Al Gore with Colbert: New Climate Movie out Soon

July 18, 2017

13 Responses to “Al Gore with Colbert: New Climate Movie out Soon”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    Global warming is melting sea ice and glaciers at an alarming rate in the Northwest Passage, a treacherous, icy shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. To document the effects of climate change there, the Associated Press is traversing the passage with a team of international researchers.

    => Global Warming Melts Ice, Alters Fabled Northwest Passage

  2. We have a challenge on our hands

    We have no hope of understanding what is coming until we understand how the dark money network operates. The remarkable story of a British member of parliament provides a unique insight into this network, on both sides of the Atlantic. His name is Liam Fox. Six years ago, his political career seemed to be over when he resigned as defence secretary after being caught mixing his private and official interests. But today he is back on the front bench, and with a crucial portfolio: secretary of state for international trade.

    Atlantic Bridge was later registered as a charity. In fact it was part of the UK’s own dark money network: only after it collapsed did we discover the full story of who had funded it. Its main sponsor was the immensely rich Michael Hintze, who worked at Goldman Sachs before setting up the hedge fund CQS. Hintze is one of the Conservative party’s biggest donors. In 2012 he was revealed as a funder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which casts doubt on the science of climate change. As well as making cash grants and loans to Atlantic Bridge, he lent Fox his private jet to fly to and from Washington.

    Another funder was the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. It paid for a researcher at Atlantic Bridge called Gabby Bertin. She went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary, and now sits in the House of Lords: Cameron gave her a life peerage in his resignation honours list.

  3. An essential article

    A despot in disguise: one man’s mission to rip up democracy
    George Monbiot

    But his power really began to be felt when Koch, currently the seventh richest man in the US, decided that Buchanan held the key to the transformation he sought. Koch saw even such ideologues as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan as “sellouts”, as they sought to improve the efficiency of government rather than destroy it altogether. But Buchanan took it all the way.

    MacLean says that Charles Koch poured millions into Buchanan’s work at George Mason University, whose law and economics departments look as much like corporate-funded thinktanks as they do academic faculties. He employed the economist to select the revolutionary “cadre” that would implement his programme (Murray Rothbard, at the Cato Institute that Koch founded, had urged the billionaire to study Lenin’s techniques and apply them to the libertarian cause). Between them, they began to develop a programme for changing the rules.

    The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators that “conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential”. Instead of revealing their ultimate destination, they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system, they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical “reforms”.

    Through the network of thinktanks that Koch and other billionaires have sponsored, through their transformation of the Republican party, and the hundreds of millions they have poured into state congressional and judicial races, through the mass colonisation of Trump’s administration by members of this network and lethally effective campaigns against everything from public health to action on climate change, it would be fair to say that Buchanan’s vision is maturing in the US.

  4. Once again, indebted to Crocks for the heads-up on the Colbert video, I missed that show. Regarding the Texas guy at the start of that clip, one of two things: he’s either a fake conservative, or he’s spectacularly ignorant about the skeptic side of the issue. Either way, this doesn’t work out well for Gore.

    Will be attending the movie to see how Gore dances around the ‘crooked skeptics’ accusation he made in his 2006 version, since that accusation crumbles apart (as you all know from reading my GelbspanFiles blog) under tough objective scrutiny.

    • redskylite Says:

      It’s very pleasing that you will be attending the Movie, especially if all profits go to organizations working on climate and related environmental issues as reported in Variety.

      It’s funny but communicating on a faceless, expressionless posting like this, over quite a few years, I have built a mental image of the person I’m replying to. For instance the Dumb Old Guy – I get a vision of Colonel Sherman T.Potter in my mind (from M.A.S.H). You always bring a vision of Boss Hogg (from Dukes of Hazzard). I doubt that you really look like that.

