We can't have anything that can solve the world's thermostat. BAN IT!!!
Just seeing it foaming from Al Gore's mouth, that we now must ban cooking anything with fats (with the exception of himself, all the other liberal elites and the super wealthy), the plebeians (rest of us) are the problem. So we must ban cooking oil or we will make London into an apocalyptic cold tundra that constantly rains acid Trumps from the sky from all the cooking fats that caused the problem in the first place. We didn't listen or care. We doomed the planet.
But Al Gore will still rake in millions of dollars, live in a fat happy mansion, fly corporate jets all over the world, get paid $100K a speech and have gay massages every day. Sweet life for a greenie!
During 9/11, all US flights were cancelled, no jet contrails, and not a cloud in the sky. Jets started flying, we watched the contrails form cloud banks..... So, Al Gore's jet is actually cooling the planet? Whodathunkit?
Some interesting contributions here, from the (6) other people who weighed in, in some way or other.
Oh, no. Essay Time again. But I will try to keep this manageably brief.
I think I marked this Topic as General. Not Political. I do not use the Checkbox system to filter the Topics for me on the Inbox or Read side. I do try to Color Inside The Lines with the Checkbox system when I start a Topic myself. A couple of years back, I took a little flak for going Political with some of my comments, within a Topic that I had set up myself and marked as General. Ever since that happened, I have tended to use Political, more often than General. When I used Submit to kick off this Topic, I did not see Al Gore coming my way, right around the corner. Al Gore from the first person to Reply. The First Responder, if you will. Joke. But that is how this Topic unfolded.
I think I was just a little Off Of My Game when I selected General, instead of Political. A Climate Change or Global Warming related Topic. I should have been thinking Political.
When I read this report about the researchers who are trying to quantify what they see as a linkage between a Cause--fatty acid emissions from cooking--and an Effect--cloud formation in the skies above London--I never thought of Al Gore. That is absolutely typical of me. I keep an eye out for news reports of scientific developments in general, and I have both of my eyes looking for any such reports that involve climate related research. But unless there is a direct reference to Al Gore, or maybe some reference to Carbon Trading schemes or Carbon Credits, I am not ever prompted by news reports of this kind to think about Al Gore, or even remember his name. It just doesn't happen.
So, why is that? Here are some Bullets:
. I never sat through either of his two global warming themed movies from beginning to end. I have seen some of the clips. But not very many.
. I do not consider Al Gore to have invented the idea of Global Warming.
. I do not consider Al Gore to have invented the idea of a link between human CO2 emissions and global warming. That was the subject of some rudimentary scientific research and experimentation, even before the year 1900.
. I have looked at some number of climate related research reports as they are published in peer-reviewed science journals. Not once have I seen any reference to Al Gore by name. Not even in the bibliography section that comes after the body of the report. I guess I have seen references to Carbon Trading Schemes, but even that does not prompt me to think of Al Gore at any length. Maybe for a moment.
. I have browsed some of the most frequently referenced such reports of this kind, from the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, and I have not ever seen a reference to Al Gore. I have even searched at least one of these texts for Al Gore and I came up empty. Did they use his full name of Albert (Arnold) Gore, Jr, instead of Al Gore, and that is why my search came up empty? I have never had that thought before this moment. Even so, I can say with the utmost confidence that none of these reports puts any kind of spotlight on the name of Al Gore. If it were there in any significant way, I would have seen it.
So that's why I did not see Al Gore coming straight at me, right out of the box. It was like throwing the very first pitch of a baseball game, and having to duck a screaming liner, hit straight back up the middle. It was like being gang tackled on a draw play by the Patriots entire defensive line. I just wasn't ready for it.
I think there is something kind of off balance about the dialogue here from the First Responder. Wichita. Al Gore. Check. But what about the other side of this coin? Like maybe the CEOs and other top level managers at Exxon Mobil, Chevron... the big Petroleum people. Or moving over to Coal, the upper echelons at Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Cloud Peak Energy and Alpha Natural Resources. The four largest U.S.-based coal mining companies. That's what Google is showing to me.
What about the Koch Brothers?
Al Gore is not the only Big Bucks player on the field in this matchup. There are some Big Bucks players wearing the opposite colored jerseys or the opposing team's uniforms, across the very same line of scrimmage. Maybe not as well known to most people as Al Gore. But I'm sure they are there.
I will not describe the scientific aspects of the Earth's climate as Settled Science, but I am of the opinion--because I have been persuaded--that there is enough evidence to make a Call. Enough evidence of the kind that is unlikely to be reversed or discarded by research that has not yet been completed, or has not yet been started, or even imagined at this moment. Enough evidence of the kind that has already been accepted by the leading scientists and research organizations, and has survived questioning and challenges for the last 10 years and in some cases, more than just the last 10 years.
