It is the use of energy and modern machinery to provide our needs, that has assisted in freeing us from slavery. Meanwhile the little extra CO2 has helped the plants grow better.
Posted last year in 2016 and still true:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/21/the-economic-impact-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions/comment-page-1/#comment-2220950
Agree – fossil fuels have delivered humanity from the worst forms of poverty and slavery.
Now, warmist scoundrels and imbeciles want to deny the benefits of cheap fossil fuel energy to the poorest of humankind, and drive the rest of us backwards into energy poverty. What the warmists are advocating is not only wrong, it is harmful and it is evil.
Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of humanity – it IS that simple!
Best regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
precisely.
Look I’m a serf and I hafta’ say that it was Ol’ King Coal
that released me from the back-breaking labour of slavery,
Ol’ King Coal and the development of the steam engine…
then later I was given the vote.
Thank you Western Capitalism and Democracy!
Actually, the abolitionists were glad to see the slave owning southern states leave the union – they didn’t want to go to war to free any of them. Of course, their ship owners were amongst the slave traders who sold the slaves to the Southerners. New Englanders and some other Northerners had no problem opposing slavery because there weren’t large numbers of slaves living amongst them. And if Lincoln had had his way, any slaves that might be freed as a result of the Civil War (which was all about taxing the South to fund the Federal govt, not freeing slaves) would have immediately been placed on a ship and sent to Africa, which the organization he headed had been trying to do for 40 years. He didn’t care for slavery, but that didn’t mean he wanted any Blacks in this country associating with White folk, an opinion he voiced at least a thousand times. England and the Europeans had no difficulty freeing their slaves,but that’s because they didn’t live in England or Europe and never would.
Actually, in the years running up to the Civil War, the states in the North allowed the slaveowners to sell their slaves… to the plantation owners in the South. If the Federal government had given the Southern states the same sort of option things might have been different. But, as you said, Lincoln didn’t want them around anyway.
However, the descendants of those foreign slaves now do reside in England.
I don’t really believe that one can claim that lowering the carbon levels in the atmosphere and reducing the amount of foods available for humans is a noble endeavor. The problem with Gore is that he cannot
understand what we know for sure about carbon levels – too little and it’s a million times worse than any couple of degrees of warming. Gore is not an intelligent guy.
Sorry, Al Gore IS an intelligent guy! He has found a scam that will/is making him rich and he is playing that card right to the end. He knows that carbon/CO2 doesn’t really make any difference – he simply doesn’t care because his scam is working so it doesn’t matter.
Arthur writes: “Gore is not an intelligent guy.”
No, he isn’t at all smart. He’s greedy and venal though. In my experience he’s dumb as a post except where it comes to sniffing out ways he can use political influence to line his pockets. He’s among the worst sorts of pols, not a Stalin exactly, but a prime example of an old southern boy.
I avoid thinking about him.
From the article: “The global warming fight is “in the tradition of all the great moral causes”
Well, there you have it from the horse’s mouth. Gore thinks his global warming position is sacrosanct and therefore holds the moral highground. That necessarily means that those who oppose Gore’s global warming position are immoral.
This is a common theme of the Left. They feel they have the moral highground on all issues. If you don’t agree with their position, that not only makes you wrong, it makes you immoral, and since you are immoral, that gives the Left permission to use any means necessary to shut you up.
TA,
“Gore thinks his global warming position is sacrosanct and therefore holds the moral highground.”
I don’t believe he believes that . . It seems to me human wolves are plenty smart enough to dress in sheep’s clothing, and to realize that announcing you want to do away with the newfangled “rule by consent of the governed” model, will not play well among the governed . .
“I don’t believe he believes that . . It seems to me human wolves are plenty smart enough to dress in sheep’s clothing”
That’s true, but I can’t tell the human wolves from the human dupes. No doubt they are one or the other, but it’s hard to say which is which with certainty.
What the wolves and the dupes have in common is they are both wrong on the science.
