Quote of the Week from Charles Krauthammer: “If Godzilla Appeared on National Mall Gore Would Say It’s Global Warming”



The following might just be the quote of the week and maybe even the best of 2011 so far. Charles Krauthmammer stated on Friday during  PBS’s ‘Inside Washington’ … “If Godzilla Appeared on National Mall Gore Would Say It’s Global Warming.”

Have truer words ever been said. Al Gore blames the cold and warm weather on global warming, the abundance and lack of hurricanes and tornadoes on global waring, the stock market rising and falling on global warming and the lack of snow and record snow falls on global warming. It’s not just him, its his “cult of global warming” alarmists as well. Just recently they blamed the protests and riots in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt on global warming as well.



Full transcript from NewsBusters:

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: It’s been a terrible winter. If global warming is the problem, why are we having such a tough winter? Well Al Gore told Gail Collins of the New York Times there’s about a four percent more water vapor in the air now in the atmosphere than there was in the ’70s because of warmer oceans and warmer air, and it returns to earth as heavy rain and heavy snow. That’s what Al Gore says.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming…


…because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised.

Blasts from the Al Gore past …

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Al Gore Who, Global Warming has a New Spokesperson and his Name is Charles Manson
  • More Hypocrisy from Al “Its Not Easy Being Green” Gore … Saving Global Warming on Private Gulfstream Plane
  • Al “It’s Not Easy Being Green” Gore Compares the Battle against Global Warming to the Battle Against the Nazis
  • Al Gore … One Trick Pony … Global Warming the Cause as Thousands Dead after Myanmar Cyclone
  • Its All about the Timing … Global Warming Conference Held in Buffalo, NY with -6 Degrees Temperatures

  • Comments

    12 Responses to “Quote of the Week from Charles Krauthammer: “If Godzilla Appeared on National Mall Gore Would Say It’s Global Warming””

    1. Pat in Alabama on February 5th, 2011 8:26 pm

      I MIGHT could buy into that to account for the moisture, but what about the unusually cold temperatures? It doesn’t add up at all, except for Al Gore’s wallet.

      Does anyone remember the predictions of a new ice age on the horizon in the 60′s and 70′s?
      SM: That’s all any one talked about in the 70′s … the ice age cometh.

    2. Scared Monkeys on February 5th, 2011 9:41 pm

      Ya gotta love Charles Krauthmammer. The only think better than his well spoken verbal jabs is his amazing writing.

    3. Steve on February 6th, 2011 2:05 am

      “Ya gotta love CK” – Well, that may be debatable. He’s able to invent something nonsensical that was never said, yet imagine that it was said, in order to ridicule someone he disagree’s with. And the disagreement is on global climate change; a topic that CK likely hasn’t a clue what the underlying science is. I suppose CK had good (or was that loud) insights into the effects of the BP oil spill, highly accurate too.

      Yes, I guess this guy is just brilliant. Oh yeah, then this unintelligible comment is praised as being “truer words ever been said.” In my opinion this is just a lot of self-congratulatory BS.

      The article continues: “Just recently they blamed the protests and riots in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt on global warming as well.” Apparently, “they” refers to: “his “cult of global warming” alarmists”. Not exactly a distinctly identified group, that seems to conveniently include anyone at will.

      The associated link provided actually had a different take: “Many of the people protesting are also angry about dramatic price hikes for basic foodstuffs, such as rice, cereals, cooking oil and sugar.” This info was from another linked source which said: “As ClimateWire and SciAm explains, ”world food prices hit a record high in December thanks to crop failures from a series of extreme weather events around the world“.”

      Now where is CK to simply dismiss more disagreements with a sharp retort. There, problem solved; a few well placed words and science is no longer a bother.

    4. NGBoston on February 6th, 2011 4:44 am

      Maybe the prediction for the “ice age cometh” in the 60′s/70′s is just 50 years late in beginning?

      Look at this Winter for example….UNBELIEVABLE!

