My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading


« Dueling Hitlers | Main | Randi Rhodes' Dog Charged With Hate Crime »


Did he win because he invented the internet?

How many hanging chads where there?

I know they had to count the ballets two or three times.

Oh, will at least he can't run for President. Being God it would be a separation of church and state issue.

Friend of USA

Praise the Gore!

Save our planet oh Lord Gore!

Surrender your soul to Gore!

Adore the Gore!

More Gore!

Michael Moore and Al Gore, the messengers of the truth and more!

Encore Gore!

Friend of USA

Take a look at some of the lies some anti-Gore evil people are spreading,

... ... ... News Staff

Updated: Thu. Jul. 5 2007 2:10 PM ET

Using the world's oldest recovered DNA, a new study suggests Greenland was much warmer than previously thought during the last Ice Age and natural global warming trends may be as significant as human-induced warming.

... ... ...

From, August 29 2007,

Less Than Half of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Consensus? What consensus?

A new survey about to be published by the journal Energy and Environment finds that less than 50 percent of the scientific papers written about climate change since 2004 have endorsed the view that man's activities are causing global warming.

Think Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be discussing this tonight?

As reported by DailyTech Wednesday (emphasis added throughout):

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as [history professor Naomi] Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Think someone will be interviewing Al Gore in the next couple of days to get his view on this? Or James Hansen? Or any of the global warming alarmists?

But I digress:

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.


Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."

If we had an honest media, this would be a huge part of today's reports. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that only conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Drudge Report will view this survey as being in any way newsworthy.

What a disgrace.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

... ... ...

August 13, 2007

Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's web site and look at the "US surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48, you might notice something has changed.

Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for US temperatures. The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top Ten altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century — 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 — plummeted even lower down the Hot One Hundred. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and Oughts has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top Ten hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it.

And yet we survived.

So why is 1998 no longer America's record-breaker? Because a very diligent fellow called Steve McIntyre of labored long and hard to prove there was a bug in NASA's handling of the raw data. He then notified the scientists responsible, and received an acknowledgment that the mistake was an "oversight" that would be corrected in the next "data refresh." The reply was almost as cool as the revised chart listings.

Who is this man who understands American climate data so much better than NASA? Well, he's not even American: He's Canadian. Just another immigrant doing the jobs Americans won't do, even when they're federal public servants with unlimited budgets? No. Mr. McIntyre lives in Toronto. But the data smelled wrong to him, he found the error, and NASA has now corrected its findings — albeit without the fanfare that accompanied the hottest-year-on-record hysteria of almost a decade ago. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but, when it comes to global warming, the experts prefer to stick the thermometer where the sun don't shine.(…)

... ... ...

Global warming 'is good and is not our fault'

By Sophie Borland
Last Updated: 12:02pm BST 14/09/2007

Global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon and its effects can even be beneficial, according to two leading researchers.

Recent climate change is not caused by man-made pollution, but is instead part of a 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that has happened for the last million years, say the authors of a controversial study.

Dennis Avery, an environmental economist, and Professor Fred Singer, a physicist, have looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and concluded that it is very doubtful that man-made global warming exists.

They also say that temperature increase is actually a good thing as in the past sudden cool periods have killed twice as many people as warm spells.

[...] The authors claim that the change is not man-made because the most recent period of global warming took place between 1850 and 1940 when there were far less CO2 emissions than today.

[...] They also say that natural temperature change can be caused by fluctuations in the sun.

... ... ...

Sorry to be using almost as much space as kb but I think it is important that people learn about those facts...err...lies... I mean lies of course!

Friend of USA

One last post and then I'm going to bed,
it's almost midnight here.

... ... ...


Blog: Science NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science
Michael Asher (Blog) - September 26, 2007 11:04 AM

New issues swirl around controversial NASA branch

NASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS ... which means they must get by Hansen.

Many other scientists and agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.

Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" -- attempting to predict future events based on computer simulations.

In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling.

NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent catastrophe.

Most research papers are rather dry reading, written to be as unemotional as possible.

Not so with Hansen's reports, whose works scream alarmism even in their titles:

"Climate Catastrophe,"

"Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb,"

and "The Threat to the Planet."

Hansen was most recently in the news when an amateur blogger discovered an error in his climate data, a mistake Hansen later discounted as unimportant to the "big picture" of compelling public action on climate change.

But who is James Hansen?

Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific truth?

Or a political activist with an axe to grind?

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him.
The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern.
It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews.
Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim.

While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews.

Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right.

Science was being politicized.

By him.

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign.
OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign.

Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money.
But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science.

For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.

But the issues don't stop here.

Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry.

Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.

After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings.
That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees.
Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend.