TA,
“That’s true, but I can’t tell the human wolves from the human dupes. No doubt they are one or the other, but it’s hard to say which is which with certainty.”
Well sure, and that’s why I commented . . ;
“Gore thinks his global warming position is sacrosanct and therefore holds the moral highground.”
Are you certain he thinks that? If not, I suggest you indicate some uncertainty in your lingo use . . which can, I find, effect ones thinking about complex matters, as well as that of those who read one’s words, I believe . .
certainty in this realm, is an “active” player of sorts, in a psychological sense. Treating it as the “hard to come by” state that it is, defuses some of the impact alarmist assertions of certainty can have, on those who may not grasp how truly uncalled for it is/was, with regard to the extremely complex reality of global climate(s) and “climate change” . . I believe ; )
Agree 100% TA and I also think this has been a trait of progressives since the 60’s.
There’s no doubt in my mind at least the Viet Nam war and the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned us about an Kennedy died at the hands of was immoral. I’d go so far to say all US Military operations following the cessation of hostilities at the end of WWII have been immoral.
In the 60’s, the “counter culture” (not yet subverted by the progressives) was a moral force in the US and the world. Gore and Clinton(s) are both good examples of what happens when Saul Alinsky meets the Hippies; it becomes necessary to destroy the village to save it.
The MIC as described by Ike never happened — the rest of the federal budget simply swamped it.
Look at North Korea vs. South Korea, Bartleby. That was a successful US military intervention, and a moral one.
The war in Vietnam was of the same scope; a war of rescue that the US waged badly.
Ho Chih Minh proclaimed himself the vanguard of a system that had already murdered 10’s of millions of people, in domestic terror. Opposing that system was highly moral.
Ho Chih Minh himself murdered every single Vietnamese nationalist leader he could get his hands on, along with some 50,000+ Vietnamese, when gaining power in the north.
During the partition of 1954, nearly 1 million Vietnamese fled south, while some 80,000 southerners fled north. That disparity of flight ought to indicate the moral dimension at stake. The Vietnamese themselves understood it.
Ho Chih Minh did his best to destroy Vietnamese national culture and replace it with an imported and alien ideology. One could observe that in the name of defeating colonialism, Ho Chih Minh colonized Vietnam with a foreign tyrannical culture imported from Europe.
The results of Ho’s successful colonization effort were far worse than anything the Vietnamese suffered under the French. The boat people provide their nearly mute testimony on that score.
One might suppose that the US should not have intervened. Certainly the war-dead would have been avoided, along with the use of agent orange (2,4-D).
But we do know that Ho Chih Minh would then have been left a free hand for 20 years. The mortal calculus of that alternative history will never be known. But the toll in Russia and China are known, and they are horrendous.
The role of the US in Vietnam might be analogized to a man intervening in a serious assault, with the result that the victim is accidentally very badly hurt during the rescue attempt. Was the attempted rescue immoral? Do we credit after-the-fact accusations of immorality, lodged against the would-be rescuer?
“But we do know that Ho Chih Minh would then have been left a free hand for 20 years. The mortal calculus of that alternative history will never be known.”
Good post, Pat. We should also figure into this calculation the “Domino-Effect” which was one of the main reasons for the U.S. being in South Vietnam.
An unfettered North Vietnam, supplied by the Soviet Union and China could have knocked off every nation in Southeast asia and converted them to communism. They managed to wreak havoc in Laos and Cambodia and South Vietnam, but because of U.S. intervention, that’s as far as they ever got.
The U.S. military effort in South Vietnam was not a failure. North Vietnam’s supreme commander, General Giap, said himself that the U.S. won every major battle that took place.
Giap also said that didn’t matter because the North Vietnamese had the American anti-war Left and the American press on their side. And he was exactly right. The American Left threw this victory away.
All U.S. combat troops pulled out of South Vietnam in October 1973 after the Paris Peace Agreement was signed. South Vietnam didn’t fall until April 1975. It was just like in Iraq: The U.S. military subdued the bad guys, then left the country, and then the American anti-war Left got control of political power, withdrew American support, and our ally descended into Chaos and death.
The U.S. anti-war Left in Congress cut South Vietnam’s military budget to the bone in 1974, overriding the veto of President Gerald Ford, and then when North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam in violation of the peace agreement, the U.S. anti-war Left said no to South Vietnam when they asked for help, even though the U.S. was morally and legally bound by the Paris Peace Agreement to coming to South Vietnam’s aid.
The anti-war Left turned their backs on South Vietnam and millions were killed and displaced as a result.
What was so ironic to me about the end of the Vietnam war was how the U.S. military had always wanted to get the entire North Vietnamese military force together and have a big battle, which the U.S. would win, since it had overwhelming power in comparison, and which is why North Vietnam never tried to take on the U.S. with large numbers of forces at any one time.
But during the last North Vietnamese attack, the one that finally succeded, the North Vietnamese had practically their entire military strike force bottled up in the northern parts of South Vietnam.
When they attacked, the South Vietnamese army eventually broke and ran along with millions of refugees who were streaming south, and every road and trail was full of refugees with the North Vietnamese army right behind them, all sitting in one place because nothing could move it was so jammed, and they were sitting ducks for American B-52 bomber strikes.
I would submit that American B-52 strikes, which could have been set in motion in a matter of hours, could have broken the back of the North Vietnamese invasion all by themselves and would have been able to destroy a large percentage of the North Vietnamese army.
But the Liberals in the U.S. Congress told President Ford they would impeach him if he used the B-52’s, and Ford was more concerned with holding the nation together after Watergate, and he did not use them.
Had it been me, I would have used them, and taken my chances with impeachment, but I can understand where Ford was coming from. There wasn’t much he could do about it and I think he was genuinely concerned for the political climate in the nation.
South Vietnam and Iraq has shown us what not to do: If you are going to save a nation, you have to make it a longterm task like in Germany and Italy and Japan and South Korea. Abandoning your friends is never a good idea. It opens the door to the bad guys and they won’t hesitate to come in.
Interesting reply, TA. I knew that the US won every major battle, notably Khe San and Hue (which destroyed the Viet Cong).
I didn’t know all the rest of the military details you described as occurring during the NVA’s final assault.
The reason I mentioned that the war was waged badly, is that it was never fought to win. It was fought to just make North Vietnam cease its aggression, without actually being defeated. All the studies of war I’ve read say that two societies at war fight until one is defeated, or both are too wrecked to continue.
Destroying the North’s ability to wage war was never a strategic aim of the US. That was a big mistake. It dragged out the war, probably caused far more casualties than otherwise, and gave the anti-war left all the time it needed to stir domestic anger and turmoil.
The moral dimension of that war is exemplified in Douglas Pike’s work, mot especially his unpublished “The Viet-Cong Strategy of Terror. (pdf)”
A truly vicious example is their terror attack on the village of Dak Son. The Viet Cong flame-throwered the entire village including livestock and grain, along with all the men, women, and children they could burn, until they ran out of fuel. US troops arriving later described piles of burned babies looking like heaps charred cordwood. The toll was “252 dead, about two-thirds of them women and children; 200 abducted, never to return.”
“The reason I mentioned that the war was waged badly, is that it was never fought to win. It was fought to just make North Vietnam cease its aggression, without actually being defeated.”
That was the flaw in the whole strategy. The U.S. should have invaded North Vietnam and defeated them militarily there and could have ended the war quickly if we had done it that way. Instead, we allowed the North Vietnamese to have a sanctuary where they were relatively safe and from which they could continue to wage war, and the war went on for over a decade. Kind of like the Taliban having a sanctuary in Pakistan from which they continue to attack Afghanistan (I hear Trump is starting to put pressure on the Pakistani government over this unfriendly action of providing sanctuary to terrorists by withholding money).