      • Now, this is an opportunity to illustrate the differences between our two personalities. Myself, it’s never entered my mind to speculate what you guys look like. Why not? Borrowing from one of my favorite phrases out of the BBC Jeremy Brett version of Sherlock Holmes where the LeStrade character, asking about the certainty of an assertion, was hit with this from Holmes: “There is not enough available information to make a conclusion!” … or words to that effect.

        I said it before, I’ll say it again, in light of Peter Sinclair himself saying he permits me to comment here to show what climate deniers are like: if Peter could find a way to personally interview me at my residence, it would torpedo every single mental image he and the rest of you guys have of me, and it would wipe out every single one of commenter “dumboldguy”‘s accusations against me. At the end of the day, what you believe in is proven to be worthless if the facts and the truth contradict your beliefs. The measure of your own integrity is how you deal with beliefs vs the truth.

        Nice total sidestep on your part of the two points in my comment above, btw. Meanwhile, I read your article link. Will you read mine? “Religious Dilemma: Breaking the 9th Commandment or ‘Saving the Planet'”

        • redskylite Says:

          Yes I did read your contribution to “Catholic Online”.

          My feelings are as follows.

          You state that polar bears are doing fine, increasing in numbers. That may indeed be partly true for some Arctic areas, but I’ve read many reports of struggling, underweight animals who are coming into more conflict with humans, as as the sea ice thins are being more and more affected. Their longer term prognosis is generally regarded as grim.

          You talk about climate-gate. Again this was a disgraceful criminal action, a failed attempt to discredit honest and hard working scientists. I’m shocked you would even mention this in a religious and holy site.

          Finally I would have thought good Catholics would be guided by their pope on this.

          Frankly your blogging on that media leaves me cold. It has no substance or references to authoritative papers, just personal opinion, which could be very misleading.

          • redskylite Says:

            Read from the Alaska Dispatch News, from the people who actually live amongst Polar Bears – As you can read life is getting difficult up there, some places it is worse, some places better. But in the future it is only going worsen. Can you not see that ?

            As Arctic sea ice has dwindled, polar bear attacks on people have increased — correlated trends that point to distressed conditions for bears forced to fend for themselves on land as the ice of their ocean habitat melts.


          • Of course it leaves you cold, because it undermines your beliefs and challenges you to look for the very things I speak of. I purposely did that there, because I have confidence that objective, open minded people will not simply trust what I say or arbitrarily dismiss it out-of-hand as unsupported opinion, but will do their own due diligence on the matter. That’s something you are really afraid of, isn’t it?

            What you’ve seen on polar bears may be true about a minority of diseased animals – when has there not been a malnourished animal among populations of healthy ones? Lack of context about the specific situation is what undermines the foregone conclusion you take from such reports.

            Be shocked if if makes you feel better. The ClimateGate emails can be read in their full context, and they were no such attempt to disgrace IPCC scientists, they were the scientists own dirty laundry. Deal with reality.

            Good Catholics are entitled to question their Pope and point out that he’s only been told one side of the story. You’d condemn him if he flipped sides, wouldn’t you?

            One final thing about your prior comment speculating what I look like. How many times has commenter “dumboldguy” pleaded with all of you to watch only the first 30 seconds of my video presentation at the Heartland 2015 conference (while crossing his fingers that you DON’T watch the rest of it), and told you I wear ballcaps? All that particular speculation on your part did is demonstrate how you basically do not view material you disagree with. There’s a prominent headshot of me right at GelbspanFiles, thus no need for you to wonder what I look like. So why did you even go off on that tangent?

            One of the other breathtaking hallmarks about far-left enviros is how readily they leap to conclusions based on so little information. Free yourself from this ideological enslavement and you will be so much better informed and more happy all the way around.