A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.

George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"

Hansen's office did not return a request from DailyTech for an interview for this article.

... ... ...

Intellectual Conservative

Then I must be an apostate to the environmentalists ... here you go, posting #2 to p*ss off the Left ..

Al Gore ... Prince of The Environment and little animals and children ... getting off a gas guzzling private jet .. a Gulfstream from the 70s .. a MAJOR enrivohog ...

Oh, and leftards ... you can carp all you wish about Fox News being the source of this video .. but, let me ask you this one simple question .. if Fox News comes on and says 'The sun rises in the east' does that make it not true?

Enjoy ..!

@Friend of USA
So it's getting warm under Hansen and Gore's collar. And they thought is was the globe. How silly of them. Do men get hot flashes? Sounds like we now two who do.

Let me predict something. All of this news will cause an inconvenient truth to come out about the facts. Unfortunately this will distract everyone from Blaming Bush. Oh, I forgot Bush!! did cause the warming according to Larry.


GOD it'S great when a moral lefty, even if it's only a semi-moral lefty is awarded a prize which demonstrates just who are and who aren't the moral faction of humanity. I wonder just how many right-wingnuts have been going around teaching folks about how humans are destroying their planet? Yeah, it's a GOOOOOOD day! Of course if the ignorant-ass lemmings from the right have their way too much more there won't really be any more days to have to wortry about. The planet will be dead, and they'll all be happy.....I guess.

Hemp Flower

I knew global warming...i mean global climate change was real!!!!11!!!!!1 With Hollywood awards and now teh piece prize it proved it beyond a doubt!!!!!! when will the repuglathons learn with the science of a nobel peace prize global changes are real!!!!!!

Hemp Flower

i am glad to see that gore isnt a self centered rebuglathan and shared his peace prize with leonardo decrapro if we could all learn to share more there wood be no moore warz!!!!!!!!

Fist of Etiquette

Does this mean we're not allowed to show pictures of Al Gore anymore? I have to admit I'm not up on all the rules regarding idolatry.

Friend of USA

An inconvenient 75 minutes film called “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” debunks Al Gore's film ...

... ... ...

Steven Milloy March 15 2007,

In “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore disingenuously describes the relationship as “complex” while implying that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cause higher global temperatures.

But according to the geological record and data from ice cores, higher temperatures actually precede higher carbon dioxide levels by about 800 years.

Twentieth century data support this idea in at least two ways.

First, most of the 20th century’s warming occurred before 1940, while most of the century’s greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940.

Next, when manmade greenhouse gas emissions soared in the post World War II industrial boom, global temperatures declined until the mid-1970s, leading to the aforementioned global cooling concerns.

[...] as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explains on-camera [...]. By the mid-1980s, environmental goals – e.g., clean air and clean water – had become so mainstream that activists had to adopt more extreme positions to remain anti-establishment.

Then when the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, many “peace-niks” and political activists moved over to environmental activism, bringing their “neo-Marxist” political philosophy with them. As Moore puts it, environmentalism became the “new guise for anti-capitalism.”

[...] Then there’s the sun – the gigantic yellow ball in the sky that climate alarmists want all of us to ignore in favor of minute emissions of an invisible gas that makes up less than one-half of one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere.

As it turns out, solar activity – unlike atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – correlates quite well with historic temperature changes, including through its effects on cosmic rays and clouds, as the film demonstrates quite effectively.

[...] NASA scientist Roy Spencer says in the program that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding.

IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, “We have a vested interest in creating panic because money with then flow to climate scientists.”

University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that “If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs.”

[...] The film also debunks the IPCC claim that the 2,500 scientists contributing to its reports also support its alarmist conclusions.

One key IPCC ( The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ) contributor for example, the Pasteur Institute’s Paul Reiter, threatened to sue the IPCC if the group didn’t remove his name from a chapter with which he disagreed.

When I met Al Gore in January 2006 after a presentation of his climate slideshow,
I asked him if he’d be interested in setting up a public debate between climate scientists.

He declined – twice.

... ... ...

Friend of USA

Professor Stepen Schneider, (US global warming consultant)
said an inconvenient truth about global alarmists,

...On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.
And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination.
That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Friend of USA

From Oct 11 2007,

... ... ...

A [ Britain ] High Court judge has ruled that schools should not show a climate change film by former US vice-president Al Gore - unless teachers balance his one-sided views.

According to Mr Justice Burton, Mr Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth contains nine scientific errors that are not supported by mainstream scientific beliefs.

Earlier this year, the Government sent copies of the Oscar-winning film to all secondary schools as part of a teaching pack.