So I do see the idea of trying to reduce the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from human activities as a good thing.
I can offer Wichita some credit in the category of comedy or political satire category, for the idea of Al Gore getting his panties in a wad about this news report, which implies that cooking or frying foods using vegetable oil or any of its equivalents, encourages cloud formation, which is considered to have a cooling effect, overall, on the Earth's climate. So, to me, a joke, but a joke that doesn't ring true. I have no particular animus towards Al Gore.
So I think that explains why it was that when I saw Al Gore, from Wichita, I decided to fire back with Hillary Clinton, and that year 2044 Republican Party Political Necromancy remark.
It's Action (Wichita) and Reaction (me). Which is fairly common, as these Off Topic conversations typically go.
When I fired back with Hillary Clinton, I was thinking Uranium One. It's my opinion, based on what I have read In Main Stream Mediaville, and what I have viewed in Cable TV Land--outside of the Fox or Trump Channel News Bubble--that there are no provable criminal violations against Hillary Clinton, with regards to the Uranium One story.
Were there Ethical transgressions that did not literally violate any criminal statute or code? Maybe. I am skeptical even of that, but I think the idea of a Special Prosecutor to investigate on Uranium One, with an eye to any kind of indictment of Hillary Clinton, is a Fool's Errand. Just a political ploy.
I think if the Trump administration had any serious interest in what may have been wrong, before and during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, and with the Clinton Foundation, we would be hearing and reading about Institutional Reforms, instead of a prosecutorial Witch Hunt to try to indict or ensnare the Old Witch herself, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
What are Institutional Reforms? Maybe there should be stricter rules about who can be submitted as a candidate for Congressional approval as a new Secretary of State. Maybe there needs to be some Guidelines for the POTUS and for Congress that say something like "A candidate for Secretary of State cannot have served in any executive capacity for any donor-dependent organization (like the Clinton Foundation) during the two years before present." Something like that. I would call that an Institutional Reform.
I don't want to make this any longer. It's almost 7:30 am Eastern Time. Prime time for Off Topic activity just getting started for Monday, November 27, 2017. Read me, or as much of me as you can. Knock yourself out. But don't go too far with the Ad Hominem's. You know what I mean? I think there are three of the six responders to this topic that could "get that."
That's a wrap.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-27-2017).]
Topping the list of Republican Party talking points again in 2044, for the umpteenth national elections cycle in unbroken succession.
Political Necromancy at its finest.
...I think I marked this Topic as General. Not Political.
Because Al Gore doesn't have anything to do with "climate" or "save the planet"? In 2044 Gore will be long dead (but his damage will have been done.) But its only 2017 and he's still doing the damage as far as I know, just not running for prez.
Its hard to keep people from talking about politics, when nearly everything is affected by and intertwined with it. Not much more than "climate change". If you would like to declare in the beginning of a thread that that no politics are allowed in the thread, it would be a strange endeavor in censorship of a sort, not sure how it could work.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-27-2017).]
I have read that increasing CO² levels would increase cloud cover and accelerate the global warming climate change caused by farting/cars/Republicans/industry...... And now I see that clouds formed from cooking deep fat fried foods are our planetary salvation.
I'm so glad this is settled science.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 11-27-2017).]
One of the biggest tells when someone is lying is when they over explain themselves. It's no coincidence he gets upset in every other thread when one of the left's disgraced representatives is mentioned. He's a snowflake, that's why he was offended and mentioned it.
I like KFC myself. I always get the original. Tastes the same to me. You get the problems when you add or try to change stuff. Look at how they screwed up Pepsi and Coke. Another perfect example is Gas Buddy app. It was great to see gas prices and locations, even along a planned trip route. Now they have so much garbage and frills in the app, its barely usable anymore. You got pop ups for the prices of nearest slushy or if they have clean restrooms, not to mention games to play. I dumped the app for one that actually works and has gas prices.
Originally posted by jmbishop: One of the biggest tells when someone is lying is when they over explain themselves. It's no coincidence he gets upset in every other thread when one of the left's disgraced representatives is mentioned. He's a snowflake, that's why he was offended and mentioned it.
I was not particularly offended by anything that had emerged in this discussion. Until this.
I pushed back against Wichita's comedy skit about Al Gore, in an Off The Cuff kind of way, with an odd reference that I made up, involving Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. And then I came back here again, and went AI--All Introspective--about my earlier Off The Cuff remark, and posted a longer (but Manageably Brief) essay style message, in an effort to make better sense of my earlier Off The Cuff remark, about the Republican Party of 2044 and Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.
This is all very "rinselberg." I find that the experience of posting All Introspective-style messages on this forum from time to time, or on an As Needed basis, helps me to clarify and improve my relationship with this forum.