      “Think Palm Trees!!!” has been resounding in my head lately more times than usual. Forget the old adage “Think Spring” bc it does not look anywhere in sight for quite some time. =(

      “The Goracle” is an arse, plain and simple and a damn manipulative and greedy one, too. Fraudulent and foolish. Yes, Al- we know there is such a thing as climate change but you are nothing but a joke now. Embarrassing and I love the nickname “Goracle”—don’t know why but that one just cracks me up-fits him nicely.

    5. Pat in Alabama on February 6th, 2011 4:12 pm


      Even with all the fraud and manipulation that has come out about climate change, there are still a lot of die hard believers. Of course, there are still a lot of people who believe Elvis is alive, Paul is dead, the moon landing was a hoax, …

    6. Steve on February 6th, 2011 11:45 pm


      BS like that shows you have little knowledge or respect for science. Real science is so far removed from common or personal experiences, that to claim any credibility takes specialize degrees and significant research. Yet some think that reading weather reports, one or more blogs, or looking out the window gives them enough of a background to proclaim truth on climate. Balderdash!

      It takes years and even decades of research to be able to form conclusions. And this happens only after detailed, painstaking analysis of such large volumes of data that if it were assigned the average person they would run away screaming as the boring, difficult task would be impossible to attempt.

      It’s as if you think you understand the internal workings of computers because you surf the web, and do email. Not gonna happen! Real computer scientists do the same type of work climate scientists do, but on a different topic. And as a result, we all take advantage of their research and the commercial products that follow the scientific discoverys.

      Having bought 4 computers for myself since 1993, I can chronicle advances that might be unknown to some:

      1993 … Memory: 4Mb … Hard Disk: 340Mb … Removable Drive: 1.44Mb 5.25″ floppy
      1999 … Memory: 64Mb .. Hard Disk: 28Gb …. Removable Drive: 700Mb CD & 3.5″ floppy
      2006 … Memory: 2Gb … Hard Disk: 320Gb … Removable Drive: RW DVD/CD
      2010 … Memory: 6Gb … Hard Disk: 1Tb ….. Removable Drive: RW DVD/CD

      These astounding advances didn’t just happen. Many, many scientists researched this field, discovering and inventing new technologies to bring about these changes. They had to know extreme details and propertied on the materials they knew of and experimented on. Through the scientific method, their successes moved from the lab to commercial products, that we rely on daily. Yet since we are far removed from their daily work, we most often know very little about what they did, and how the facts uncovered became part of our world of products today.

      How simplistic and arrogant is it to think that scientists studying climate can be seriously challenged and simply dismissed by those of us merely living in a weather-oriented world. Is there anyone who, just because they use a computer, no matter for how long, no matter how much or how well, no matter how many applications have been mastered, no matter how many computer languages they know, are really qualified to challenge the theories of the detailed internal workings of a computer? Well, the same principle applies to any other discipline of science, including climate science.

      If you want to feel all warm and fuzzy that your political views on this topic are guaranteed correct, that is your decision. However, if you want to challenge the scientific theories of any particular discipline, there is a predefined process to do so. Scientific peer review has been used and accepted as the process to challenge scientists.

      I would direct you to the topic of Cold Fusion to see how the process works to debunk artificial claims. There are also a variety of sources for the scientific method that may be helpful for the uninitiated.

      I doubt this blog really affects the science described here. It all depends if you want to just complain, or become a part of the world, be informed, and possibly plan for any coming changes.
      SM: Global warming is hardly agreed science as Gore one said.

      If data was so correct, why all the scandal in fudging it and preventing opposition voices to speak by trying efforts to discredit them?

    7. Steve on February 7th, 2011 9:24 am


      I accept that there is open debate on these topics. I see that as positive evidence that the scientific method is working.

      I expect that we will get the best observations, predictions, ans conclusions from the ongoing scientific discussion. I doubt that comments from CK and many others pushing a non-scientific disagreement on this will affect the ability for scientific consensus to solidify.

      As far as the email scandal, I’m satisfied this was a non-issue to the related science.

