Couldn't happen to a better moonbat.
Hope Drudge is right. Would be a good kick to Gore.
manbearpig alert
Sounds like something in a pantsuit is all worried that it may face some more competition.
If you haven't seen it, you should. It is devastating to the religion of Global Warming.
Curious. Has Algore hinted that he might jump into the presidential race? The more moonbats running on the Democrat side, the more difficult it will be for the "moderate" candidates to run to the center after they get beaten and bloodied by the nomination battle.
IMO, the thinking here is that Global Warming® was hijacked by a man with a messiah complex; time to kill the messenger (which also plays into the whole messiah thing, so this could be interesting).
here is what it says now:
NY TIMES PLANS HIT ON GORE, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE: 'Scientists argue that Gore's warnings are full of exaggerated claims and startling errors'... Reporter William Broad filing the story... Developing...
Tough call for the Clymers at the Grey Whore. They are going to set back the Globaloney Warming fraud in which they and their fellow presstitutes have invested so much. As Chris noted too, wait until they lay into Osama, er, Obama....
Did anyone else see Sheppard SMith this afternoon?
He has fallen for the Gore BS, hook line and stinker.
I'm selling carbon credits. I don't know what they really mean, but I'm still selling them for $20 a piece. Get them while they are still available! I only have about 14 reams of paper left!
This is because the NYT is all Hillary, all the time.
But wait that can't be true he just received an Oscar.
Hmmm... since Gore hasn't declared, and the Times is firmly in Hillary's left pocket, and the science of global warming is being proven unlikely daily, I thnk they must see this as an opportunity to offload one pile of bull onto an old ass, and catch up with Her.
Define hit piece?
Probably a hit piece piece by the NYT means they only plant one lip on Gore's ass instead of both.
Simple, really. NYT are Clinton cronies so they're doing the hit piece now to deflate even the smallest twinkle in Gore's eye to run for President.
Only because he is no longer Vice President, nor President.
When he was in office, the NY Times gave his book, Earth In The Balance, a good review:
“Gore presents even familiar materials in fresh and compelling fashion. . . . Now that the cold war is over, he argues, the central strategic threat is that presented by humans to the global environment. In this context, he rethinks world's industrial and financial arrangements and proposes a 'Global Marshall Plan' for the environment. . . . The author exhibits little of the cliched myopia of his profession and is aware of the political obstacles posed by such an integrated approach. He identifies the root of our current problems as spiritual. If civilization is to persist, he maintains, it must make the rescue of the environment its organizing principle. His colleagues on Capital Hill, for starters, should read this perspicacious, heartening book and harken to its message.” (New York Times Book Review)
Can anyone say Hillary opposition research team?
This is good timing because An Inconvenient Truth just came on Showtime last night for the first time - It is unclear to me to which side is being more dishonest but certainly Al Gore should not be exempt.
Nowhere is in that film does he show that CO2 is causing our global warming problems, only that it correlates very well but he glosses over the lack of proof of causation.
On the other hand I also just watched the rebuttal film the Great Global Warming Swindle and its equally as dishonest. They don't rebut the actual data or the legitimate groups that have studied this, like NASA or the NOAA they make it sound like its all a U.N. plot and that we should oppose it because hippies and unions are for it.
The truth is that global warming as indicated by glaciers retreating and seas rising is a problem - a problem that continued even when temperatures stopped rising between 1945 and 1976. On the one hand this flat part indicates there are other powerful forces effecting global warming but outside of this 31 year period temperature correlates extremely well with CO2.
So we ought to be working our asses off trying to be sure of the causes instead of having one side that wants to skip the part where we prove the cause and go directly toward crippling the economy, while the other side denies that global warming is a serious problem that often correlates well with CO2.
Its getting harder to find people actually looking at the science and not taking a political posture.