Former Gore Aides Asked to Keep an Opening for Him

Update: Gore staffers deny the report.


The Telegraph reports that former Gore aides have met in secret and been queried on whether they'd come to work for him if he decided to enter the presidential race.

....aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.

One of his former campaign team said: "I was asked whether I would be available towards the end of the year if I am needed. They know he has not ruled out running and if he decides to jump in, he will have to move very fast. "He hasn't asked them to do this, but nor has he told them not to."

Former President Clinton also suggested on Larry King Live last week that Gore might run.

I disagree with those who think the nomination is his for the asking. Plus, I really don't want him to run. I'm happy with the candidates already in the running, particularly Hillary and John Edwards.


Gore was cheated in 2000, no question. But he's still not liberal enough in my opinion, particularly in the area I care most about, criminal justice. Yet, the public is likely to view him as too liberal. My favorite position of his was his social security lockbox. But I still resent Tipper's call for censoring rock lyrics.

I think Gore can do the most good for the country by continuing what he has been doing, shouting out about global warming. It's an important job and no one is a better advocate in that realm.

But I think he's past his prime for the Presidency. I'm ready for a fresh face.

< More on MoDo's Catty Column | When A Journalist Editorialized On A War >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Gore: (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    He's the one potential candidate (besides Pelosi) that would get my sweat as well as my vote.

    From his MoveOn speaches and recent stands I would say he's more liberal than you might think. He has also found his voice and says what he believes. He is a man of principle.

    He is one candidate who has been consistent on the war, on the patriot act, on the environment, and on corruption. He's among the best on womens and gay issues. He understands technology and the public issues surrounding the commons.

    I kind of doubt he'll run, but I sure hope he does.

    what carolyn in baltimore said x 10 nt (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by conchita on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    I would work full-time for a Gore campaign.

    Oh, pleaseeeeeeee (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:37:01 AM EST
    His stand on GW proves he doesn't know technology.

    His stand on GW proves he will fib to you.

    His refusal to sign the carbon pledge proves he is a hypocrite..

    His belief that he can purchase "carbon offsets" to excuse his own violations of his GW caterwauling shows he has no grasp of logic. (Carbon offsets do not reduce CO, just make the rich feel better.)

    Other than that he is just the cat's meow.


    WOw (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    He must be a great candidate if ppj is so strongly advising against him.

    squwaky (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:11:19 AM EST
    Actually I hope he runs. It will be interesting ti see if he can repeat Nixon's trick in '68.

    President Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by LimaBN on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    Pelosi doesn't have H Clinton's negatives, and
    she comes across very well.
    Plus, she actually understands the concepts involved in constitutional governance.
    What's not to like?
    (Besides, that pearl necklace isn't made of pearls - those are the polished testicular remnants of people who misunderestimated her...)

    Gore Is My Choice (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:49:35 AM EST
    Can't think of anyone better suited for the difficult task of getting this country back on track after the disaster of Bush. He has displayed leadership, good judgement and has the experience we sorely need. He was right about the war and spoke out about the assault on our Constitution when others, including the current candidates, were silent. Of course, he has always been ahead of his times on Global Warming and the danger to our environment.

    He is the only candidate that I would work tirelessly to get nominated and keep donating to on a regular basis. There are a lot of Waiting For Gore people throughout the country so I think that he would have a great chance to get the nomination.

    I'd like to see him run (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by killer on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:13:14 AM EST
    I think that his moderate voice would contrast Edwards and give Hillary-adverse voters an option that doesn't include Fred. I think any Republican will not work hard enough to clean out the ranks of the executive branch. I also think that Gore's experience would be very valuable to that end.

    Gore is a statesman (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Al on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    and he looks like one. I hope he runs, and I hope he wins.

    Who can hit the ground running... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ginny in CO on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    ...in the right direction?

    I am much more interested in Gore or Kerry getting in the race than anyone. I've been watching presidential politics since '60 and actively involved in campaigns since '88. Since my youngest graduated from HS, I have spent 3 years catching up on a lot of political, economic, historical and Pentagon-national security reading.

    We need someone who has a good understanding of the Millitary-Industrial- Financial- Intelligence - Congressional complex and the guts to dismantle it. Kerry showed that with the BCCI investigations.