      Some may think I’m like the proverbial carton ostrich, hiding from reality. However, I may just like the quiet, coolness of a dark hole in the ground. ;-0

    8. Pat in Alabama on February 7th, 2011 10:00 am


      I was greatly amused by your chronicle of science from research to market – it fit me perfectly. “How simplistic and arrogant it is to think” that you know something about someone who posts comments on this blog!

      My first career was as an engineer, which is closely related to science. I made a mid-life career change and got a degree in computer science. I have spent the last 20+ years selling custom designed computer systems. I have also written a number of software programs in various computer languages.

      One of my hobbies is researching the real science behind the big bang, relativity and the Bible’s version of creation. Do you know anything about the magnetic attractions within galaxies in the center of the universe vs those on the outside? Do you know anything about the chirality of DNA? How about the Cambrian explosion?

      I’m not going to make any assumptions about you, as you have about me. I do recall a Bible story where Job’s “friends” were offering their wisdom as they made all kind of assumptions about him until God stepped in and said “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?”

    9. Steve on February 7th, 2011 7:16 pm


      OK, I’m ready for your explanation about “all the fraud and manipulation” of which you speak. As we both have a belief in science, I’m interested in the relevant evidence of such things, regarding the fraud, and also counter to this climate change theory.

      It’s funny, and perhaps somewhat odd, that this science background of yours didn’t surface earlier, and you instead relied on pop-culture references to make a point (with three ridiculous examples of what people might still believe, if you ask me). Is it possible you think that the scientific data supporting global climate change is on a par with your examples? That the science is so obviously well-known and common knowledge among all but the fringe believers in society (you know, like the moon hoax crowd)? Well, now I’m almost ashamed I doubted you.

      – — –

      Some answers to your questions:

      RE: “Do you know anything about the magnetic attractions within galaxies in the center of the universe vs those on the outside?” I’m not sure I understand the question; where would you place the center of the universe, and what does “outside” refer to?

      chirality of DNA: Now I do (handedness).

      Cambrian explosion: as I recall, this was the tremendous expansion of the species at the end of the Cambrian era (or is that epoch / age?).

      – — –

      Additionally, I have some questions you may be able to help with.

      Do you think the inflationary model of the universe is most likely? BTW, what is the “non-real” science behind the big bang (for that matter, what is the real science too?

      Do you have a favorite language? Least favorite? What language was easiest to learn and use? Most difficult?

      Were you referring to the “real science” behind relativity? In what sense would that be?

      Similarly, the “real science” behind “Bible’s version of creation?” You do know the Bible is not a work of science? ;-) Seriously, has the Bible every participated in any predictions as found in the scientific method? As a work of faith, isn’t it outside any ability to be proven false?

      I think I heard the Job story before. Wasn’t that the one passed down from Alan to Arthur to Robert to Sean to Carlos to Ralph before it got to Job? Its too bad Alan didn’t copyright that, or there could have been money made.

    10. Dolf on February 10th, 2011 9:29 am

      I think I heard the Job story before. Wasn’t that the one passed down from Alan to Arthur to Robert to Sean to Carlos to Ralph before it got to Job? Its too bad Alan didn’t copyright that, or there could have been money made.


      and why do women always defend the bible..its not like have a lot of good things for them in there
      SM: What?

    11. Steve on February 10th, 2011 10:46 am


      I’ve yet to see or hear about Bible content that didn’t involve a person. That raises the obvious question: who was the first person behind each part of the Bible? How does one know what that person says is accurate or reliable?

      Simply put: Is there any part of the Bible that didn’t involve a person conveying the story initially?

    12. Pat in Alabama on February 12th, 2011 12:07 pm

      Is there any part of any information, of any kind, that didn’t involve a person conveying it in some fashion? We belive that air contains 78% nitrogen because someone wrote it in a book, prehaps many someones, but we are still taking it on faith unless we have run the experiment ourselves. Most of what we think we know about our existence is comprised on faith we put in the words of another.

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It