LOL:
Gore in 24-hour broadcast to convert climate skeptics
LONDON (Reuters) – Former Vice President Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.
“24 Hours of Reality” will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.
The campaign also asks people to hand over control of their social networking accounts on Facebook and Twitter to it for 24 hours to deliver Gore’s message.
“There will be 200 new slides arguing the connection between more extreme weather and climate change,” Trewin Restorick, chief executive of the event’s UK partner Global Action Plan, told Reuters on Monday.
Wow! 200 new slides!
The rest here.
“There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from.”
Gore tried to raise awareness about global warming in the 2006 documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which earned $49 million at the box office worldwide. The film was criticized by some climate change skeptics for being one-sided.
Concern about climate change in the United States, the world’s second biggest emitter, has fallen steadily to 48 percent in 2011, from 62 percent in 2007, an opinion poll showed in August.
The same old arguments argued twice as vehemently? It is only the choir that has not moved on by this preacher. Much of this junk comes pre-debunked.
Is Gore unable to see that he is the 24-hour reality of Elmer Gantry?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Nobody denies that the climate "changes" -- "climate change denier" is an obvious straw man.
2. Being "against global warming" is also nonsensical. Might as well be "against rain" or "against the moon." What they really mean is "against Al Gore's policies."
3. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical -- indeed, I recommend this stance to everyone. What's the alternative, being gullible?
In other words, Gore is taking on the straw men in order to cheer up the gullible who already support his policies.
EPIC YAWN!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't understand what the big deal is here. Don't most religions believe in some kind of future cataclysmic crisis and/or judgment day? This religion is no different than many faith systems that have an apocalyptic future that must be avoided at all costs as part of their orthodoxy. Repent, the end is near.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference is, other religions say "repent", not "turn total control over the global economy over to Al Gore".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy arithmetic says this is an average of 7 minutes, 12 seconds PER SLIDE. And I thought Death by Powerpoint was just hyperbole!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe empirical evidence is against them (NASA, CERN) so PR telethons to sell their ideology are necessary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"....a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from..."
As in the direct proof that he has yet to provide for the 15-20 year old guilt-by-association accusation? I'll remind readers here that his and everybody else's accusation has been one-and-the-same for this entire time, based on otherwise unseen evidence that when viewed in its complete context (it took me 7 months to find it), has every appearance of being unsupportable and out-of-context. Please see my article here: "The Great Global Warming Ponzi Scheme - how the mainstream media keeps it alive" External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there going to be an environmental study to determine the carbon footprint from the Pope's broadcasts, and the receivers used to hear it? I know that these would continue to be used anyway to broadcast/hear something else, but in this case, Al is the direct reason. What emissions are caused by massive universal yawns?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"....a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from..."
Whoa! I'm a skeptic. How come no one told me I get funding?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have the same question. I wonder if our funding was diverted to Solyndra.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from.”
Wow. Now, for the next Gorathon, maybe they might address the "deniers'" arguments. Nah.
It is elementary, but seemingly incomprehensible to many, that, once an argument is stated, it becomes irrelevant WHY it was presented. It can be refuted only by addressing the evidence and logic it gives. This is self-evidently true, but ignored in politics.
Fortunately, jurors don't usually say "wait a minute, the defendent is paying the lawyer to say that, so we can disregard the defense."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder if he'll reveal where all the warmists' money comes from, and admit that the dollars THEY receive hugely outnumber those received by "deniers."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse