Trouble for Gore?

[Express]

If this is true....could be trouble for Gore's 08 run. Takes away his only plank;
Russian scientist predicts global cooling
MOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060825-091321-7556r

[xero]

Well he makes an interesting assertion, but there's something very important to notice here.

He seems to be ignoring is Gore's (and most other scientists') claim that global warming (or some measurable nature) is happening, and that we are responsible for it through our environmentally unfriendly industrial, consumer, and commercial actions and lifestyles.

The technology that is responsible for the damage we're doing to the planet has only existed for the last 200 years at the most.

It's hard to make a claim that a small chill we had 500-600 years ago will happen again right on que (based on information from 500-600 years ago), even though we've drastically altered the environment on this planet in the last couple centuries. Especially when you consider that 500-600 years ago, the environment as a whole was not really that different than 500-600 years before that in terms of man made technologies' influences on the planet.

[agi|e]

Seems unlikely that 1 issue is going to derail his campaign. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over someone like George Bush.

[Insolence]

Doesn't matter, he can't beat Kerry, Clinton, or Warner (my pick, and favorite candidate in the presumed field) in the primary.

So yeah, go Al go. whatever.

[bergenhell]

ned lamont would be the best democratic presidential candidate and it will not happen in 08.

as for this fuckstick scientist, he's an idiot. he probably believes the world is flat too.

seriously though, this makes 1 scientist who doesn't believe in global warming, out of millions.

[dook]

gore is the only person that would have even a prayer of beating clinton in the primaries. purely a fund-raising thing.

i'm not sure which one i'd vote for.

[Scorcher]

does he really believe earth is now at the hottest it has ever been?

[Stayne]

The technology that is responsible for the damage we're doing to the planet has only existed for the last 200 years at the most.

It's hard to make a claim that a small chill we had 500-600 years ago will happen again right on que (based on information from 500-600 years ago), even though we've drastically altered the environment on this planet in the last couple centuries. Especially when you consider that 500-600 years ago, the environment as a whole was not really that different than 500-600 years before that in terms of man made technologies' influences on the planet.

well said.

Also.. Gore has made no statement on intent on running for office. He has turned down the possibility every time he's been asked (that i've seen). He hasn't even left it open in a "time will tell" kind of way. He has said that he feels like he can serve the public better in his current position than in the White House. Dunno if that means he won't run or not, but I'd say it is doubtful.

If he does run, maybe the old Republican myth that Gore claimed to have created the internet will be put to rest. Eh.. prolly not.

[MV8]

well said.

Also.. Gore has made no statement on intent on running for office.

If he does run, maybe the old Republican myth that Gore claimed to have created the internet will be put to rest. Eh.. prolly not.



He may not have invented it, but he sure as hell did say it...

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,18390,00.html

[Insolence]

gore is the only person that would have even a prayer of beating clinton in the primaries. purely a fund-raising thing.

i'm not sure which one i'd vote for.


Fact is that in the last yeah Mark Warner has raised 8 million dollars, more than any other candidate. I'm calling it a year out of the primary much like i called Karry months before Iowa. Warner is the man, just watch.

[VeeKaChu]

Why even worry about Gore, Clinton, et.al.,? As long as the Repugnicans (and their Neocon masters) control the voting infrastructure and the MSM, they'll put whomever they please in charge. (http://www.blackboxvoting.org)

[Zogo]

Takes away his only plank;

any politician can invent more planks anytime they want.

at this point I don't trust politicians/governments with science..while politicians are patting themselves on the back they're still screwing the environment and they don't even know it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_on_sc/ozone_global_warming this is another example of mass confusion.

[agi|e]

Why even worry about Gore, Clinton, et.al.,? As long as the Repugnicans (and their Neocon masters) control the voting infrastructure and the MSM, they'll put whomever they please in charge. (http://www.blackboxvoting.org)

I think you are right but I'm hoping you are wrong. The electronic voting is just asking for trouble. Go old style paper ballots FTW. Then in a close race you have the possibility of a verifiable accurate recount.

[Stayne]

or have the electronic voting machines also print out an ongoing log of the results on something like ticker tape. If they had done this the 2004 election "errors" could have been caught.

[dook]

Fact is that in the last yeah Mark Warner has raised 8 million dollars, more than any other candidate. I'm calling it a year out of the primary much like i called Karry months before Iowa. Warner is the man, just watch.

