June 22, 2011
One left wing radical disagrees with another? How often does that occur?
Regular readers of mine should have little doubt that Obama is a left wing radical. After all, my six part series extensively made that clear.
Now, is Al Gore a radical? Well, I know he's left wing. Yes, many left wingers are irrational, but I wouldn't assume most are radical. Many left wingers could have good, but irrational, intentions.
Al Gore certainly may be a radical, however. After all, a judge ruled that his movie “Inconvenient Truth” included nine significant untruths. I find it hard to believe that a filmmaker would make so many errors, unless they were made intentionally! So, I think it's plausible that Al Gore is a climate change radical.
If Obama and Gore are both left wing radicals, wouldn't you think they would agree on things and be nice to each other?
CNN reported Wednesday:
"Former vice president and environmental advocate Al Gore sharply criticized President Obama's 'failed' approach to global warming Wednesday, forcing the White House to defend its record on climate change.
Gore was supportive of Obama's action in the first six months of his administration, but the former Democratic presidential nominee said the administration has not made the case for action among the American people."
"Obama, he said, has not defended the science of global warming..."
Well, perhaps Obama thinks the science of global warming is not defensible. After all, 31,487 scientists signed a petition agreeing in part that:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
If Obama isn't attempting to defend the science behind global warming, again, is it possible that's because he thinks it's not defensible?
Well, since when has Obama let a few lies stop him from pursuing an agenda? And isn't global warming a left wing issue?
What are the odds that Obama, the man selected as 2007's most left wing Senator, would choose not to defend global warming?
I think I may know what's happening.
First, back to Al Gore, for context:
" Obama, he said, has not...provided a 'presidential venue' to bring the data before the public."
Well, perhaps he doesn't want to convene a press conference about it. If he does, he might end up in the position White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was in:
One left wing radical disagrees with another? How often does that occur?
Regular readers of mine should have little doubt that Obama is a left wing radical. After all, my six part series extensively made that clear.
Now, is Al Gore a radical? Well, I know he's left wing. Yes, many left wingers are irrational, but I wouldn't assume most are radical. Many left wingers could have good, but irrational, intentions.
Al Gore certainly may be a radical, however. After all, a judge ruled that his movie “Inconvenient Truth” included nine significant untruths. I find it hard to believe that a filmmaker would make so many errors, unless they were made intentionally! So, I think it's plausible that Al Gore is a climate change radical.
If Obama and Gore are both left wing radicals, wouldn't you think they would agree on things and be nice to each other?
CNN reported Wednesday:
"Former vice president and environmental advocate Al Gore sharply criticized President Obama's 'failed' approach to global warming Wednesday, forcing the White House to defend its record on climate change.
Gore was supportive of Obama's action in the first six months of his administration, but the former Democratic presidential nominee said the administration has not made the case for action among the American people."
"Obama, he said, has not defended the science of global warming..."
Well, perhaps Obama thinks the science of global warming is not defensible. After all, 31,487 scientists signed a petition agreeing in part that:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
If Obama isn't attempting to defend the science behind global warming, again, is it possible that's because he thinks it's not defensible?
Well, since when has Obama let a few lies stop him from pursuing an agenda? And isn't global warming a left wing issue?
What are the odds that Obama, the man selected as 2007's most left wing Senator, would choose not to defend global warming?
I think I may know what's happening.
First, back to Al Gore, for context:
" Obama, he said, has not...provided a 'presidential venue' to bring the data before the public."
Well, perhaps he doesn't want to convene a press conference about it. If he does, he might end up in the position White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was in:
Conclusion
When it comes down to how far he's willing to go, perhaps Obama does have his limits!
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...