What do you think I am LYING about, Mr. J M Bishop? If it is something about scientists and their Global Warming or Carbon Dioxide Conundrums, or something about Hillary Clinton and Uranium One, then you are free to say that "rinselberg is mistaken about..." Or "rinselberg has it wrong, because..." BUT NOT "rinselberg is LYING."
If you had come here with something more civilized, such as "More Liberal propaganda, or Democrat, Left of Center, Fake News, CNN or MSNBC inspired brain-washing from rinselberg", I could see that. From your perspective.
Please stop this "Snowflake" nonsense. That's just wrong-headed of you. I wasn't expecting that from J M Bishop. You were courteous when you entered into the topic that I set up recently about Saudi Arabia and the so-called Corruption Sweep. Now you disappoint me.
This "Snowflake" crap is just the latest symptom of a condition that was explored in this recently published book:
You are free to select (click) this thumbnail image to enlarge it.
I am about to change the Checkbox Marking of this thread to Politics. I think I can do that.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-29-2017).]
Time for today's news. Morning edition. Scientists in London are reporting research results that could be summarized as Bacon Brings On The Blues. The Blues that could be associated with clouds and overcast preempting what could have been a Bright Bright Sun-Shiny Day. It's enough to inspire this self-declared online news anchor to imagine some new lyrics for a famous old song:
quote
When you're smiling, when you're smiling The whole world smiles with you When you're laughing, oh when you're laughing The sun comes shining through
But when you're cryingFRYING you bring on the rain So stop that sighing FRYING, be happy again Keep on smiling, 'cause when you're smiling The whole world smiles with you
Because.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-29-2017).]
I was not particularly offended by anything that had emerged in this discussion. Until this.
Please stop this "Snowflake" nonsense. That's just wrong-headed of you. I wasn't expecting that from J M Bishop. You were courteous when you entered into the topic that I set up recently about Saudi Arabia and the so-called Corruption Sweep. Now you disappoint me.
Lol, snowflake.
You're lying about why you had a problem with the Al Gore comment. There's evidence in all the other threads where you were triggered by similar incidents of when people synonymous with the issue are mentioned. You can write another essay about it, it doesn't change reality.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 11-29-2017).]
If putting up a message here that exceeds the 140 (now 280) text characters that are the most that are allowed for a "tweet" is a PROBLEM in your eyes, then so be it. YOU can say that I have a "problem."
In my world, however, it's a reaction.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-29-2017).]
Liars are extremely generous when it comes to giving you details. They’re trying to con you into believing them by overloading you with details.
This shows they’ve put a lot of thought into what they’re going to say and probably even rehearsed it in their head.
Honest people give more succinct answers, because they’re telling the truth and they don’t have to think about it.
They know the facts.
People who lie also use convoluted sentence structure, and qualifying language when giving you the details, like “to tell you the truth” or “I can say categorically.”
This quote from former President Richard Nixon hits the nail on the head when it comes to oversharing:
“I can say categorically that his investigation indicates that no one on the White House staff, no one in this administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident [the Watergate burglary]. What really hurts in matters of this sort is not the fact that they occur, because overzealous people in campaigns do things that are wrong. What really hurts is if you try to cover it up.”
Now that’s a mouthful!
Click to show
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 11-29-2017).]
I do not think of Al Gore as a "saint", or as a "hero for the ages." He became a leading spokesperson for some ideas that were (and are) being advocated as the scientific framework that underpins certain federal and state-level policies and initiatives. The EPA's Clean Power Plan--for one example. It's a scientific framework that is being stress-tested by the fallout from certain political currents and election results, since the end of President Obama's second term.
Al Gore and his carbon credit or carbon trading market activities? I see that as a gray area. On one side of the coin, it opens him up to being attacked as a profiteer, or as someone who advocated for reducing CO2 emissions because he could make money off of it. "Conflict of Interest."
On the other side of the same coin, there's the scientific evidence, and another perspective would be that Al Gore got into the carbon trading market as a way to demonstrate how that idea could be used to incentivize a movement towards "green" energy and manufacturing technologies.
What could I say about this latest string of Off Topic messages from jmbishop? Al Gore, "warts and all", exists on a higher level of spirituality than jmbishop. Pennock's member jmbishop needs to "cool his jets" and stop trying to take down other people (like me), in this rude and ill-mannered way, over a subject about which jmbishop is not well informed.
But jmbishop is equally free to continue messaging in this same feckless kind of way, in which case jmbishop would reveal that he is not even fit to kiss Al Gore's azz.
What a dumbass photo-meme that was, from jmbishop.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-29-2017).]
Fascinating. Mr J M Bishop--jmbishop--is accusing me of LYING and has said that he is among a group of other Pennock's forum members who are "used to my dishonesty."
What is it that I am lying about, again? How am I being dishonest?
