Gore Told Convenient Lies on Larry King
Larry King had Al Gore on his program last night, an the topic was of course, global warming. Al had a problem telling the truth:
KING: Could you have done more with President Clinton on this?
GORE: Well, I have to say that I don’t know of a time when he did not take my advice on this. With the Kyoto Treaty I wanted to push for ratification but I have to say that it was perfectly reasonable for him to say “Look, our congressional relations people tell us there is no support for it there” and I personally tried. I could only convince one Senator out of all 100 to say that he or she would definitely vote to ratify it.
So, no, you know, in every single weekly luncheon that I had with the president this was right at the top of my list and we did a lot of great things and we did get the Kyoto Treaty, even if we couldn’t convince the Senate to ratify it. And we had a Republican Congress to deal with after 1994 that made it rough going.
Funny, how he can’t quite remember what really happened!
Chatterbox can pinpoint the date when it became clear that the previous administration had given up trying to do anything about global warming. It was June 15, 1993″less than six months after Bill Clinton and his environmentally conscious vice president, Al Gore, took office. Clinton had already tried and failed to get a BTU tax, based on the heat content of fuel, through a still-Democratic Congress. (The BTU tax was and remains the most effective measure the U.S. government could adopt to combat global warming.) In an April 21 Earth Day speech, Clinton had pledged to reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. On June 15, Chatterbox, then a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, sat down for an interview with Susan Tierney, the Energy Department’s assistant secretary for policy. Tierney, an important member of an interagency group that was figuring out how to meet Clinton’s pledge, said that this group was considering the option of allowing U.S. companies to count as reductions of “U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions” carbon and other greenhouse gases spouted by their factories overseas. Although reducing overseas emissions was in many respects smart environmental policy”they were much “dirtier” than plants at home”counting these emissions toward the fulfillment of Clinton’s domestic pledge revealed that pledge to be an empty one. When the decade ended, domestic U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions were about 12 percent above 1990 levels.
KING: Your administration had the chance to get bin Laden, didn’t they?
GORE: Yes, and we tried.
KING: You don’t look back and say should have, would have, could have, we had a chance, we missed?
GORE: We did miss. But we tried. We tried. And I think it’s a legitimate question. As president Clinton has said to go back and examine what we could have done better. We tried. We were focused on it intently. And understand that the scope of that threat was beginning to increase toward the end of our term in office, and when the new administration came in we all said to them, look, this needs to be your number one priority. And we went — we actually took several shots at trying to get him and trying to kill him.
Really? Um let’s take a look at how they expressed this to the Bush Administration:
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress ” 45,000 words long ” makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times. The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an “urgent” threat, while President Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, “ignored” it.
The Clinton document, titled “A National Security Strategy for a Global Age,” is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke’s testimony and new book.
I wonder if he mended the fence in his home state?
June 14, 2006 - 10:42 PM on June 14th, 2006
nothing new here
ops:
June 15, 2006 - 07:52 AM on June 15th, 2006
AL GORE can best stop this rediclous GLOBAL WARMING poppycock by keeping his big fat flapping piehole shut it would be a great way to cut down on all that HOT AIR that he and his earth worshipping eco-freaks can do:razz:
June 15, 2006 - 09:13 AM on June 15th, 2006
I think ole’ Al is under the false impression people have forgotten what really happened under the Clinton regime.
This potty mouthed nitwit should retreat and withdraw. He’s an embarassment to us all.
June 16, 2006 - 10:04 AM on June 16th, 2006
From debunkers.org:
Al Gore worries the world’s getting hot,
And all over the globe he will trot,
Warmly warning the masses
About grave greenhouse gases
Caused by people who travel a lot.
- F.R. Duplantier
Another relevant read:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
June 18, 2006 - 02:47 AM on June 18th, 2006
King should have asked Ecofraud Gore about his zinc mine that has been polluting the Cumberland River while Gore has collected royalties for years.
Oh, but that’s ok, Gore gets a pass, because he’s a Liberal/Leftist and he means well!
June 18, 2006 - 10:57 AM on June 18th, 2006
How can you tell a southern liberal Democrat is lying? His lips are moving. Whatever happened to the Democratic party of JFK, Zell Miller, and Harry Truman? Men with the character to not have their hands in other people’s pockets simply to line their own.
June 18, 2006 - 11:12 AM on June 18th, 2006
FAO, the democrat party has sold out to recycled communism. They will stop at nothing, including sedition and treason to achieve their goal. Their time will come.
June 18, 2006 - 02:08 PM on June 18th, 2006
Al Gore is out of his mind he should go and check into the hopital for the enviromentaly insane SCREW TREE HUGGERS:razz:
May 23, 2007 - 04:20 AM on May 23rd, 2007
It’s sad to see people fail to see the forest from the trees. Or in this case, they fail to see the facts and real dangers becuase their herd-mentality and party loyalty.
Global warming is a real threat and I can’t believe some of you still think it’s a political issue.
The planet is falling apart and it’s time to stop it.
May 24, 2007 - 12:22 PM on May 24th, 2007
Now isn’t the time anymore for personal attacks from EITHER side of the aisle. It isn’t time anymore for the blame game either.
We have three looming problems as a country. Al Qaeda (Osama is still alive), IRAQ (separate problem Al Qaeda sure isn’t in IRAQ), and Global Warming.
If there is 10% probability that global warming will come true, but it will only take 0.5% of “Insurance” to prevent it from happening, will you buy this insurance?
May 24, 2007 - 02:02 PM on May 24th, 2007
Harrison Troll Bot,
No Sale. Go back to Algore and tell him to go to Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig. You’d be doing more good than peddling the snake oil and loaded propositions you are now.
May 24, 2007 - 02:10 PM on May 24th, 2007
Again with the personal attacks. Please address the actual issues and move forward in finding a solution.
May 24, 2007 - 02:41 PM on May 24th, 2007
Harrison bot,
AlQaeda is in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. They can’t be dealt with, only killed.
The Global Warming scam is just that by watermelons such as yourself who chicken little and try to convince the US to go to a 3rd world lifestyle, while the 2nd and 3rd worlds are trying to adopt the successful US model in everything. You don’t make sense. Therefore the solution is to ignore fools like you.
May 24, 2007 - 03:12 PM on May 24th, 2007
I try to keep my mind open and not be so sure of myself. We are all on the same side. We are all Americans. We all want to see our country better and stronger.
Please tell me why I should believe what you say about global warming. Recent poll says that 90% of scientists (who probably have much more education than both you are I) think that global warming is LIKELY (>75%).
Explain to me why you are right, despite what these scientists from across the world say.
Finally, PDC. What do you personally believe the probability of Global Warming is true is? Personally I think the probability that it is true is 66%.
May 25, 2007 - 06:48 AM on May 25th, 2007
Harrison bot,
First, being rudderless is not a virtue. Not having convictions or any groundings disqualifies you from being at all someone serious.
A poll and consensus is not science. It was consensus and a poll that said that the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe when Galileo and Copernicus were citing scientific observation to dispute the official dictums. Harrison. you are a lemming following the crowd going over the cliff.
I believe that GW is just part of a cycle. It is affected by the orbit of the Earth, sunspots and solar activity to name a few major factors that happen not to be under man’s control.
Fools like you can’t grasp that there are natural variables that man has no control over that have more effect on the global temperature than cows farting or whether or not John Kerry drives a SUV.
May 25, 2007 - 11:01 AM on May 25th, 2007
PCD, it is you who is rudderless and do not accept inputs from the people around you. May you drift forever in your own self righteousness.
May 25, 2007 - 11:33 AM on May 25th, 2007
Harrison bot,
To quote you, “I try to keep my mind open and not be so sure of myself.” That is the quote from a person who is rudderless.
The rest of #16, is just a juvenile intellect striking back because you can’t refute anything I said in #15.
May 25, 2007 - 11:40 AM on May 25th, 2007
PCD. By the looks of it, you know more about global warming than thousands of scientists who have spent decades of their lives in research. Your defense for your own position is as flimsy as your logic.
I am willing to hear your logic, but if your logic is basically… “I am right.” There is not much to hear.
May 25, 2007 - 11:59 AM on May 25th, 2007
18, my logic is sound. Consensus is not science. You can’t be honest and say that it is. Again, many of your so-called experts are not experts, just big mouths whom the media likes. There have been real Climatologists who doubt GW and dispute how much man can effect change in the weather posted here, but bots like you troll on past.
Please don’t pull a “Google” and cite Wikipedia as that has been discredited here as well as numerous “polls” cited by trolls like you.
May 25, 2007 - 12:02 PM on May 25th, 2007
An Inconvient Gore(ing)
Harrison bot, go watch this and then go away.
May 25, 2007 - 02:34 PM on May 25th, 2007
Global Warming will be a JOKE in 5 years.
Read that Harrison bot.
May 26, 2007 - 05:51 AM on May 26th, 2007
19. Consensus is not science
Right, but consensus arises from good science, just like there’s a consensus that the earth is round and that evolution is both a theory and a fact.
There have been real Climatologists who doubt GW and dispute how much man can effect change in the weather posted here.
An incredible minority and, as I’ve demonstrated in the past, most of them have been funded by the oil industry (but PCD and idiots like him just plug their ears and close their eyes when this sort of information comes around).
Please don’t pull a “Google”and cite Wikipedia as that has been discredited here as well as numerous “polls”cited by trolls like you.
Show us, PCD, where you’ve discredited all of the information that contradicts you (I wonder if you’re naive enough to believe that you actually have—-btw, looking over some of your earlier posts, I’ve seen references to drag racing and sci-fi novels, and you’ve called me “gaybait.” Seriously, are you sixteen?).
21. Here’s one for you, moron: Augie debunked. Looks like it’s time to start scrounging again, PCD. First, maybe you could give us the “entomology” of loser.
May 26, 2007 - 02:22 PM on May 26th, 2007
Good link AKD. There is consensus in the scientific community that global warming is true, but this is NOT what everybody should base their beliefs on. There are also signs around you as well.
I also see signs of climate change in my local area. For the last two years, spring came early. This year has been unusually early. Before, I did not need AC in the summer; now I do.
Factor in the pictures from Iceland, Greenland, Antartica, weather reports of record breaking temperatures from across the world, these should all play a factor on each person’s beliefs.
I personally believe that the probability of Global Warming being true is 66%. Yes, I still think that possibly this is a mass hype, and maybe the record temperatures are a coincidence, but there is heavy probability that this is true.
So now the question is what can we do about it? Many studies have been done on the costs of reducing carbon emissions. IPCC says that it will cost 0.12% of GDP over next 25 years to adequately reduce emissions. Other EXTREMIST study groups like McKinsey Consulting (heard of them?) say that net cost could be 0% of GDP if done correctly.
This sounds remarkably cheap to me to avoid a high probability problem. We all buy car insurance just in case of an accident, but how many people get in an accident every year? Definitely not 66%. I am very willing to pay 0.12% of my money every year as insurance against climate change.
Here is another analogy. We can avoid the problems with being overweight (heart attack, diabetes, etc…) by just spending a little time exercising every week and eating healthier. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That sounds like “common sense” to me.
May 27, 2007 - 12:27 AM on May 27th, 2007
Once again. the issue of Global Warming is again being confused with the issue of whether human activity is a contributor of significance.
Only the second argument is worth debating, because that is the only question. That debate has already occurred here, ad nauseum, and the humans-cause-Global-Warming-zealots came up way short.
Hey AKD, did you get a Ministry in the Church of Global Warming yet? Al Gore (Ecofraud and arch-hypocrite) offer you a position yet?
May 27, 2007 - 01:52 AM on May 27th, 2007
wow, for a website called right voices, there sure seems to be a lot of name calling by “supporters”. This page alone contains (not taken out of context):
…keeping his big fat flapping piehole shut…
…earth worshipping eco-freaks…
…potty mouthed nitwit…
…Ecofraud Gore…
This is just the name-calling and doesn’t include the personal attacks made. It also does not include any of AKD’s comments as I do not wish to repeat anything they have written.
Basically, I see a lot of hate here. So I have a question:
Q: Is it possible to maintain an intellectual perspective on issues and state your case and evidence without libel or slander involved?
If you can answer my question in an adult manner, without personal attacks to anyone, please do so. Otherwise, you may have answered my question by remaining silent.
May 27, 2007 - 06:19 AM on May 27th, 2007
24. That debate has already occurred here, ad nauseum, and the humans-cause-Global-Warming-zealots came up way short
Robert posts this sort of thing every time anyone mentions global warming. He loves to pretend that the debate has been “settled” in his favor (it hasn’t). That way, he doesn’t have to demonstrate that he has no arguments short of a few press releases from the oil companies (and one or two “scientists” on their payroll) and links to other right-wing blogs. I suspect that Robert’s style of “argumentation” explains why the right is becoming so marginal (on the environment, on Iraq, etc.).
Sad.
May 27, 2007 - 11:39 AM on May 27th, 2007
24. Once again. the issue of Global Warming is again being confused with the issue of whether human activity is a contributor of significance.
Robert, I am glad you are separating the two issues. So reading this I take it that you agree that Global Warming is happening, but you are skeptical that human contribution is a factor.
May 27, 2007 - 03:18 PM on May 27th, 2007
harrison, I think most of us understand that throughout earths history there have been periods of both global warming and global cooling. The disagreement among scientists is what are the contributing factors to each to each of these periods. Questions such as how long each period in the past has lasted, what major and minor impacts it had, was it caused by meteors or something with regards to our sun, etc.
As for all the hype now, well, it’s hype. It’s a scientific issue that a few politicians decided to make political. It’s nothing more and nothing less. Does that mean we should not take care of our environment? Of course not silly but the sky’s not falling and the end is not here.
May 27, 2007 - 08:25 PM on May 27th, 2007
Excellent some good points outside of personal attacks. The sky will not fall. Maybe the sea level goes up a couple feet, but I don’t own beach-front property. I do not believe in “The Day After Tomorrow” type of scenario is likely to happen 28. The disagreement among scientists is what are the contributing factors to each to each of these periods.
IPCC study, which needs to be approved unanimously by 154 governments (including US and Saudi Arabia), states that between 66% and 90% probability that humans are the cause of global warming.
Some scientists have come out and said that the IPCC report overstates the damage global warming can cause; however, the interesting thing is that many scientists around the world have also stepped out and said that the IPCC report UNDERSTATES the negative effects of global warming because it needs to get the 154 governments to sign off.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
So I as an observer of the debate process, it seems that the IPCC report seems to be moderate in its viewpoints. It may be closer to the truth than the radical liberal treehuggers or the oil-company hired scientists.
How is this not consensus among scientists? We have 164 countries and countless scientists signing off saying 66%-90% probability global warming is caused by humans.
Politicians are being political, because that is the nature of politicians. Whether democrat, independant, or republican… they use tools like this to attack each other. I try to ignore politicians.
May 28, 2007 - 05:42 AM on May 28th, 2007
29. How is this not consensus among scientists? We have 164 countries and countless scientists signing off saying 66%-90% probability global warming is caused by humans.
This certainly seems reasonable, but remember, you’re on “Right Voices.” Prepare to be attacked.
May 28, 2007 - 06:40 AM on May 28th, 2007
25. In answer to your question yes it is possible BUT one has to be open minded and remember that there are some sources that are just not credible. You have to weigh in on each side of an issue to come out to your own personal opinion. What one sees as a real problem, another might see as a nuisance. I think that is clear in the overall perception of terrorism in this world. The dems think it’s nothing to fear and the republicans think it’s the equivalent of the cold war. It’s all about perspective.
But there are people who come on here and start looking for fights. No question about that.
May 28, 2007 - 07:27 AM on May 28th, 2007
29. As for your concensus on scientists agreement I think you are misreading. They seem to agree that humans are a FACTOR but most do not think they are the main cause. In fact some scientists have stated they think it is arrogant of humans to think they have such power. I have been trying to find a list that I saw a few months back of scientists around the world who disagree on the finer points of that report. And they have a variety of reasons. It was interesting and when I get more time I’ll continue my search.
May 28, 2007 - 07:30 AM on May 28th, 2007
For the record I hold the belief that we may in fact be in the beginning of a warming period but given that these kinds of changes occur over millions of years I’m not overly worried. I personally think the muslim extremists will do a greater damage to our society in the short term and possibly could end our world if in fact they got a nuke.
The dinosaurs became extinct for a reason millions of years ago and we could as well but maybe not for any cosmic reason but rather one of our own making. It’s a thought and a problem worth looking into imo.
