Al Gore discusses global warming with Ellen DeGeneres

[NewFounderHome]

SrrWXurroWw

[Flash]

something is wrong with his face, Al Gore face has no wrinkles and he is getting old. One might say this is due to surgeries and cremes. However, the same with his hands. There is no surgeries for the hands and cream is not enough. His hand should look much older.


Gosh, this is a clone.

[Earth Angel]

I watched this earlier......can't watch it again at the moment but I don't think the word Chemtrail was used......I thought he might even have been attempting to pawn it off on regular air traffic pollution ??

[ThePythonicCow]

something is wrong with his face, Al Gore face has no wrinkles and he is getting old. One might say this is due to surgeries and cremes. However, the same with his hands. There is no surgeries for the hands and cream is not enough. His hand should look much older.
Here's links to a couple of recent still photos of him: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1126410/thumbs/o-AL-GORE-facebook.jpg and http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1131484/thumbs/o-AL-GORE-facebook.jpg (Getty images found on Huffington Post by Google image search). The images are a bit too big and ugly to warrant posting inline here, but they do show evidence of more appropriate age related wrinkling.

Maybe in the video interview above, we are seeing the combination of some good makeup artists and some Bob Guccione like vaseline on the camera lense (as used in Penthouse magazine photos to blur "interesting" details of their models.)

[JohnEAngel]

something is wrong with his face, Al Gore face has no wrinkles and he is getting old. One might say this is due to surgeries and cremes. However, the same with his hands. There is no surgeries for the hands and cream is not enough. His hand should look much older.


Gosh, this is a clone.

most excellent argument. they work at the higher levels to maintain the illusion. i have lost faith in any semblance of reality that i knew growing up. and now i move among this present animation seeing what i see while others do not and i endure and observe from a separate experience. i am presently not called upon to do otherwise. al gore and ellen together in this collaboration is very entertaining. thank you for sharing! the chemtrail bit is golden (or is it?)

[Sidney]

I watched this earlier......can't watch it again at the moment but I don't think the word Chemtrail was used......I thought he might even have been attempting to pawn it off on regular air traffic pollution ??

thats exactly what he was doing. Talking about it like its not even happening.

I think the no wrinkles thing is because the whole thing is blurred. Look at the ferns in the background, you cant see the spaces between the leaves. And Ellens skin looks flawless too. That said, I did see an interview with michelle obama a couple years ago that I do believe was a clone. This "thing" did not look real, at all, and movements were very robotic. I have tried to look for it on youtube and havent found it.

[JohnEAngel]

i think that some of us are aware that if you don't play along you will be substituted. hard to say but as this world deteriorates the anomalies seem to surface into full view of the awakened. at times it's almost an insult to the knowing. obvious, blatant are some words that come to mind.

[Fellow Aspirant]

To get back to the titled topic of this thread: at no point in the interview does Gore say that there is anything being done to the atmosphere in terms of chemtrails. No. No. No. Not only does he not use the term itself, but he only states that, to paraphrase:
'some scientists are proposing the use of sulphur dioxode to lessen the amount of sunlight striking the earth.'
To propose the use of chemical additives is, of course, no admission whatsoever that it is actually being done.

I wish that Ellen had put the question of the current use of chemtrails to her guest, but regrettably she did not.

Come on folks, let's pay more careful attention and get the words right. Our credibility as a community of 'aware' people depends on it. Sheesh! :o

And the use of makeup on national television? Talk about your red herrings!

[ThePythonicCow]

I changed the title of this thread from:


Al Gore admits Chemtrails are for blocking the SUN
to:


Al Gore discusses global warming with Ellen DeGeneres
I don't care what that video's title was on Youtube; the title was wrong.

[indigopete]

The thing about global warming is, it's a highly emotive subject and one of the most heavily thought-policed areas of human intellectual discourse.

In the 80's and 90's I was a global warming proponent. Weirdly, it wasn't till after 9/11 that I became a global warming sceptic. 9/11 just seems to turn your whole world upside down if you even allow yourself to take a sneak peek into that can of worms.

When you really think about it though, science is basically always wrong about everything. Today's "settled science" is always tomorrow's flat earth. Even Newton's laws turned out to be no more than an approximation that only work under certain very specific ranges of the reality spectrum (which humans happen to occupy).

