Mediatransparency.com shows 7.6 million in right wing funding for the IWF- a depressingly familiar pattern:

http://mediatransparency.org/ recipientgrants.php?recipientID=163

Ingraham is just a paid propagandist, like many others.

I do, however, remember my aha moment when I realized it is all about “kill the messenger.” Before that I had been puzzled about how such a large and committed group could be so convinced without much basis in fact, truth, or scientific history.

All the techniques of science are now being applied to discredit science. Got a small degree of uncertainty? The science is not proven. And I used the word “religion” above; but now “religion” is used to characterize those who follow science. You get the picture.

Lord Monckton is a personal favorite, as he uses his accreditation as a Nobel laureate from the IPCC to “prove” that a Nobel laureate doesn’t “believe” in the IPCC!

Corollary: Ingraham uses doctored video to discredit efforts to increase public awareness and policy action on GLOBAL WARMING

Fact: GLOBAL WARMING is far and away the the largest threat humanity has ever faced, and the USA will heat up about twice as fast as the globe.

Conclusion: Ingraham used doctored video to make Amercians less prepared and proactive in this time of crisis.

Question: What do we call a national media personality who sets out to make America less safe than it could be?

Once again, you are making a baseless insinuation attacking Al Gore’s veracity. He doesn’t need to prove his claim to you unless there is an iota of evidence that he is lying. Seriously, you can hid behind “well I didn’t actually make any claim. Snicker, snicker, snicker” all you want. That’s as believable as the congress woman’s attempt to backtrack and say that she was only asking, not trying to imply anything. Nothing to see here. Bullshit. It’s an attempt to smear. You can’t attack the science, so you launch baseless attacks on the advocates and, in some cases, the scientists.

As for Shawn’s spiel, there’s nothing in it that hasn’t been debunked, disproved or dismissed countless times. Why waste time on explaining it to someone who is either mentally deficient or a willfully ignorant dupe? It gets very tiresome.

Cheers,

Martin

I pretty sure a private citizen in this country is free to invest in whatever they want and lobby for it.

Memo to Ms. Blackburn and the GOP – Mr. Gore is not in politics anymore. He is free to invest, make money and lobby for whatever he wants.

Please make the stupid stop!!!!

First, Gore’s tax filings show that he is telling the truth. And he has released them.

Second, the issue here is that Fox was caught lying on video tape again, not whether Gore got rich … people with a grip on reality — and global warming is reality — ususally do better financially than the flat-earthers and other scientifically ignorant deniers who can’t or won’t understand science.

Third, this bait and switch tactic is prima-facia evidence that you know Fox was caught and that they are totally discrediting themselves yet again. Why else would you try to shift the argument to Gore?

Weak, snaggle, weak.

As for Shawn? Take a junior high science class so you have a modicum of critical reasoning skills, the come on back and try again. As it is you are embarrassing yourself, dude. Badly.

I really don’t care if you think I’m dishonest. That’s like being called ugly by a frog. You don’t even post with your real name. I’m debating with someone who calls himself Snaggletoothie because he doesn’t want to use his actual name. Really?! So who is dishonest here? I guess that helps to explain why you don’t have any problems with the edits.

Here’s the speech that was edited out. The Congresswoman had asked whether he, Al Gore, stood to benefit from the Waxman Markey Cap and Trade bill. GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.

And Congresswoman, if you’re [Blackburn’s lines edited for brevity]

When the Congresswoman pressed Gore further if every penny went to non-profit causes Gore replied, “Every penny that I have made –”

That was what Laura Ingrahm edited out and then she asked the Swift boat professional smear job artist Marc Morano if Al Gore answered the question. So she deletes Al Gore’s answer to the congressman’s questions and she and you wonder if he has answered the question. That’s precious.

If you are unable to find the evidence that Al Gore is profiting from the bill then why ask me for it?

If Congressman Blackburn had evidence that Al Gore was profiting from his activities then she would have produced them in the hearing and made Al Gore own up to it.

People can’t just say what they want in a congressional subcommittee. They are sworn in. If it does turn out that Al Gore was lying to Congress then he can be held in contempt of Congress, prosecuted and sent to prison. This proved to be a bit of a problem in the Bush era when Scooter Libby lied to congress and he was sent to prison only to get a get out of jail free card from former President Bush.

Ok I’ve connected the dots for you. You’re free to dispute, deny, confuse, deceive or whatever you want. There will be no further responses from me on this point.

Might I suggest that both of you google the termastroturfing, and read the pages at Wikipedia or Sourcewatch.

You’ve been duped into parroting the lines fed to you by groups with respectable sounding names — like the Science and Public Policy Institute, Friends of Science, Heartland Institute — that are funded by the fossil companies. Lots of smarter people have been duped, too, so don’t feel too bad.

The smoking companies used the same technique for years to keep tough tobacco legislation from being passed.

http://one-blue-marble.com/blog/?p=381

Maybe because people who are too smart to watch the idiots blathering on fauxnews teevee are too busy READING or something? Maybe they get their news, information and analysis from sources like, I don’t know, Scientific American, or the New York Review of Books?