May 28, 2007 - 11:17 AM on May 28th, 2007
32. They seem to agree that humans are a FACTOR but most do not think they are the main cause.
I haven’t seen any indication that this describes the majority of scientists. Regardless, even if it did, the human factor remains the factor that we actually have some control over and, consequently, it’s the factor that we ought to act on. For example, if in a certain region natural factors are causing a temperature increase of 3 degrees and human activity is causing a further increase of only 2 degrees, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work to eliminate the human-caused change any more than we shouldn’t work to eliminate murder even though old age kills more people. If the additional increase causes more death, environmental devastation, etc., we ought to do something about it.
I do find it strange that the current administration continues to reject the call to act on global warming despite the calls are coming not just from other nations generally, but from Blair (thus far our best ally in the war on terror). Nicolas Sarkozy, the most pro-American president that France has had in decades, has called on the U.S. to join in agreeing to do something about global warming in his very first speech after being elected.
Incidentally, I’ve never heard a democrat say that terrorism is “nothing to fear,” though some certainly disagree with Repulicans on the best means of combatting it. If you have a link to a democrat saying that terrorism is no big deal, please pass it along.
May 28, 2007 - 12:58 PM on May 28th, 2007
34. AKD..having worked at a major University that was very liberal I can assure you I have heard them say terrorism was no big deal. Further the actions of Bill Clinton during those tumultous 90’s sort of speaks for itself. He could have started action on this threat and chose not to.
As for the human factor I have heard it’s something like .0003%, not the 2 degrees you speak of. These changes take place over a very long time and are inevitable either way. There is nothing we can do to stop it. Having said that we should not allow our environment to become polluted. I clean my house, I do not live in squalor. I would expect to treat my environment the same way.
As for Bush and your accusations. I think you are wrong and if you look at legislation that has passed during his term you will see that he is very much concerned about environmental issues. Just because these pieces of legislation don’t get plastered all over the major networks and the NYT doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Check it out.
May 28, 2007 - 01:36 PM on May 28th, 2007
35. I have heard them say terrorism was no big deal
I have also heard these remarks from people, but they are people of no consequence. There are just as many liberal die-hards as conservative die-hards that just spout idiotic uninformed statements like this.
I think AKD’s point is that any liberal spokesperson who is responsible would not something obviously flip and ignorant as this. People like Rosie O’Donnell might, but she is has a severe case of verbal diarrhea.
35. As for the human factor I have heard it’s something like .0003%, not the 2 degrees you speak of.
So we all agree that global warming is happening. Humans do play a role whether a big role or very small role.
It is undisputed (90%+ certainty) that Human CO2 emissions have increased 70% from 1970-2004. Human CO2 emissions will only increase in coming decades.
The cost of limiting human contribution to global warming is 0.1% of GDP. For an average $40,000 salary, this is $40. This is like one less restaurant dinner for the family a year, or one less movie trip a year.
This $40 a year seems pretty affordable for the assurance that humans have done all that can be done, and are not contributing to global warming.
Some other numbers as reference points:
Total Hurricane Katrina damage is $200 per US citizen.
Our national defense budget (not including war) is $1,333 per person.
Iraq war (not including defense budget) so far has cost every US citizen $1,700.
It is estimated that the lifetime health care costs of our US wounded will be another $1,700 for every US citizen.
May 28, 2007 - 01:52 PM on May 28th, 2007
As long as the celebrities and the Al Gores fly their private jets and drive their SUV’s I will not give up anything.
May 29, 2007 - 01:23 PM on May 29th, 2007
If you are not giving up anything because Al Gore is not doing the right thing, then the discussion is irrelevant.
God helps those who help themselves. I certainly don’t want to be killed just because the next warming trend is due to come. I pray, but I carpool to do my part in keeping the world cooler.
May 29, 2007 - 01:31 PM on May 29th, 2007
38- We won’t be killed by a warming and we were even threatened about the coming ice age….Is there a warming? Yes. Should we do our best to protect the planet? You bet, but one should take a good hard look at the big money that is being made off this thing we call Global Warming! Global Warming has become a business, just like the tech boom businesses we saw in the late 90’s….