When electromagnetism was being discovered, an experimental scientist suspected that the lines of electromagnetic force extended out into the space around a conductor. There was no way the scientific establishment was going to entertain this idea because it was too ridiculous and Michael Faraday died before he was eventually vindicated. The only reason he was so is because he was lucky enough to find a clever mathematician who thought he might be onto something and worked on the mathematics to the point where he eventually proved Faraday right. That mathematician was James Clark Maxwell. Who studied James Clerk Maxwell's work till he was blue in the face ? - Albert Einstein. And so, in 2 short generations, the face of reality as it was known was changed beyond recognition.

Millions of ships around the world are designed to withstand waves who's maximum height is governed by linear wave theory. Scientists and engineers were so rock solid sure about linear wave theory that it was basically considered "settled science" and it became the standard by which supertankers and cruise ships were built. Then one stormy day in the North Atlantic, along came a 100 foot brick wall of water smashed one of the strongest ships in the world - the German built "MS München" - into pieces and sunk it without trace. Still the scientific community stuck to its guns - it could only be due to "freak currents" since the facts did not fit the theory. (Of course in science, it's the theory that needs to fit the facts - but scientists being only human, tend to be selective about their 'facts').

Finally, years later after several further incidents, an individual researcher made an accidental comparison with some theoretical data he was working on and one of the rogue wave measurements. It was discovered that ocean waves exhibited non-linear effects under certain conditions and that branch of science was changed forever.

So, whenever you hear the term "settled science", think of it like a fish thats been lying on the counter too long - its hours are numbered.

I'll just close with this here graph of global sea ice and the global sea ice anomaly (which indicates departure from the average) between 1979 and 2012. Even if this is explainable by the Global Warming science fraternity - ask yourself if you really expected to see a nice, steady rock solid line with no net loss over 34 years. That will give you an idea of how much propaganda you've been subjected to :)

21436

P.S. I love science and am not meaning to attack it as such. But I understand it and don't treat it as a religion. We need to separate the concept of scientific method (which is a powerful tool for making objective observations about things) from the scientific institutions (who's job it is to maintain the current body of knowledge and who are about as objective as the next politician).

If anyone's interested in the examples I gave above, here's some reading and viewing you can enjoy over a glass of wine or 2:

PBS: Einstein's Big Idea | Michael Faraday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEVEBzNSwTU

BBC Horizon: "Freak Wave" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YVZn46KgTs

The Story of Electricity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhgo9fAlAQQ

Cryosphere Today: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Henrik Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

(Definitely watch that last one ! :) )

[soleil]

i wonder if this is him trying to distract us because its a low hanging fruit now?

[Lifebringer]

That's MY President!
Yes he has no wrinkles, when you eat healthier and change your life style from inhaling fossil fuel exhaust on your property or city area, youthful glow as well as a good make-up artist go a long way. I was just thinking about this 13.60 REC Renewable Energy Credit notice I received the other day from the city of Richmond, about using a renewable cleaner energy and the money goes towards keeping the energy companies expansion. I think it's worth it. Who knows, may even pay twice as much(affordable) to get the ball rolling. Like Rachel Maddow said while standing in a wind turbine energy field, "Why pay to pollute, when the answer is free and clean? The future is clean energy."

[Observer1964]

What global warming? we (in holland) did not have a decent summer in 10 yrs.

(or are chemtrails blocking the sun?)

[Earth Angel]

yes global warming means colder weather......its government double speak.....nothing is as it seems

[Observer1964]

btw...
in the 80's there was a lot of talk about acid rain....
what ever happened to this acid rain? or don't they want us to think of the rain and its chemical composition anymore?

[indigopete]

How climate science works Nº 1004: Fitting the facts to the theory.

1. When you get less ice - that's due to global warming and when you get more ice - thats also due to global warming. Except when you get more ice it's always exactly the right amount to perfectly offset the "less ice" so it looks to the non climate-scientist that there is no change when in fact its just global warming trying to trick us :)

2. If a near doubling of CO2 concentrations causes no net change in sea ice over a 35 year period, its because the huge sea ice gains that the CO2 caused exactly cancelled out the sea ice losses that the CO2 caused. But there's no question that both the gains and losses were caused by the CO2 increase and only a non climate-scientist would suspect otherwise :)

[Observer1964]

ah, now I get it...
cool, I mean hot...
:doh:

[indigopete]

Climate Scamonomics Nº 6003: Learn from the bankers:

If you control the carbon-fuels market and you're running out of carbon fuels, then just create a derivative called carbon credits and sell them instead !

You'll always have a steady supply and If you're lucky you can even tax both of them to boot :)