I think Warner would make a great president, but he's not anywhere close to the lead in fundraising. And sadly that's what's going to count.

[Zogo]

I think you are right but I'm hoping you are wrong. The electronic voting is just asking for trouble. Go old style paper ballots FTW. Then in a close race you have the possibility of a verifiable accurate recount.

paper ballots aren't that hard to get rid of..but going computer they can all be erased with the flip of a switch.

[Stayne]

Go old style paper ballots FTW. Then in a close race you have the possibility of a verifiable accurate recount.

Unfortunately this elicits a phrase to my mind: "hanging chad"


The paper trail and recounts didn't fix the mess in 2000. Recounts gave the vote to Gore, but we still have Mr. Slumpy. Electronic voting fraud sealed it for him in 2004. It kinda suggests that those in power want to fix voting, but not in the way we all mean. We want to make sure our votes count the way we voted, they want our votes to count for them. Its worked great for them the last two major elections, why change?

[larcain]

Unfortunately this elicits a phrase to my mind: "hanging chad"


The paper trail and recounts didn't fix the mess in 2000. Recounts gave the vote to Gore, but we still have Mr. Slumpy. Electronic voting fraud sealed it for him in 2004. It kinda suggests that those in power want to fix voting, but not in the way we all mean. We want to make sure our votes count the way we voted, they want our votes to count for them. Its worked great for them the last two major elections, why change?


Geez. You folks just continue to make this stuff up out of whole cloth. There were numerous recounts of the stupid ballots in Florida. By multiple news agencies and such and only in the most ridiculously generous criterium to Gore did any of the recounts indicate that he would have won.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

The line that is funny in there is "may have been intending to vote for Gore but failed to...". Now, that is funny. And fairly instructive. Only folks too stupid to even be capable of punching a chad would vote for Gore. I love the "MAY have been intending" psychic prediction stuff. "Yessssss, we can discern their intent via tea leaves".

As far as the "electronic fraud" stuff, after a recount, Bush won Ohio by more than that 118,00 votes. Unless you can show me evidence, no--not antecdotal, no-- not some left wing idiot blog, evidence of tampering, then I'm just going to assume your complaints belong to the usual tinfoil hat department.

Incidentally, I guess you might say that those evil republicans were just too smart to get caught, as opposed to those idiots in Wisconsin working for the DNC who were caught slashing tires of Republican staff.

[xero]

As far as the "electronic fraud" stuff, after a recount, Bush won Ohio by more than that 118,00 votes. Unless you can show me evidence, no--not antecdotal, no-- not some left wing idiot blog, evidence of tampering, then I'm just going to assume your complaints belong to the usual tinfoil hat department.

Incidentally, I guess you might say that those evil republicans were just too smart to get caught, as opposed to those idiots in Wisconsin working for the DNC who were caught slashing tires of Republican staff.As usual, you lack the the dual cynicism needed to deal with politics in this country.

Just remember: One day, Michael Moore (or some other left-wing wacko) may own all the paperless electronic voting machines used in presidential elections. Or Republican disenfranchisement of Democrat voters may grow so brazen and out of control (just like their pork-barreling and K-Street lobbying) that it becomes impossible to hide it, signaling the end of the party as a legitimate piece of democracy.

I somehow get the feeling "C'mon...trust us Dems" won't be good enough for you then.

[larcain]

Riiiiight

What I should do is spend energy and time speculating on the possible ramification of POSSIBLE infractions in voting system regulations. As opposed to SEEING that Democrats were CONVICTED of crimes resulting from overt attempts to quell the republican vote. Yep. Those deserve equal cynicism and consideration.

[Outflow]

im going to get banned from the academy for this, but hey if i gave a fuck i wouldn't say it. larcain... you have continually showed that youre on a level with stas; that is to say completely lost in a pit of arrogance/ignorance. the thing is you'll never ever admit it. you never ever made a post that showed you looked at both sides of an issue; always with a laughably biased opinion that shows what an idiot you are. im glad there are people like xero who can cut you down with minimal effort. for christs sake man (you should agree with me on that lol) just try to put yourself in other people's shoes for once. i promise your eyes may actually open.