Is it because I used the forum's Checkbox system to mark this topic, that I started myself, as General, instead of Political? I have changed that. It is now marked as Political.
Is the lie or dishonesty because I explained (at some length) in an "essay" style message, that I wasn't expecting the name of Al Gore to emerge, when I first set up this topic and posted what is now at the very top of Page One? The lie or dishonesty is that I am trying to conceal the "fact" that I was actually expecting the name of Al Gore to appear in the ensuing discussion of this new topic? I was expecting this from the very Get Go..?
Is the LIE because I was actually hoping that someone would come into this topic and bring up Al Gore? And in this way, I was intentionally disregarding the forum's posting guidelines--Coloring Recklessly Outside Of The Lines and not Coloring Properly Inside Of The Lines with the forum's checkbox system--because I marked this new topic as General, instead of Political?
Any and all explanations of what's going on here are welcome.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-29-2017).]
The lie is no secret if you bothered to read my posts.
All these "essays" you're writing to try to divert the subject don't credit your intelligence.
You don't like the left's discraced mascots being brought up despite the relevance. This is the truth you can't stand and the denial of this is the lie.
You don't want to admit they are disgraced, in this case it's clear you actually have a respect for the scammer known as Al Gore. You can deny it but this is a pattern with you and some of the other full blown lefties on the forum, you've repeatedly been triggered by the mention of Hillary Clinton when it's used in appropriate context, associating her with other criminals.
The only two "disgraced left-wing mascots" that I have talked about in this thread are Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.
Let's take Al Gore, first. Hillary Clinton is TBD. I will attend to the old witch later.
Here's why so many of Al Gore's detractors on free-ranging online discussion forums like this one are not even fit to kiss Al Gore's ass.
WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.
Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.
Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.
Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.
Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.
Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.
Here's why so many of Al Gore's detractors on free-ranging online discussion forums like this one are not even fit to kiss Al Gore's ass. ...
I read more of your posts than others I believe. You often throw in shat like this. My initial was to tell you off, but just showing the forum how you act towards so many of us is a better avenue to take this morning.
You are physically unable to make me kiss another man's azz Ronald. Hiding your weakness behind a keyboard is sad. I am sick of cheetos eating tough guys. Do not be that guy.
I did not forget to link the article that I "plagiarized." I purposely omitted the link. It was a departure from my longstanding custom, which has been to only duplicate part of any article that I want to highlight, and then give the link for anyone who wants to have the entire article at their disposal.
Neither did I "plagiarize." The column that I duplicated has its proper citation at the very end, by title, venue (NYT) and author.
One man's "disgraced left-wing mascot" is another man's "semi-respectable politician, investor and entrepreneur."
Mr Kania's latest remarks, I'm sorry to say, are entirely risible.
Why (?) is jmbishop getting a free pass--except from me--to characterize my posts as "dishonest" or "mostly dishonest" and say that I am "lying."
What is my deception? If it is something about scientists and their Global Warming or Carbon Dioxide Conundrums, or about Al Gore and his carbon trading or carbon credit activities, or something about Hillary Clinton and Uranium One, then anyone is free to say that "rinselberg is mistaken about..." Or "rinselberg has it wrong, because..." Or "rinselberg has it wrong, again..." But how (?) does anyone get away with "rinselberg is being deceptive."
I consider it my fair play option to defend any public figure (like Al Gore), in any Off Topic thread, from being characterized as a disgraced left-wing mascot, when I do not agree with the characterization of that person as a disgraced left-wing mascot.
Do people think that I do not actually believe the things that I say here? That would be deceptive on my part. But why would anyone be thinking that I do not actually believe the things that I say here?
If it's not that, then what is behind these accusations that I am being dishonest or deceptive?
Mr Kania's latest remarks, I'm sorry to say, are entirely risible.
Why (?) is jmbishop getting a free pass--except from me--to characterize my posts as "dishonest" or "mostly dishonest" and say that I am "lying."
...
I consider it my fair play option to defend any public figure (like Al Gore), in any Off Topic thread, from being characterized as a disgraced left-wing mascot, when I do not agree with the characterization of that person as a disgraced left-wing mascot. ...
I reprimanded jmbishop. He is currently saying 42 Hail Mary's as atonement.
"... not even fit to kiss Al Gore's ass" is my way of stepping down to the same level of expression as these assertions that I am being deceptive and dishonest.
It's not the way I would have worded it, had the discussion unfolded in some different and more civilized way.
I have no pretensions of being able to force anyone to kiss Al Gore's ass. It's just my estimation of whether someone is worthy enough to merit the privilege of kissing Al Gore's ass. A clarification, especially for Tony K.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-30-2017).]
My initial was to tell you off, but just showing the forum how you act towards so many of us is a better avenue to take this morning. 