You are not doing anyone any favors by fighting a limited war. You only prolong the agony. Our enemies cannot be given sanctuary ever, if we want to win the war.
The U.S. troops fighting the war wanted to go attack North Vietnam and get it over with, but the politicians back home were practically paralyzed by the Left into doing almost nothing constructive. Still, even with all the distractions and restrictions, the U.S. military prevailed in South Vietnam, although the basic problem was not addressed.
The problem was the political Left in the U.S. had far too much input into what happened in Vietnam, always restricting what the U.S. military was allowed to do. The American Left is completely incompetent when it comes to war. I don’t know why, but they are. We have irrefutable evidence. They are fierce opponents when it comes to their domestic competition, but they need safe spaces when it comes to dealing with murderous dictators. They run away just as fast as they can and they want you to run away, too.
They have managed to lose us two wars we already won, South Vietnam and Iraq, with their delusional view of the world, and in the process millions of innocent people were killed and displaced.
Yeah, we had a large percentage of the whole North Vietnamese army stalled and bottled up in northern South Vietnam, just what the U.S. generals had always wanted to arrange, and our political leadership could not pull the trigger, and let them escape.
Heavy B-52 strikes might have *really* ended the war, and would have ended North Vietnam’s aggression by eliminating a substantial portion of their military in one fell swoop. But alas, the U.S. was run by people who were not up to the job.
Hey look! There’s a turtle on his head! How in the hell did that get there?!?
Whew! For a moment I thought it was taurine digestive residue.
Other than ignore him, the only fitting response to that clown is to laugh at him:
Waaaaaa. HA, HA! 🙂
Manbearpig is REEEEUHHHHLLLLL!!!!!
(youtube — “South Park”)
The. End.
Yep. You can cry all you want to, Albert, but the fact remains:
the party’s over.
CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.
#(:))
P.S. oh-by-the-way, Albert, Trump won! lololololololol
“morally-based change in policies that have caused tremendous harm”
That is EXACTLY what Donald Trump is doing against AGW AGENDA/policies.
Trying to dump them in the porcelain file, WHERE THEY BELONG!!
“CO2 UP. WARMING NOT.”
Glad to see you are back, Janice. You keep everyone focused on the important things. Did you get a new computer? 🙂
Social constructs equivalent to science is Al Gore’s understanding of science. Science is a social construct for change, rah, rah. Okay, not so much. Tell Al.
Yes, there is no science in anything Al Gore does to promote Globul Warming or Climax Change. He and his cohorts appeal to the emotions and senses – poor polar bear are dying (Not); beach houses will be under water (eventually yes, like several hundred thousand years from now, and then not because of mankind’s influences); there will be no snow, ice cream or popsicles in the future (oh my). Fear based lie mongering – that’s what alarmists are selling. Where’s the science, Al?
No ice cream?
The saddest part is, he probably actually believes it is comparable. No wonder he flubbed out of seminary.
Al Gore (~$200,000 per sermon) preaches morals:
Me Al Gore–Great White Father–tell you brown people how run you country.
As to Nye’s comment, he is sort of right. As Karl, Hansen, Santer, Jones and the rest of the old warmunist gang exit, there is a chance that real climate science can move on. The acolytes left behind will have to contend with the ever growing gap between previous warmunist predictions and Ma Nature’s reality. The acolytes have a face saving excuse–they didn’t make the predictions.
We have laws here in the US that have to with what is and is not allowed on the campaign trail.
When he was president of vice …er… Vice President he was caught red-handed violating those laws.
(He was campaigning/fund raising from his office using the tax-payer paid resources of his office.)
His defense? There was “no controlling legal authority”.
He knew the laws. It would seem that “morals” aren’t his controlling authority.
Moral cause corruption example – he “knew” what was bext & the means justified the ends
“He knew the laws. It would seem that “morals” aren’t his controlling authority.”
Oh, no, morals are not the controlling factor. “Whatever works” is what Al Gore says. That’s what every dedicated Lefty says. They all think they are on a moral crusade and if some innocent people have to suffer in gaining their goals, well, that’s the breaks. For the greater good, of course.