Kent school governor Stewart Dimmock then took the case to court, accusing the Government of “brainwashing” children with propaganda. [...]

 the real Dave

Moonbat mode off:
I wonder if he'll fly to Oslo in a private jet to pick up the award?

Moonbat mode on:

How can anyone question him now?

Hemp Flower

It was a solar/carbon credit powered plane DAVE. Git with the program!


I vote for a man powered pedal plane. Either that or one that is run by the methane he produces.


Nine scientific errors that are not validated by mainstream science? This borders on religious belief. AlGore is Gaia's prophet.

Friend of USA

Actually it is 11 yes ELEVEN !

From oct 9 2007,

... ... ...

[ British ] Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

... ... ...


Zis Mark Steyn??

“His incorrect predictions have been widely mocked. For example, Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the Guardian wrote:

“Apart from predicting that George Bush would win the 2000 presidential election in a landslide, Steyn said at regular intervals that Osama bin Laden “will remain dead”.

“Weeks after the invasion of Iraq he assured his readers that there would be “no widespread resentment at or resistance of the western military presence”;

“in December 2003 he wrote that “another six weeks of insurgency sounds about right, after which it will peter out”;

“and the following March he insisted that: “I don’t think it’s possible for anyone who looks at Iraq honestly to see it as anything other than a success story.”


“He has been accused of “Steynwalling”, meaning refusal to acknowledge errors

“Later, in a review of America Alone, Hari accused Steyn of “raw racism”, pointing to a passage which he argues shows Steyn to be celebrating the birth of ‘white’ babies over those of other ethnicities.

“He also states that Steyn “describes as ‘correct’ a friend who talks about ‘beturbanned prophet-monkeys’” and goes on to say that “for [Steyn], culture is merely a thinly veiled homologue for race.”

“He is scornful of the United Nations, advocating either United States withdrawal from the organization or its complete disbandment.

“Steyn hosted The Rush Limbaugh Show on August 24, 2006. He referred to Vietnamese communists as “gooks” when comparing the Vietnam and Iraq wars …

“He frequently lampoons environmentalists and mocks people he regards as “global warming alarmists”.

“In a post on Mclean’s website dated 19 July 2007, Steyn stated that he had also left the Sun-Times during the course of the trial of Conrad Black when the paper “yanked” a column of his defending Black."

Is zame veirdo???

Friend of USA

Michael Moore makes a film full of lies, the left calls it a documentary and gives him awards.

Al Gore makes a film full of lies, the left calls it a documentary and gives him awards.

The main stream media - while ignoring any voice on the right exposing those lies - bends over backwards to help spread the lies of Moore and Gore, then receives awards for it.

Anyone who is successful at bashing the right ( or the Bush,the USA or Israel ) with lies receives either a Nobel prize or a Pullitzer prize.

Without lies there would be nothing left of the left.

Friend of USA

Ok so Mark Steyn was wrong on a few predictions and may have made a few mistakes,
so he is human !
and as far as I know he did not lie,


Only leftists get Nobel , Hollywood, Cane Film festival and Pullitzer prizes for intentionally deceiving, for spreading their propaganda, for brainwashing people with films or books full of lies.

Did Mark Steyn receive an Awards for being wrong on the lenght of the Iraq war?


Then why is Al Gore receiving awards for a film full of lies or if you prefer " scientific impossibilities and innacuracies "?

some on the right are wrong and some even lie


only the left REWARDS leftist liars for succesfully spreading their lies.

Eleven scientific innacuracies or impossibilities in a so-called " documentary " should disqualify Al Gore, in fact his two awards should be taken from him.

Or they should rename his awards,

"the Nobel successful liar prize"


'Anyone who is successful at bashing the right ... receives either a Nobel prize or a Pullitzer prize.'

Zey mus be doing zomzing correct!!

Intellectual Conservative

Leftist 'logic'

Let's forget the eleven distinct areas that Al Gore's movie either a> presented as fact things for which there were no proof or b> downright lied

Let's forget Gore doesn't even believe his own message .. hence him flying around in a private jet

Let's forget all that and attack Mark Steyn

Here's a clue, leftards .. If Mark Steyn or Fox News or George Bush or myself or anyone else you hate make the claim that 'the sun rises in the east' it doesn't make it untrue.


'brainwashing people with films or books full of lies'

Yur poeple does ze brainvashing. Mark Steyn, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Fox ... et cetera. I hav read about zem - all ov zem veirdos.

And big lies here ... on zis zite. I hav see zem on other subgect ... down 2.

Ze 'left' dont zay ze Sun rize anyvere else only in ze east, silly person!!

And IF somone post mark steyn, nobody kan attak mark steyn? - vy??? you attak gore, yes?


I zee you poeple attak ozer poeple's sources all ze time!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From