    Someone who understands the multitude of serious problems that face the US and the world. Ecology is a big, big part of it. GW is only the tip of the deforestation, soil erosion, diminishing fresh water, overconsumption of resources, toxic chemicals, waste production, etc iceberg. For that aspect, do read Jared Diamond's Collapse: it's fascinating, hopeful and useful.  For the rest, check out Kerry's The New War It is now 10 years since publication and somewhat dated. Overall, it is what us die hard Kerry supporters cite as another "Kerry was right" example. The international organized crime problem will really chill your soul -  terrorists are rank amateurs in comparison. His understanding of the international jurisprudence problems is another reason I think he can do more, faster, than anyone else.

    Someone who understands and has the foreign diplomacy background to get us back into the world community and out of using our millitary to solve problems or maintain our economic opportunities over those of other countries - especially the third and second world nations. Again, Kerry's understanding of how the nations need to set up international laws or agreements dovetails with his many years in foreign policy. Does he have the answers? Doubtful - he does have the questions and that is what counts - especially when you have to come to agreements with many other people.

    Kerry's years of small business advocacy, and his own experience as a small businessman, stand out as one of the avenues that can keep the national and personal debt problems from getting worse, not to mention getting us back into solvency. Small business is the real economic base of this country. Given the way Congress bails out the big guys, you would never know it.

    As an RN who has worked with Vets for 30 years, Kerry's dedicated advocacy for them and his personal experience with the futility of war is probably the biggest reason I still believe he could be one of the best presidents this country could ever have. At a time when having one of the best could make or break our future, big time.

    Gore would be very acceptable to me. While I don't think he has as strong or as broad a record as Kerry, it's darn close and better him than anyone else.  If neither of them run, I am willing to consider Obama if he goes in with the idea that he really has to have some brilliant, experienced, strong people in his cabinet, that he listens to, and an even stronger VP.

    Nancy is awesome. I don't think she could make it and I think she is laying some excellent ground work for the right woman to get into the WH. I am also torn on the idea of her leaving the Speaker position she is doing very well at. If Kerry or Gore chose her for VP, I would be very cool with that.

    Thom Hartman has been pushing my bottom line beautifully. Democracy requires participation in the whole process - not just voting. Keep talking to the disatisfied about GETTING INVOLVED. The internet has made it incredibly easy to keep up with what is going on and contacting your local and national representatives.

    2000 campaign sucked, why re-hire (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by seabos84 on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    those from the top of that fiasco?

    lots of people would preface what I am going to say with something like 'i'm sorry, but'

    well, I ain't sorry.

    the senior gore campaign crowd should NEVER EVER get a dime or a second of time from us the peeee-ons.  they should do something useful, like ... be the bathroom cleaners at the fast food places at the freeway exits.

    I do NOT know what the right strategy or strategies should have been in 2000, BUT, they sure as hell shouldn't have been the strategies that lead to such a poorly run campaign AND

    to this f$$$ing frat boy fasicst getting the keys to the kingdom.

    their failure was and is inexcusable, AND

    they should never be allowed to work in politics again.


    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    your hatred of "algore" is palpable. Why do you hate him so much; is it because the Right is just so full of hate?

    Oh, and please do reiterate your thesis about how the theory of Global Warming is the product of a conspiracy against capitalism concocted by left wing academicians; if for no other reason, just so all of us can see how a clear thinking, scientifically trained mind works.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:28:55 AM EST
    you never used the word conspiracy, which means you "never said it".

    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    So much claptrap, so little time...

    I didn't say it was a conspiracy because it isn't a conspiracy. Your continual attempts to make words mean what you want is astounding.

    It is merely a group of people who have mutal self interests. There is no need to talk and/or plot. Do you think what the pilot fish does is of interest to the shark?? Good grief. What a droll concept.

    BTW - I guess all the links I gave Al had too many big words in them for you to understand. I'll try to find some simplified ones. Maybe "Why the science is bad in GW for dummies..." Ah heck. That meme is already in use... something about software...Microsoft...Windows.

    Me? Hate the inventor of the Internet? Why I was just thinking he looked so contented setting there on the fence. No, that's the cow who's contented... No....


    desertwind (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertwind on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 04:22:06 AM EST
    Jeralyn, I agree. It would be a mistake.

    Now, who can we pull out of the ranks and be excited by? Any interesting unknowns?

    Gore (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dulcinea on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:06:09 AM EST
    Not an unknown, but Speaker Pelosi should be given serious consideration.  If she weren't a woman, she would be in the running.

    I think a .. (none / 0) (#2)
    by demohypocrates on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:57:13 AM EST
    Gore v. Thompson race would be a great one.  Who would win Tenn?  That would be fun.

    Who?? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:12:05 AM EST
    Thompson by 7 to 3

    DA (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    Oh really?

    Well, it is Sunday morning, DA. Go down to your local Church of Global Warming and worship. At least that puts the issue where it should it be.

    If you want to somewhat understand my position on GW, take about 50 minutes and watch this interview of Michael Crichton by Charlie Rose.

    Note that he believes the world is getting warmer.

    Man may be contributing to this.

    He thinks the science being presented is very shaky.

    He laughs at consensus science. (There aint no such thing.) TANST

    BTW - Thanks for the insult. It proves again you can debate a point, just snear. And you call me ignorant.....

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Al on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    any scientist named Michael Crichton.

    Show me that you know what you're talking about. Explain the greenhouse effect, and compare the temperature rise in the past 150 years due to CO2 increases by the greenhouse effect with any other source of energy you like. Show me the numbers.


    Al (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:13:22 PM EST
    Then your education is truly lacking...

    Of course he isn't a scientist. But he does have a MD from a school school named Harvard..

    And he says that what the scientist write disagrees with what the True GW Believers are told by the High Priests, aka Algore.

    What did Algore do.... wasn't it divinity school???

    And why won't you watch the video? Charlie Rose too conservative for you?

    BTW - You are the one wanting to prove something, not me.

    BTW - It is the use of models that give pause to most thinking people. Remember. It was a growth model that said the Internet was going to double every year.... based on the early years growth..

    It came to be called "Idiots Projecting" to justify "Build It and They Will Come."

    It was built and they didn't. Got any idea how much money was chunked down that rat hole??

    Now, if you want scientists, I give you: Roy Spencer

    Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama

    Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

    Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change.

    Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

    Questions for Al Gore.

    BTW - One of the things we do know is that trees and vegation are consumers of carbon dixoide.

    Why don't we see a great out cry by the Priests of GW urging the faihful to plant trees?

    Al, have you planted a tree today? Do you grow a garden? Shrubs??


    You still don't get it, or pretend not to (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Al on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:07:18 PM EST
    Novelist/MD Crichton knows nothing about climatology.

    Spencer asks questions of Gore demanding evidence of his claims. In fact, the evidence exists, and Spencer probably knows it. It's a rhetorical device.

    But this is not relevant. If you are claiming that global warming is not caused by human actions, and you are denying the evidence (see for example the IPCC reports), then you have to show me the data. Don't refer me to a television interview; refer me to journal articles, actual data. That's how science works.

    I bet you can't. Hence all the posturing.

    And since you asked, yes, I do grow a garden, and I do a number of things to reduce my carbon footprint. But this is not enough; it's vital to curtail runaway emissions growth. Happy Earth Day, PPJ.


    Gee Dubya (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:42:42 PM EST
    Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

    Figure 1: Variations of the Earth's surface temperature over the last 140 years and the last millennium.

    Global Climate Report: Earth Facing Major Hunger, Water Shortages, Massive Floods, Avalanches
    BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The world faces increased hunger and water shortages in the poorest countries, massive floods and avalanches in Asia, and species extinction unless nations adapt to climate change and halt its progress, according to a report approved [April 06] by an international conference on global warming.
    Without taking action to curb carbon emissions, man's livable habitat will shrink starkly, said Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider, one of the authors. "Don't be poor in a hot country, don't live in hurricane alley, watch out about being on the coasts or in the Arctic, and it's a bad idea to be on high mountains with glaciers melting," he said.
    Faux Snooze - We Report. You hide.

    Al (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:37:24 PM EST
    You are incapable of reading.

    I said that Crichton's interview stated, fairly well, my positions. So, since you haven't bothered to read it, you have done nothing besides prove that you just want to be snarky. Here, let me help you.

    1. GW is real.

    2. Man may be a contributor to C0.

    3. He doesn't trust the science because no one will discuss the science in the UN report. He dosen't like "models."

    4. Heat islands, deforestation and water vapor may likely be huge contributors as well.

    5. He resuses to be an alarmist.

    6. Much of what Algore shows is BS.

    7. Consensus science is not science.

    8. He believes most of the current BS is driven by people wanting government money for "research" in almost unrelated fields.

    There now. Do you have enough character to feel embarassed?

    BTW - Are you a MD? Did you graduate from Harvard?
    Have you written numerous very successful novels?
    Produced movies????

    Do you think that these things might be an indication that this person is very smart, talented and capable of logical thought??


    These are your claims? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Al on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:36:08 AM EST
    Never mind Crichton. You don't like "models"? Why not?

    Heat islands, deforestation and water vapor may likely be huge contributors as well.

    Explain to me how "heat islands, deforestation and water vapor" suddenly started injecting CO2 into the atmosphere faster than ever before in the last 150 years.

    Much of what Al Gore shows is BS.

    Give an example.

    Consensus science is not science.

    Are you kidding? A majority of scientists agree on something, and you think that doesn't count, somehow?

    Are you a MD? Did you graduate from Harvard?
    Have you written numerous very successful novels?
    Produced movies????

    No, but I hold a Ph. D. in physics, and my thesis was on physics of the upper atmosphere, which I believe qualifies me more than Crichton - and you, I'm thinking - to evaluate the research on global warming.

    I'm still waiting for you to explain the greenhouse effect. The reason why I insist is that I'm pretty certain you don't understand how it works. Prove me wrong.


    Hello Al (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:51:21 AM EST
    Well, I am glad to know you have a Phd in physics.
    Are you working in your field as a research scientist? Teaching?

    My concern is that along with that knowledge they didn't implant a questioning attitude. That can be a terrible problem for a scientist.

    You see, I don't claim any special expertise, just an engineering background... used to call myself one but I opted for the sales side and that was so long ago I hate to think about it.

    And I have been around long enough to know that using models to prove anything is problematic, and that a model's result is easy to fudge.

    So just consider me a hard headed ROF who started out believeing in Global Cooling. Remember that? And to a degree, Global Warming. After all, with my background and the fact that I love science fiction, I was an easy mark.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the altar. I started asking questions.

    And that's why I like Crichton. He asks questions, and he makes some points that I haven't seen answered:

    For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.


    Crichton has also exhibited a remarkable grasp of trends, and what the future will hold. The following comes from a speech he made at the National Press Club on April 7, 1993.

    .. To my mind, it is likely that what we now understand as the mass media will be gone within ten years. Vanished, without a trace.

    That tells me that he is a guy who may not be a "scientist," but one who understands science, technology and the associated societal and political changes that are coming.

    So, want to talk about the hockey stick? Isn't a pretty picture, eh? The same "stick" was used to sell Internet demand and the need to purchase infrastructure by the telcos. It wsa wrong there, too.


    After all we have these 60 scientists that think we should. And just glancing at the list, they seem very qualified. BTW - Is your name on a list supporting the UN's theory?"


    Want to get a second opinon of Algore's technical abilities?

    "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." - Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006


    Greenhouse effect??

    Since you seem to not understand it yourself, the above will give you an overview...

    Are you saying that we don't have larger cities, have lost more trees???

    Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore. While humanity's three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere's total CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth's oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT -- making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning.

    Do you get the point that we have a +/- variance of 80GT, yet we are concerned over 3GT?


    Crichton's point was, since you want to snark and won't take a look at he said, is that he doesn't think we have looked at these items, instead concentrating almost entirely on carbon dixode..

    BTW - Can you explain the Little Ice Age and before that the Mediaeval Warm Period?

    BTW - Do you ignore the sun? Do you think that the sun is playing a part in this?

    If  not, can you explain the warming noticed on Mars? I mean, we closer to the sun than Mars is.

    BTW - Does an increase in carbon dioxide follow sunspot activity, or lead it?

    I could go on and on with links and questions, but I think I have proved my point.

    And this article sums it up rather nicely.

    The truth is that this being pushed by two groups. First scientists who see it as a means to obtain more funding for their various studies. Secondly, the politicians who see it as a means to transfer wealth from the West to the third world. They go together like pilot fish and sharks.

    There is also a third group which is not noticed in this country, but has in Europe. That is the communists and hard line socialists who found natural allies in the greens. They share a mutal hatred of the west.

    Leftists have problems with Christianity.  Christians believe that they are flawed and seek grace through repentance.  Leftists believe everyone else is flawed and seek resolution through imposition.


    I started with Crichton, so I'll end with him. he wrote:

    N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

    Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

    This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

    When you can plug in some absolutes into the formula, come back and see me. Until then I think neither of us knows for sure what's happening.

    The difference between us is that you are willing to give up freedoms and rights based on politcal drivel from the UN and some very shaky science. I am not.


    plug in some absolutes into the formula (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    Figure 1: Variations of the Earth's surface temperature over the last 140 years and the last millennium.

    Why do you ask for absolutes? You just ignore them.

    You're full of it, PPJ (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Al on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    You're trotting out tired old drivel about the hockey stick graph being wrong (it isn't: reference); solar irradiance variations (of which there isn't the slightest evidence that they may contribute significantly to the observed warming), or Mars (polar cap melting attributed to global climate change due to Sun (see above), instead of dust storms; reference).

    We've all heard this before, and it's all been refuted. I note two things: First, you still can't explain the greenhouse mechanism in your own words (a robust measure of your ignorance in the matter), and second, you seem to think that preventing global warming somehow requires you to give up freedoms and rights? What in heaven's name are you talking about? The right to pollute?


    Dearest Al (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 07:10:21 PM EST
    As I said, when you can plug in some absolutes to the formula give me call.

    Until then just continue to believe the nonsense being passed out, you obviously have the mental bent of believeing whatever the authorities tell you.

    What do you call priests who believe everything the pope says?

    As for your continual demands I explain... why should I? If I do that, then you will demand something else, etc., etc.

    That ploy is as old as the hills. Surely you can do better.

    I was kind enough to give you a link to a basic explanation.

    So you make take your demand and play with it. And you are free to believe whatever you like. As for me, I don't care if you are a physicist or not. As long as you tell me you believe in consensus science, you aren't a scientist.

    Now, do I believe you are? No.


    As I said earlier (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:35 AM EST
    Figure 1: Variations of the Earth's surface temperature over the last 140 years and the last millennium.

    Why do you ask for absolutes? You just ignore them.


    edger (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:52:04 PM EST
    If CO is a function of man's industralization, then the amount produced must be fairly linear.

    So why do we have the 40 year drop between approximately 1940 and 1980???

    What happened??

    Remember. That drop was so significant that many of the same people who are now calling GW a diaster were then claiming the world would end due to Global Cooling.

    There are other questions that need asking, and answering before we turn our lives over to the bureaucrats at the UN.

    What I find remarkable is your continual complaints about lost "rights" that you haven't lost and that no one will take, and yet you are willing to give rights to someone who will definitely take them.


    clarification (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    Make that... the amount produced must be rising at a fairly linear rate...especially between 1940 and 1980

    I don't concentrate on the minor details (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:59:40 PM EST
    to deflect from the longer term trends and overall picture as you do Jim. So why don't you form a hypothesis, design the experiments, do the science, collate and organize the resulting data, have it subjected to rigorous peer review, write a report, and come back when you have something.

    I'll be right here. Thanks.

    DA (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    hmmmm but I can't type.....

    that's can't debate and just smear... nice to get a double so early in the day...

    BTW - I note you can't comment on Gore's refusal to take the pledge.

    Dosen't that tell you anything?


    Aw shucks (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    Glad to know you want to comment on typing. It adds so much to the discussion... and is just a your level.

    And of course there will be some, my question was "how many" that would want them to have bail and released. Do you really doubt them?

    BTW - Back to the topic?? Why did you leave it? Oh. I know. To try and make yourself look good while passing out some insults. How juvenile.

    Trying to have a debate with you is like trying to pet a snake. It can't be done, but sometimes it is interesting to see how often the snake will strike at your hand.

    Boogey boogey, DA and have a wonderful day.


    DA (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    You remind me of a guy who worked for me for a while.

    His defense was always that some small detail had prevented him for doing whatever.

    He also shared the same traits you do, claiming things others said when invstigations always proved  him untrue.

    I'll give you one example. I never claimed MC was an expert on I merely referenced him as stating what I considered to be close to my position.

    And I did give Al, Roy Spencer...

    I did note that he had a MD from Harvard. Something I think is a fair indication of intellect, talent and logical thinking.

    yadda yadda DA. You really have nothing to add, nothing to say.


    electorate want a break from past (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmpnwtr on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:15:10 AM EST
    Al has done much more out of politics than in. He has found his niche. His favorables are still not good. Edwards or Obama have the best shot at a new direction for a progressive presidency right now. We really need a clean break from the Clinton era and the past. We need a new progressive movement with a powerful and consistent vision and an effective and articulate leader. Al, Hillary, Richardson are all of the Clinton era and have that baggage.