[MightyCawdoR]

im going to get banned from the academy for this, but hey if i gave a fuck i wouldn't say it. larcain... you have continually showed that youre on a level with stas; that is to say completely lost in a pit of arrogance/ignorance. the thing is you'll never ever admit it. you never ever made a post that showed you looked at both sides of an issue; always with a laughably biased opinion that shows what an idiot you are. im glad there are people like xero who can cut you down with minimal effort. for christs sake man (you should agree with me on that lol) just try to put yourself in other people's shoes for once. i promise your eyes may actually open.

And I'd be willing to bet that those who think different than you, think you are just as you've described them in your post. Everyone here has an opinion and very rarely does anything anyone posts here change anyone's opinion.

[larcain]

im going to get banned from the academy for this, but hey if i gave a fuck i wouldn't say it. larcain... you have continually showed that youre on a level with stas; that is to say completely lost in a pit of arrogance/ignorance. the thing is you'll never ever admit it. you never ever made a post that showed you looked at both sides of an issue; always with a laughably biased opinion that shows what an idiot you are. im glad there are people like xero who can cut you down with minimal effort. for christs sake man (you should agree with me on that lol) just try to put yourself in other people's shoes for once. i promise your eyes may actually open.

Gee, that stings. And I had so much respect for your obvious intellect.

[King_Nada]

I didn't know outflow was mormon.

oh dang you for editing your post larc, now my line is worthless!!

[larcain]

Nah, I still love ya KN. Was a nice twist :D

[Express]

He seems to be ignoring is Gore's (and most other scientists') claim that global warming (or some measurable nature) is happening, and that we are responsible for it through our environmentally unfriendly industrial, consumer, and commercial actions and lifestyles.

What I love about this point of view is the adamant stance that this is settled science. In fact there is gowing discussion that there are flaws in the climate models that most of the research is based on.

The ocean is a huge tub that integrates and stores long-term climate changes. Consequently, when computer models are based on ever-increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, the deep oceans warm, warm, and warm. Like a big pot on a small burner, it takes time to start up, but once the process starts, nothing should be able to stop it.

That's the conventional wisdom of our climate models, but like the conventional wisdom on so many other aspects of life, it's not true to nature.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10273

Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

I remember a recent discourse with Cain over this;
http://forums.thecatacombs.net/showthread.php?t=87280

There's alot of shit in there that I am not going to hash over again.
Suffice for me to say that I am not convinced that our contibution is enough to upset what I see as a normal planetary cycle.
This is what they will say:

“We always said that there was uncertainty in the climate system and our only goal is to try and decrease that uncertainty to avoid future calamity. This recent downturn in globally averaged temperatures shows that we were right all along about the atmosphere’s volatility, and points out that the future is now more precarious than ever!

It is absolutely vital that we immediately double the funding for man-made climate change research, so we can better understand this complexity and attempt to avoid the otherwise inevitable destruction of the planet. In the meantime, it is absolutely vital that all nations show their support by immediately signing on to the (insert draconian regulatory document name here) Protocol!

Those who would argue against such steps obviously don’t even care about the well-being of their own grandchildren and should be summarily ignored! Thank you!”

(This was an attempt to be amusing, but now I think it may be more prophetic than I intended! We shall see!)

Comment by Jim Clarke — July 28, 2006

[xero]

What I should do is spend energy and time speculating on the possible ramification of POSSIBLE infractions in voting system regulations.The Framers intended for extremely high amounts of public skepticism in this country. That's why they threw a shitload of tea into Boston Harbor and shot a bunch of Redcoats (both acts of terrorism by today's standards). You should always prepare for externalities. That's why our government has a magical thing called checks and balances.

That especially includes when the party [you happen to support] controls all three branches of government, uses electronic voting machines with no paper trails to hold elections on the state and federal level, and is mired in corruption scandals (see: Congress, defense contracting), bad public policy (see: Terry Schaivo, tying minimum wage with killing the Estate Tax, lowering taxes in the middle of a hugely expensive war), and incompetency (foreign policy, taxes, domestic spending), and dishonesty (lying about rationale for a war, lying about nature of tax cuts, lying about nature of prescription drug benefit, lying about nature of [thankfully failed] attempt at privatizing social security).

All this on top of their ridiculous priorities associated with Christianity, which are particularly destructive to our nations education, health, and social cohesion.

If you really feeling being an apologist for all that, go right ahead.

Just remember that also means that while you may support paperless electronic voting machines now, you sure as shit won't like them when politics pendulum swings back the other way (and it always does) and the Democrats control every aspect of public policy for 20 years.