Although it doesn’t look very objective, the following provides some detail on the above for people who prefer text to videos: http://www.observerbd.com/details.php?id=54604
Regarding Nye saying that climate science will be able to advance once us older people die, didn’t climate science say back then that unless we did something NOW! (the back then “now”) we’d all be dead before us older dudes had a chance to die?
(or something like that)
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1070.html
In terms of “liberty and tyranny,” Al Gore and his ilk are the proponents of slavery… To them, liberty means for them ‘to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor.”
Great quote. Even if someone claims that Lincoln never said it, it remains a great statement.
PS I’ve quoted people in the past and later found out they never said it.
But, in a way, that makes the “quote” even better. The thought stands on its own. No appeal to authority. The thought is its own authority.
“I quote others only in order the better to express myself.” – Michel de Montaigne.
“[It] boiled down to a pretty simple choice between what’s right and what’s wrong.” I don’t have a Mein Kampf handy, can’t confirm that it comes from there.
“……..This is a common theme of the Left. They feel they have the moral highground on all issues. If you don’t agree with their position, that not only makes you wrong, it makes you immoral, and since you are immoral, that gives the Left permission to use any means necessary to shut you up……..”
…..Which is why facts that contradict them don’t mean anything to them. If anyone outside of climate alarmism or hard line environmental activism wants to try to understand what’s going on in activists’ heads, one needs to begin with their morality crusade. Once it becomes a morality crusade, they are incapable of being wrong in their own minds….especially when they are.
Gore is perhaps skipping over the science knowing there are too many holes in the CAGW theory and because his political opponents are never right…..especially when they are. Going straight to the morality crusade, in his mind, gives him the upper hand, and the science be damned.
No reasonably thinking person today should have a problem with slavery abolition, women’s suffrage, and the civil rights movements, among others. The problem for Gore is when he juxtaposes CAGW to those other movements. One could then arguably state that the other ones really didn’t involve science much—they were primarily social issues.
Without the technologies to replace them at this time (except for nuclear), the phasing out of fossil fuels right now is the road to hell. Morality crusaders can end up taking themselves and the rest of us down that road, and the real idiocy of doing so is that they won’t realize it until its too late and the damage has been done.
Well, Al gore’s argument is nothing more than an appeal to emotions. That’s not science.
“…ferocious resistance to the change being advocated, and in all three of those cases, there have been advocates of change that were tempted to despair,” Gore said.
The war in Vietnam comes to mind.
Ami Horowitz: How white liberals really view black voters
That clip sounds racist to me. (Well, the first part.)
Old people need to die out? Freeing slaves is the same as climate change?
Okay, in regard to that ‘dying out’ thingy: YOU FIRST, NYE, YOU WH***SON IDIOT. You go right to the head of the line. I suggest you volunteer to be first in line.
And Gore, you moronic excuse for a store window manikin — what I have to say about this jackwagon is beyond impolite.
When are they leaving for their own planet??? I will be so GLAD when they are gone!!! Then the rest of us can get back to what we were doing.
Go, Sara! 🙂
So. NOW we know where the heads went from the two in the middle …. and I think it won’t take the WUWTers long to come up with the whereabouts of the other two….
They are not planning to leave. They starved out on their own planet by limiting sane energy use to the point of either freezing or overheating 97% of the population.
This one looks familiar….
Alien: (in disguise *wink*)
Alias: John Cook
It’s interesting that in the pursuit of a cause to take away personal rights, seeks to imprison and even kill dissidents, impose global strictures that result in the confiscation of money from those that have it to those that don’t, to implement rules that hurt the most vulnerable in our society, to segregate believers and non believers whilst creating a priveledged class to preside over the masses, to give no voice to those whom you treat worse than your domestic pets. Maybe Al is right ! There may be a lot of similarities between how the elitist Warmists carry on and their counterparts did prior to the freedom of slaves.