"MR. GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUGHT KILLING THE EARTH"
BY: DR. FOREST LEWIS
I have been trying to tell you folks that socialists democrats are nothing but hypocrites. They are from the school of "Do As I Say--Not As I Do."
See, these people are "Special." Rules aren't made for them--they are made for simpletons like you and me. If you still aren't convinced that socialists democrats are nothing but hypocrites--well guess what folks? Mr. "Global Warming," Mr. "Movie Maker," Mr. "Big Time Oscar Winner" for that lying documentary--Al Gore-- has been caught by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
This group took special interest in Gore. See, Gore is a special type of guy. Anyway, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reports that Gore's electric and natural gas consumption, used to heat his "Tennessee Mansion," consumes more heat "IN ONE MONTH," than "the average American household uses in an entire year."
Gore has not denied the report. Now, that is arrogance. This is the same individual who called on "his fellow Americans" to save energy by cutting back on their electricity consumption in their homes. Now, are you starting to understand these socialists democrats? They love to live "high on the hog," while employing the little people to sacrifice. The useful idiots march in rote step listening to hypocrites like Al Gore.
According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research--the average American household consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours a year. Last year, "King Al Gore" and his brood used almost 221,000 kilowatt-hours. That my friends, is "TWENTY TIMES" the national average. Again, that data comes from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
To say that "The Father Of The Bogus Theory Of Global Warming Is An Energy Hog," would be an understatement. In August of last year, the Gore family went through 22,619 kwh. Again, that was two times as much electricity in one month as you and I expend in "An Entire Year." Global Warming Hog, Al Gore's monthly electrical bill tops out at more than 13-hundred dollars. Hell, that is more than some poor people make in a month.
The natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged out to $1,080 each month last year. What a great American, huh? Again, "Do As I Say--Not As I Do."
Drew Johnson, the President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research had some choice words for "Mr. Global Warming:"
"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use"
In my mind, it is too late for Al Gore to make changes. If he does, it is only because the fat slob got caught. So, don't be fooled again if "This Global Warming Hog" does a 360.
Folks, I have been trying to tell you that there is no such thing as global warming. This is a concoction from the left to control the masses. They want you to feel sorry for the little polar bears; the trees; the sun;the moon. And all the while, creeps like Gore are raking in millions of dollars off of suckers willing to listen to his unscientific bunk. And that is what global warming is.
Remember, there has never been a true scientific study performed to rule in or rule out this phenomenon. All that we have heard up to this point are a group of tree huggers, telling us how they "Feel." This "IS NOT SCIENCE." Empiricism is not science. A phenomenon is not science.
I guess P.T. Barnum had it right. "There Is A Sucker Born Every Minute." Right, Al?
Okay Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson--let's see you make a banner headline out of the lying hypocrite, Al Gore.
America will be watching.
FRIENDS OF "THE TRUTH"
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Will— 2007/02/27 @ 01:51 PM — (Reply)
" As taken from the Greek, an apperance, that which appears: hence, any perceptible change, any occurrence that is open to observation"
A phenomenon is two fold, (a) observation, (b) experience. Nonetheless, this still does not measure up to the true level of science. In order for global warming to be called a "science," several things must occur. First, start with a hypothesis, second, explain how you plan to test your hypothesis, in other words what will be your dependent variable and independent variable. Next, what method(s) will you use. and lastly, report your findings:or conclusions. Those in your camp have heretofore put forth a hypothesis. "That is not science." Proponents of global warming are utilizing visceral reactions to support their weak thesis. Until those in your camp can perform a true scientific study, please do not call "What You See," "Science." Speak with any university professor who is adept in research design and statistics, and I believe that if she/she is honest, they will say what I have told you is the truth. Thanks again for your comments.
Regards,
Dr. Lewis
Comment by Dr. Forest Lewis— 2007/02/27 @ 02:55 PM — (Reply)
Phenomenon: Observable experience, measurable, scientific, melting of glaciers in this case, is an observable, measurable phenomenon, and will continue until there is a change, which will occur at some point, gradually, or dramatically. When? Why? What? I don't know. Are we responsible? I think we might possibly be somewhat responsible; we damage our world regularly, and more with each generation, increasing expotentially. I think if we did everything Al Gore suggests, we might slow the warming trend, some, but not much.
What I really dislike, is the name calling, and demonizing the opposition, as the conservatives are doing to Gore, right now; ignoring that he has an issue in which he believes, and despite the conservative rhetoric, about his large home and large fuel consumption, he pays extra to use clean, renewable, alternative sources of fuel. They ignore the facts that they don't like, and I hate that. But if all they listen to is Bill O'Really and Rush Windbaugh, they won't know the facts. There I go, name calling, like the conservative I once was. Have a good day. wk
Comment by Will— 2007/02/28 @ 06:21 AM — (Reply)
Now, a credible scientific study is valid and reliable. Validity says we will test a phenomenon using a scientific approach. Reliability means that what we have tested is easily replicated. If a published study is not valid and reliable, not only is the study statistically insignificant: The author's entire study comes under scrunity by those of us in the scientific community.
Remember, Einstein said MC=2? Einstein's theory became "Fact," because it was easily replicated. Dr. Jonas Salk, the founder of the polio vaccine performed studies in the 1950's. As a result, we have Dr. Salk to thank for the eradication of polio in our country. These two men were scientists.
Empiricism is a wonderful thing. However, it is not the end. It is the beginning of testing a phenomenon. That is if the scientist wishes to undertake a lengthy study in order to prove his/her hypothesis.
To conclude, scientists can not call themselves scientists if they base their conclusions on only what the naked eye sees. they must perform a research design study with concomitant statistical analysis.
Regards,
Dr. Lewis
Comment by Dr. Forest Lewis— 2007/02/28 @ 07:22 AM — (Reply)
I didn't say a phenomenon was a scientific FACT, but is science, which you stated it wasn't. And the test is not if it is "easily replicated", but it should be documented and confirmed, before being accepted as accurate. Warming is confirmed, but is it from our fuel consumption? That hasn't been confirmed, but I think it will eventually be, but too late. I admit that I haven't seen "Inconvenient Truth" but I read the book.
Not that it is applicable to the "conversation", but in the book, there were photos of sand dunes in the middle of roads, to demonstrate climate change, I assume. I've seen that many times, in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, where it is common, and has been since there were roads in the desert, and has nothing to do with global climate change. I'm much more concerned about the war in the Middle East, than I am about climate change. It was your choice to go there, not mine. Oh, and all liberals aren't socialists. You seem to use the words inclusively, but maybe I'm wrong. wk
Comment by Will— 2007/02/28 @ 08:37 AM — (Reply)
Here is a word that I would like for you to consider, "Variables."
Is it possible that what you have concluded as "global warming," might have been caused by another phenomenon? By the way, I have given up up on trying to convince you that true science has not been used to reach the conclusion that you and those of your ilk have. You are like a horse with blinders on. You only see one way. A scientist has to be open to , and here is that word again, "Variables."
Thank you for your input on this subject. Parenthetically, what are the issues near and dear to the hearts of today's liberal democrats? Issues that would have the democrat party going into our pockets to pay for. Does the word "Socialism" ring a bell for you?
Dr. Lewis
Comment by Dr. Forest Lewis— 2007/02/28 @ 11:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/28 @ 07:22 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Will— 2007/02/28 @ 08:23 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/28 @ 08:48 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Will— 2007/02/28 @ 08:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/28 @ 09:08 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/28 @ 09:24 AM — (Reply)