As opposed to SEEING that Democrats were CONVICTED of crimes resulting from overt attempts to quell the republican vote. Yep. Those deserve equal cynicism and consideration.Seeing what now? Got a source? While I won't dispute that both parties are equally responsible for such corrupted practicies, I won't make excuses for the one I happen to favor by saying "HE STARTED IT." Though it would do you well to remember it was a conservative Andrew Jackson that invented the Spoils System, and that it was conservatives like Strom Thurmond who disenfranchised (and terrorized) black voters. Those are two accomplishments I've yet to see liberals copycat to any degree. If you can think of any, I'd like to hear about them.

They're both full of corrupt, logrolling assholes who have vested interest only in keeping their seats uncontested and raising their pay every year (which works out to 16% net since the last minimum wage increase) while claiming they're trying to help the poor and that they 'relate' and 'understand.' Your undying polarized Fox-News-style support makes this situation perpetuate.

They're both wrong. No exceptions. No excuses. They both deserve equal and heavy amounts of cynicism. Anything less makes you a partisan tool.

[xero]

What I love about this point of view is the adamant stance that this is settled science. In fact there is gowing discussion that there are flaws in the climate models that most of the research is based on.This is a case of "If you repeat the truth over and over again, it begins to sink in, and helps to catapult the propaganda" (real Bush quote, by the way).

It was settled science until a small sect of the scientific community started seeing if they could shout us into controversy. This is just like that crock of shit Intelligent Design. It's not science. There is no dispute. My step-father is an [extremely conservative Republican] heat-transfer engineering professor at the University of Houston who has spent countless thousands of hours studying the subject, and even he thinks the idea that there is a global warming 'controversy' is fucking funny.

There's alot of shit in there that I am not going to hash over again.
Suffice for me to say that I am not convinced that our contibution is enough to upset what I see as a normal planetary cycle.And that's your choice -- and I hope you're right.

I'd much rather be wrong on a debate over global warming on a TFC internet forum, and not watch the Earth flood and millions of people die.

But just to be reasonable, I think I'm going to listen to what all those scientists say.

[larcain]

Seeing what now? Got a source? /wiki/Gwen_Moore
As a tribute to Term, I'll post a wiki link :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Moore

Moore is single and has three children. A son, Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde, aged 26, was arrested in connection with the November 2, 2004 (election day), tire-slashing of Republican party vehicles in Milwaukee; he was charged with a felony in connection with the event on January 24, 2005

As far as your "especially when..." statement. Where exactly is that even implied in the founding docs?
And your opinion of corruption of a party is fairly interesting. Your idea is that a part that thinks that creating an environment in business that lends itself to job creation is corrupt? That thinks that innocent human life is valuable, is currupt? That interpets accepted intelligence that same way every other goverment and intelligence org. does, is corrupt? That recognizes that our system of social security is doomed, is corrupt?

This is the kinda stuff that drives me crazy with you left wing guys. While I disagree with your opinion about all of the above stuff, I don't attribute it to you being stupid or to you being corrupt. I simply disagree with your approach. That's all. Opinions VARY. Theories VARY. You guys seem to assume that every one who disagrees with you is either stupid or corrupt. Man, I don't want to call you names, but that is just about as arrogant as you can get and all by itself is myopic. Outflow earlier accused me of being ignorant simply because I don't think his (or your) theory of a conspiracy holds water. Both of you automatically assume that this is because I'm myopic, biased, or just plain stupid. How 'bout I just disagree?

As far as political parties. I hate them both. But I normally vote for the guy I figure is going to hurt the country the least in the long run. Based on my theory of how our goverment should be run. And you guys have "Sheets" Bird so, you don't have much room to talk about Thurman.Be kinda nice to actually vote for somebody for a change instead of against somebody.

[Zogo]

What I should do is spend energy and time speculating on the possible ramification of POSSIBLE infractions in voting system regulations.

possible? you know the next clinton is right around the corner right?