          • redskylite Says:

            “One of the other breathtaking hallmarks about far-left enviros is how readily they leap to conclusions based on so little information.  “

            For a start I am NOT a left wing envros. I am fairly middle of the road to right, I earned a living in oil operations working for a consortium, including EXXON, in a country that did not have any political systems. Not the trade mark of a lefty enviro. I only became interested in Climate related matters at the start of the 21st century, when I ceased working. I studied it online, at two U.S Universities (under D.Archer and Richard Alley), one Australian University and one European university, before voicing an opinion. I would not read your “ GelbspanFiles “ as you do not appear to have worked for a Climate related degree at university, I see you have earned an art and a business degree, and am sure you are accomplished in those fields. Yes I did see your image – so my mental picture has changed. Maybe Catholics can question their pope, but he is there as part of the guiding shepherding roll that you are trying to undermine. I am saddened by your behavior, not for me, but for all the babies who will suffer in the future because of self opinionated folk like you, trying to subvert opinion and repress progress. Try getting your head out of GelbspanFiles and see what is really happening around the world.

            Washington Post report on a study: Climate change will force today’s kids to pay for costly carbon removal technologies, study says

            The longer humans continue to pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the closer we draw to leaving the next generation with an unmanageable climate problem, scientists say. A new study, just out Tuesday in the journal Earth System Dynamics, suggests that merely reducing greenhouse gas emissions may no longer be enough — and that special technology, aimed at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, may also be necessary to keep the Earth’s climate within safe limits for future generations.


        • redskylite Says:

          ps. The official 9th commandment in Catholicism, concerns desiring your neighbors wife. I guess you are not a Catholic either.

          Here are the Catholic Ten Commandments:

          I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.
          You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
          Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
          Honor your father and your mother.
          You shall not kill.
          You shall not commit adultery.
          You shall not steal.
          You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
          You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
          You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

        • lesliegraham1 Says:

          Oh good grief – are the last of the deniers still clutching at that garbage.

          They are like a toddler sucking at the last little square of a security blanket.

          Now known as ‘climategategate’ it has long since backfired on them by revealing their disgusting methods, their total lack of concern for the truth and just how low they are prepared to stoop in order to promote their morally bankrupt ideology.

          There have been numerous independent inquiries by at least NINE bodies – including the US Chamber of Commerce who would have loved to have found something incriminating.

          Every single one of them revealed that it was a “manufactured scandal” and a “well-funded and highly orchestrated smear campaign” and that the scientists libeled “simply have no case to answer”

          NINE investigations:

          1) Penn State (inquiry):”no credible evidence that…[there was]… an intent to suppress or to falsify data”,

          2) UK House of Commons: “actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community”,

          3) Royal Society (int’l panel): “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”,

          4) Penn State (final investigation): “no substance to the allegation against Dr. Mann”,

          5) U East Anglia (independent review): “we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”,

          6) US EPA: “this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues “,

          7) UK Government: “Professor Jones was [not] trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments”,

          8) US Dept of Commerce Inspector General: “no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data”,

          9) National Science Foundation: “no research misconduct… this case is closed”

          I’ve taken the trouble to list just a few of the comments from most of the inquiries.

          Judge for yourself lurkers.

          House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

          “The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact”. The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity”.

          “No evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process

          Independent Science Assessment Panel

          It found that the CRU’s work had been “carried out with integrity” and had used “fair and satisfactory” methods.

          The CRU was found to be “objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda.”

          Instead, “their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible

          The repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others “could have amounted to a campaign of harassment”

          Pennsylvania State University

          “The conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists.” It agreed unanimously that “there is no substance” to the allegations against Mann

          Independent Climate Change Email Review

          The “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.[

          United States Environmental Protection Agency report

          The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which “routinely misunderstood the scientific issues”, reached “faulty scientific conclusions”, “resorted to hyperbole”, and “often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety

          Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce

          Senator Jim Inhofe requested the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce to conduct an independent review

          They “did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures”.

          National Science Foundation

          “Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action.

          What ‘Climategategate’ showed was how low the fossil fuel lobby is prepared to stoop in order to add just another few billion to the billions they already have. These disgusting sociopaths will one day face trial.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: