informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Nov 30 2009, 7:10 PM Category: Resistance Source: WeAreChange Chicago Print

Al Gore confronted on Climategate in Chicago


Related: Protesters disrupt Gore book-signing event
We Are Change Chicago confronts Al Gore at a Borders book signing on Climategate, carbon taxes, and the New World Order. Click the link for more info on the confrontation:
http://www.wearechangechicago.com/algore.html





Latest Resistance
- Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads for Police, Even With Search Warrants
- Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's "Security" Monopoly
- This Citizen Gives a Cop a Taste of What Police Harassment Feels Like
- Snowden: 'If I End Up In Chains In Guantanamo I Can Live With That'
- The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
- Georgia Deputy Surprises Us All By Respecting Constitution
- Bill Maher & Iraq Vet Accuse Glenn Greenwald Of Helpin' The Terrorists
- Lynne and Dick Cheney Confronted on Torture Program









Comments 1 - 19 of 19 Add Comment Page 1 of 1
Anonymous

Posted: Nov 30 2009, 7:46 PM

Link
6530 The moon landings were faked. The technology to go to the moon should be easy by now. But we can't step on the moon and that's why no one else has went and we never went back. We can't fake it again in this era.
Anonymous

Posted: Nov 30 2009, 8:02 PM

Link
7538 Actually, we've been on the moon since 1958(U.S, Europe, I believe, and Russia) even before the idea went mainstream. Yes, I agree some pictures were indeed fake, but only because they showed too much information such as buildings and monuments. So they decided to fake moon landings.


Back to the topic :p
Why did the reporters start yelling at Gore when he was in the car?
I don't think Gore needs an echo. He knows what he is doing and yelling or acting immature like that only makes you look half as bad, in my opinion of course.
Anonymous

Posted: Nov 30 2009, 8:06 PM

Link
193200 Id like to know just how gore is making the ice melt?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUQUHqrFNSnyGROkjhbTqf2dOWwQ

bastard...
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 12:39 PM

Link
70178 haha the moon landings were faked. you sound like chris.

chris, who believes that climate change does not exist.

oh oh i dont like al gore, that means that climate change is not real
oh oh, carbon trading is a scam, that means that climate change is not real

this site is a tool of the right wing when it comes to certain topics.


ps: look at the huge fit everyone is having over this... look at how much total BULLCRAP, certain people foaming out of crevice they have (chris).


all scientists, it does not matter what field, have to adjust and manipulate datasets in order to compare and combine them in meaningful ways... for example tree rings - you can't take a core and magically see what the temperature is. all you can do is see the changes in growth from year to year. if you want to use that as temperature data, you have to find a baseline.

that is EXACTLY what "climategate" is about. people like chris are criticizing someone for using common procedures.

so as a reminder:

1. climate change is real (stop denying it, chris)
2. global warming is real (our current situation, and no fucking no, the globe has not been cooling for the past decade)

3. carbon trading is a scam

quit denying the first 2 items because of item 3

Anonymous

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 12:54 PM

Link
9621 I think the planet is changing. But I also think that it isn't entirely our fault. I feel like the Sun might have something to do with it. This is only my malleable opinion.
Chris

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 2:12 PM

Link
Through the wonders of the internet you can research anything you like, some use it to do good work, others to dig themselves into a ditch.

I'd suggest anyone who wants to know watch this video:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27951
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 2:58 PM

Link
70178 see? chris just denied that climate change is real.

he absolutely denied it... and why did he do that?

you're a moron, chris, and you have literally dug yourself into a ditch.

you have literally never actually looked at climate data. you only listen to and promote bullshit that fits your own agenda.

--
also, i'm trying to watch that video, chris... for example

"It is important that we do not waste money, effort, time or resources on non-problems such as global warming" -lord idiot Monckton

this stupid monckton fellow does not think that sea level rise is a problem (now or ever).
think about that... (it is definitely a problem, and many parts of the world have been coping with it for decades)

monckton is all for preserving the environment and not polluting - but if the f*cking sea level is rising you have no choice but to spend 'money, effort, time and resources' making sure you don't pollute during a flood. according to monckton levees are a waste of time and effort, as a flood is a non-problem.

oh, btw, monckton completely acknowledges the fact global warming is real. did you even watch the first 6 minutes of the video yourself, chris.

i've watched 6 minutes so far.


Chris

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 3:28 PM

Link
lol, you're mentally ill, do you even understand the idiocy of the term "climate change"? No, of course you don't, you don't think beyond the marketing slogans you learned over the last few years, you just recite them without ever thinking about what it actually means. For you to understand "climate change" you need to "look at the climate data," you don't look at something as simple as history or the ice age or medieval warming period, no you want to see "the data"!

You're not using your common sense, you've lost touch with it completely, attacking me will not help you gain it back. As I've detailed many times I laugh at your attacks and feel sorry for you at the most, realistically though it barely even registers in my mind so you don't have to worry about me! (I know you're losing sleep) ;)

So as a reminder:
1) You're brainwashed
2) Your beliefs were given to you
3) You've been scammed
4) Attacking me won't help you
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 4:11 PM

Link
70178 chris, you said nothing. all you did was attack me, and speak more of your gibberish.

and you again deny that climate change occurs while pointing out the ice age and MWP...

is the climate changing or not, chris?
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 4:24 PM

Link
70178 ok. i'm only 16minutes in and this fool has not mentioned the climate. here is my summary so far:

6:45
Monckton says global warming is a myth (after saying it is real, but not anything to worry about)

6:45-8:20
All self promotion and gore bashing. he then uses the following quote: "The seeker of truth does not put his trust in any old consensus: he questions it."

8:20
monckton says "I'm going to show you the latest science, which doesn't leave the question unsettled anymore. This is now settled science." What happened to questioning it and not placing trust in any old consensus?

8:35
monckton asks the audience a question and uses the word "believe"

8:58
monckton then claims that his own question was stupid, as science is not a matter of belief. (While urging us to believe his own data.)

9:10
monckton says there will be no rhetoric, just boring facts in his presentation. but so far all we have heard has been pure rhetoric. he proceeds with 2.5 minutes of more "intellectually vacuous" crap (rhetoric.)

10:00
he mentions "our blessed lord" - i think Facts and Belief confuse monckton...

i'll put the next section on DDT in a new post
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 4:43 PM

Link
70178 11:20
"40 years ago DDT, the only effective agent against the malaria mosquito was banned"

1. ddt was and is not the only effective agent against malaria
2. there are over 100 species of "malaria mosquito"
3. ddt was NEVER banned for controlling malaria vectors. it is still used today. it was banned for use on agriculture, which has nothing to do with mosquitoes. (ddt kills other insects too)

this man thinks that ddt should have never "been banned" for a single specific reason regardless of the consequences. his specific reason, his claim, that the DDT-ban coincided with an increase of 950,000 deaths a year from malaria.

that is completely false.

between 1 and 3 million people die every year in africa (90% of the total), from malaria.

ddt was never used in africa. so how could the number of deaths per year (in the past 100 years) be 50,000 ever?

monckton then quotes Dr. Arata from the WHO when they "removed the ban on DDT"

at 13:23 monckton actually tries to take partial credit for the reversal of the nonexistent ban.

remember, DDT was never banned for use on mosquitoes.
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 5:02 PM

Link
70178 13:30
monckton starts calling names. "the left, the environmental left, the intolerant, communistic, narrow minded faction that does not care about how many children are killed"

are you kidding? monckton is talking about himself.

14:15
monckton starts talking about standard of living. he wants to make everyone rich. listen to him preach and promote complete socialism. as there is no way to make everyone "rich" unless you take some of the money away from the people with the most.

15:28
monckton suggest that people infected with HIV should be identified and removed from society - lock them away (humanely - monckton is an idiot) - lock them away communist style.

he then condemns the left for stopping that from happening.

i think monckton's strategy here is to say so many stupid and irrelevant things that anyone that goes to the trouble of correcting him will be too tired to continue by the time he starts talking about the actual subject
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 7:20 PM

Link
70178 19:05
claims that human food supplies were used for biofuel, which is mostly false. he also tries to blame the left when food sources are affected.

the reality: oil men bought corn on the open market and used it for fuel. instead of doing the "left" thing which is: use organic waste (cellulose), or grow hemp to make biofuels.

pig farmers suffered the most from biofuels production, not people.

he attributes food price increases to biofuels, instead of blaming it on oil costs and droughts. (all food prices increased, remember? not just corn and wheat...)

the picture he is showing is of someone in haiti. those people are not in that situation he's depicting because of ethanol. the people eating mud pies are families with zero income.

haiti was hit by several hurricane/tropical storms, remember? 800 people were killed. harvests were wiped out. so if anything, the picture he is showing has nothing at all to do with ethanol, but it has a lot to do with the weather.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080130-AP-haiti-eatin.html

should i continue?

21:00
life expectancy and mortality rate has nothing to do with carbon emissions. it has to do with the economy and health care (and doing things like banning DDT in agriculture). if the united states was 100% solar powered with zero carbon emissions does that mean we and all our babies are going to die? no (quite the opposite actually). monckton is a dishonest idiot.

chris, you just ran about 50 articles about climategate. why not run 50 articles about monckton being a dumbass hack?

22:00
he's selling a product, but assures us he's not profiting, and that is a lie.

22:30
"unless we announce disasters no one will listen" that is neither a lie, nor is it an advertisement that he is going to lie. he's simply stating a fact. you can publish climate data all day long, publish temperature projections, carbon projections, sea level projections and it will not have any effect on stupid people. they don't know what it means. so pointing out, to the stupid public, what it means is a choice. if the temperature continues to rise at the current rate we can expect X amount of sea level rise.

to people like chris and turd monckton pointing out the consequences of sea level rise, etc is nothing but fear mongering.

people (chris) are not interested in numbers they only respond to something they can relate with. i suggest you look at the numbers yourself, and then visualize what may happen.

22:44
"we have to offer up scary scenarios" same as above. they are not lying.

for example "temperature in forest X has not fallen below freezing in 2 years"

you may have no idea what that means. you may even think it is a good thing. but it isn't... ask a scientist what it means in this case and it becomes a 'disaster' (in that beetle populations are very strong resulting in a 30% die off of trees in a single season)

22:48
"global warming can mean colder. it can mean drier. it can mean wetter."

Those are facts...

23:07
Albert Arnold Gore
he might as well say Hussein (do you see what type of person monckton is?)

and as far as the quote (a quote that is opinion)? monckton is doing the exact same thing (you do it too chris)

you exaggerate things to try to get your point across or to get attention... you embellish

but still, so far, the only person who has lied or been shown to have lied is idiot monckton

'if the sea level rises 1 foot, shit WILL hit the fan'. that is the type of thing monckton calls a lie.
elhombremacho

Posted: Dec 01 2009, 8:56 PM

Link
7538 How am I being compared to Chris?

Chris has his own beliefs ( which I think is fine) and I have a set of my own.
The moon landings were not completely fake.

Yes, I understand some photos are fake, but that does not mean the whole procedure was a scam. Our government has huge amounts of technology that the mainstream simply does not have which makes people think "Oh, this is impossible blah blah blah", which is simply not true. We DID land on the moon, it's just our government wants to hide the fact that there are E.T's inhabiting it as well.

I bet you (70.178) think that the moon was made from Earth crashing into a planet sized object the shape of Mars.





TH

Posted: Dec 02 2009, 12:06 AM

Link
19877 anonymous 70.178 said: "all scientists, it does not matter what field, have to adjust and manipulate datasets in order to compare and combine them in meaningful ways.."

Exactly. And they have been CHOOSING which datasets, based on which datasets support their theory or agenda (depending on who they work for).

The facts:
1. Global warming is true for one set of data.
2. Global warming is false for another set of data.
3. Thousands or actual, REAL, climate SCIENTISTS disagree with the choice of datasets.
4. The statistical correlation between CO2 and temp rise is 0.43. If you know anything about statistics, you'll know that's not a strong correlation.
5. The IPCC used 22 different computer models. Out of those 22 models, none of them--NONE--predicted the DECREASE in global temperatures that started 10 years ago.

So consider this question: If the science is so completely settled, why do they need 22 different computer models??



It all depends on which dataset.

1stcleanharry

Posted: Dec 02 2009, 2:47 AM

Link
IRONMOUNTAIN is all the evidence I need.
Once one realizes that global warming was fabricated long before it ever happened, one is able to form an opinion.
I myself think that global warming and global cooling go hand in hand as they have done since the begining of time.
There can be no model nor statistic that can show heating or cooling.
Its all supposition, guesswork is what it is.
The only reason we have global warming (as stated in ironmountain) is to harvest dollars.
1stcleanharry

Posted: Dec 02 2009, 2:58 AM

Link
I do agree however that pollution is a problem.
But not from CO2.
Manufactoring waste is the problem and those who proliferate want "Joe Public" to pay for its clean-up.
Anonymous

Posted: Dec 02 2009, 2:38 PM

Link
66151 Why is the lie of "climate change" and reducing environmental impact interdependent?

There is no reason why we cannot continue to take REASONABLE measures to reduce our impact on the environment. Work for clean air, water, etc... And we can do those things without giving up personal freedom to draconian measures based on false science.

I knew AGW was a lie the moment Al Gore took control of the movement while continuing to live the jetset, mansion, steak and lobster lifestyle. If any of our elite leadership had any level of confidence in AGW they would have changed their own lives immediately--they used to call that leadership by example.

The chicken littles said the sky was falling. It wasn't.
Now they say if you don't believe the sky is falling, it will fall. It won't.

None of this means we now must tolerate irresponsibility and we should reject anyone who says otherwise.
P@R@D!gM

Posted: Dec 02 2009, 4:14 PM

Link
248 This video is now listed on the most popular videos @ www.youtube.com

Thank You I.L. & Alex Jones!
Comments 1 - 19 of 19 Page 1 of 1


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

Austin Police Officer Tries To Paint Police Accountability Groups As 'Domestic Extremists' In FOIA'ed Emails - 09/18Man Calls Cops To Report Vandals At His Home, They Show Up And Kill Him - 09/18Delaware Court Overturns Hearsay Traffic Stops - 09/18"You Have The Right To Shut Up": Police Raid Tavern, Lock Doors, Forcibly Search Dozens of Patrons - 09/17Government Seeks To Steal Elderly Car Crash Victim's Home Over Single Missed Property Tax Payment - 09/17"Your Property is Guilty Until You Prove it Innocent" - 09/17LA School District Police Get Armored Vehicle, Grenade Launchers - 09/17This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories - 09/18

Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-ThirdsCop Who Karate Chopped NY Judge In Throat Gets Off Scot-FreeFlorida Cop Smashes Compliant Woman's Face Into Car -- "Maybe Now You Can Understand Simple Instructions"VIDEO: Lapel Cam Reveals A Day In The Life Of A U.S. Police Officer (Tasing, Beating, Breaking & Entering, Stomping On Heads... and Laughing About It)Caught On Tape: Officer Sucker Punches Inmate In Face, Files Report Claiming 'Self Defense'Insult Person On Twitter, Go To JailSWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma InsteadCop Karate Chops NY Judge In The Throat
(more)

 
Top