Michelle Malkin » Limousine liberal video of the day: Gore and his gas-guzzling fans exposed!; Update: What global warming consensus?

Limousine liberal video of the day: Gore and his gas-guzzling fans exposed!; Update: What global warming consensus?

By Michelle Malkin • July 17, 2008 09:03 PM

Update: Top news this morning…”The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming ‘incontrovertible.’”

Update: A clarification from APS about its stand:

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

***

You’re going to love this video from Americans for Prosperity, whose staff caught eco-hypocrisy on full display at Al Gore’s big energy sermon in Washington, D.C. earlier today.

Ed Frank writes: “We’re back from Al Gore’s big global warming speech, and boy did we have a great time! We had a dedicated band of taxpayer advocates out in force, pointing out the high economic cost of global warming alarmism – starting with $8 a gallon gasoline. Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy — especially the fact that Gore didn’t ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn’t even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore’s wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!”

Enjoy the spectacle and be sure to watch the very end:

Gulfstream libs following in their hugetastic carbon footprint-bearing Goracle:

Do as they say…

Posted in: Al Gore, Enviro-nitwits

Printer Friendly

comments (189)

trackbacks (27)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#381093

On July 19th, 2008 at 11:38 pm, Dimsdale said:

On July 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm, ggchuck said:

The link I labeled as “Part of Monckton’s letter to the American Physical Society:” is actually a link to the entire letter. The header was intended to address the quoted text, not the link.

Sorry for any confusion.

No problem! Thank you for the link. The following paragraph is like poetry (to me anyway), delivering several subtle yet unmistakable scientific slaps to the face that, in another time, would surely have resulted in a duel:

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to
it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text
to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and
ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings
were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of
the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated
or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific
justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo,
that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had;
secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific
grounds (if any)?

This is a man with whom you would not like to be in a war of words. The verbal slaps were delivered like Bruce Lee delivered kicks to the solar plexus.
#381097

On July 19th, 2008 at 11:48 pm, Dimsdale said:

On July 19th, 2008 at 11:32 pm, chapoutier said:

the insufferable Alec Baldwin.

How dare you disparage the most talented of all the Baldwins!

That speaks for itself! LOL!

Now I am going to look up that movie on Ebay…
#381458

On July 21st, 2008 at 2:09 am, scottthong said:

Monckton isn’t taking the lies and betrayal lying down.
#381761

On July 21st, 2008 at 11:45 am, corkie said:

On July 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pm, lgm said:

Starting where I am now, it would take me at least a year (more likely two) working full time (no teaching, grad students, committees, …) to become enough of an expert to have an independent technical opinion of the science. That’s why I rely on the experts.

Wow! A whole year working full time?

lgm, I admire your honesty about how far behind you are in your understanding of the AGW theory.
#381766

On July 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am, ggchuck said:

On July 21st, 2008 at 2:09 am, scottthong said: [#184]

Monckton isn’t taking the lies and betrayal lying down.

Thanks for the link. It’s too bad that meat of this issue is lost at the end of a thread that is not only split in topics but begins with a false assumption that misrepresents the position of the American Physical Society.

The APS is the initial victim in this flap. Unfortunately, their response was inappropriate, inaccurate/misleading, and grossly unfair to Lord Monckton.
#382339

On July 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm, ggchuck said:

I hate to beat a dead horse, and I’m probably the only one reading this old stale threat, but I felt the need to review how I perceive the events on this fiasco.

1 – The American Physical Society accepted a paper for publication in its newsletter that draws a conclusion that is different than the official position of the Society. The APS should be commended for this as it shows willingness to address debate on a very important subject.

2- The Daily Tech ran an article that erroneously claimed that the APS had changed its stance, not just allowed a dissenting opinion be presented.

3- In a knee-jerk reaction, the APS quickly sought to minimize the false interpretation of their official stance. Part of that reaction was the inclusion of a rude, disparaging, and misleading disclaimer on the paper itself. The unfortunate victim of this response is Lord Monckton, the author of the paper.

4- Probably in response to an indignant letter by Lord Monckton, the APS revised the note on the article itself to a reasoned indication of the paper’s value and reiterated that the APS official position had not changed.

5- The villain in this mess: The Daily Tech. Not only did they allow an article to be headlined with a falsehood, their response was minimal. They added a discrete disclaimer at the end of the article where they mention the APS denial.

6- As of July 21, The Daily Tech still allows the headline to stand and the first sentence to stand unchanged and unchallenged. If they are hesitant to change text, they should still provide a very prominent correction so anyone reading the article is informed that it is false (as Michelle did). As it stands, I still see links to the article (even from Rush’s page).

Geeze, I hate it when conservatives behave like liberals.
#382362

On July 21st, 2008 at 8:40 pm, corkie said:

Well summarized and good conclusion, ggchuck.
#442339

On September 5th, 2008 at 5:15 pm, Baltimore Jack said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080905/lf_afp/switzerlandarchaeologyclimatewarming

The left sometimes forgets to pick up after themselves. In their zeal to champion “global worming” (intentional) as caused by evil modern achievers (aka Americans), they inadvertently refute the lie with contrarian evidence in the same article. Never let the facts get in the way of a good cause, right MM?

…They have allowed researchers not only to piece together snapshots of life way back when, but also to shed light on climate fluctuations in the past 6,500 years — and hopefully shed light on what is happening now.
“For us, the site itself is the most important find because we have this correlation between climate change and archaeological objects,” Hafner said.
“We know that people were only able to walk on this site when it was relatively warm,” said Martin Grosjean, executive director of a national network called Swiss Climate Research. “When it was too cold, the glacier advanced and it was not a passable route.