As far as the "electronic fraud" stuff, after a recount, Bush won Ohio by more than that 118,00 votes. Unless you can show me evidence, no--not antecdotal, no-- not some left wing idiot blog, evidence of tampering, then I'm just going to assume your complaints belong to the usual tinfoil hat department.

was this story ever resolved?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/evoting/2004-11-06-ohio-evote-trouble_x.htm

[VeeKaChu]

As far as the "electronic fraud" stuff, after a recount, Bush won Ohio by more than that 118,00 votes. Unless you can show me evidence, no--not antecdotal, no-- not some left wing idiot blog, evidence of tampering, then I'm just going to assume your complaints belong to the usual tinfoil hat department.The evidence is in the link in my post. It's not a "left-wing blog". It's a non-partisan accumulation of evidence and articles relating to irregularities in the electronic voting field. It's extremely dense and documented, and the number of irregularities and infractions that are examined and dissected and under litigation is truly staggering, if you'd bother to look.

Vote fraud is not a partisan issue. Discussions of it, given the tremendous amount of evidence, should interest citizens of all faiths and parties. However, when it's used to exclusion by one party over another then it's fair to assume that proponents of that ruling party will naturally dissmiss it out of hand, and the fact that the so-called "liberal media" overwhelmingly ignores it speaks volumes about where their loyalties actually lay.

However, I do take solace from the knowledge that the apologists for our current criminal government are also having their own rights stripped and their own hard-earned dollars wasted/stolen, as surely as the rest of us.

[Express]

The evidence is in the link in my post. It's not a "left-wing blog". It's a non-partisan accumulation of evidence and articles relating to irregularities in the electronic voting field. It's extremely dense and documented, and the number of irregularities and infractions that are examined and dissected and under litigation is truly staggering, if you'd bother to look.

Vote fraud is not a partisan issue. Discussions of it, given the tremendous amount of evidence, should interest citizens of all faiths and parties. However, when it's used to exclusion by one party over another then it's fair to assume that proponents of that ruling party will naturally dissmiss it out of hand, and the fact that the so-called "liberal media" overwhelmingly ignores it speaks volumes about where their loyalties actually lay.

However, I do take solace from the knowledge that the apologists for our current criminal government are also having their own rights stripped and their own hard-earned dollars wasted/stolen, as surely as the rest of us.
All this vote crap came to a head in Ohio, This is a recent story about what happened:
What really irks Kerry and the Democratic conspiracy theorists is that President Bush defeated Kerry in Ohio by 119,000 votes, largely because Bush increased his percentage of the black vote there from 9% in 2000 to 16% in 2004.
If there were any problems, such as long lines and insufficient voting machines, they were in districts controlled by Democrats, where the "suppression" occurred. Even Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer, appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball," admitted:

"I have not seen any evidence there was fraud."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=241830060806080

[VeeKaChu]

Repeating now, go the the site that I linked and look at it. It's got information about Ohio, certainly, but it also has information about every state where E-voting occurs. Ohio is only a small part of the problem.

But again, if your comfortable with a system of voting that is known to be poorly administered, has no security oversight, as well as admitted "back-doors", with records kept in clear-text in administratively accessible databases, then you deserve to have your government stolen from you.

It is not a partisan issue. It concerns every citizen. Everyone needs to know that their elections are no longer "free", but utterly compromised, and speak out about it.

[MV8]

Repeating now, go the the site that I linked and look at it. It's got information about Ohio, certainly, but it also has information about every state where E-voting occurs. Ohio is only a small part of the problem.

But again, if your comfortable with a system of voting that is known to be poorly administered, has no security oversight, as well as admitted "back-doors", with records kept in clear-text in administratively accessible databases, then you deserve to have your government stolen from you.

It is not a partisan issue. It concerns every citizen. Everyone needs to know that their elections are no longer "free", but utterly compromised, and speak out about it.


The site does seem to be political party free. I looked for a slant, and did not find it.

Howerver, in my warped view of the political world, our elections have never been free, and they have always been compromised. The Chicago addage of "vote early and often" is not something that just happened. The ability of someone to stuff ballet boxes, miscount ballets, disallowing ballets etc, has been happening for decades, if not for a century plus decades. This might be the newest form of it, but it sure as hell is not the only version of it...

We need secure voting. We need to show ID when voting, and we should get a some form of a auditable record that we initialize as correct, after we cast our vote. However, there are those who fear reforming(cleaning up) the process, because just possibly, they achieved power because of the dirt...


(can you beleive it, I agreed with Veek on something...)

[Zogo]

maybe if the ballot people had to count in public at gunpoint it'd help.


anyway back to gore..what was he doing at the MTV awards last night..just dropping in to talk about global warming? that was odd.