Let’s make something clear here before we start. The argument in science, about climate change, isn’t whether or not man is contributing to climate change – it’s whether what man is contributing makes a big difference in the climate (and should therefore be addressed) or an insignificant contribution to climate change (and therefore “remedies” which are likely economy wreckers should be foregone). The former is the “alamrist” side. The latter is the skeptical side.
The science of the situation, i.e. the data, seems to support the skeptical side. So what you don’t want to fall into is the trap of agreeing that man is contributing nothing. Just by living we contribute to the mix. What skeptics are arguming is the contribution of man, in reality, is insignificant and doesn’t warrant huge costly taxes, significant change or monsterous government programs. Skeptics offer that the atmosphere doesn’t react signficiantly to rising CO2 produced by man (and that seems to be the case).
Therefore when you hear all this nonsense about skeptics denying man’s contribution to climate change, it is just that – nonsense. Every living creature contributes to the gasses which make up the atmosphere of our planet and some of those gasses do indeed have a role in climate. To deny that is silly. What we skeptics are saying is those contributions simply aren’t significant because their effect on climate is minimal and certainly nowhere near on par with natural events. When the alarmist thow out numbers like “97% of scientistst agree man is contributing to climate change” it is a partial truth. However, there’s a huge split among scientists as to how significant man’s contribution is to any climate change. But alarmists never go there.
In fact, we’re just in the middle of the latest round of “catastrophe hype” that the media has been complicit in for years. Whatever it takes to sell papers. Remember:
“U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” said a Washington Post headline in 1971. “The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.” The New York Times went one further, saying: “Climate Changes Called Ominous.” But it wasn’t just theory. “There is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next hundred years.”
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. Not to mention forgetting about how we’d all be starved to death by now because the population wasn’t sustainable and … well, you know them all.
Which brings us to the latest attempt by the alarmists to redefine both the “problem” and the skeptics. Our buddy John Kerry in Indonesia over the weekend had this to say:
Kerry, who delivered the speech on Sunday in the capital, Jakarta, spoke critically about climate change sceptics adding that everyone and every country must take responsibility and act immediately.
“We simply don’t have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,” he said, referring to what he called “big companies” that “don’t want to change and spend a lot of money” to act to reduce the risks.
He later singled out big oil and coal concerns as the primary offenders.
“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,” Kerry said.
Right. Interestingly, Indonesia is huge coal producer. Our boy Kerry knows how to pick ‘em.
Of course the science isn’t “unequivocal” where it counts. I.e. what is driving climate change (you know, beside the big yellow thing that appears in the sky each day like magic but is, for the most part, roundly ignored by alarmists – no pun intended) is, well, many natural forces. Our Earth has seen climate change for its entire existence. We have two warm periods in our past which were warmer that the warmest period of modern history. And we’re not warming now, despite increased CO2. So, if one wants to really do science, i.e. demand “unequivocal” proof, one has every right to be skeptical of the current science being pushed by the alarmists. Skepticism is the root of science.
And, of course, Kerry had to over dramatize the supposed problem in order to alarm the gullible even more:
John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, has stressed the importance of tackling climate change in a speech in Indonesia, saying that it may be the world’s “most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction.
Wow. That’s just a …. silly comparison.
But alarmists seem to pay no attention to reality as they push their mantra. For instance, Al Gore, Alarmist-in-Chief had this to say just a few days ago:
Earth’s ice-covered regions are melting. The vanishing of the Arctic ice cap is changing the heat absorption at the top of the world, and may be affecting the location of the Northern Hemisphere jet stream and storm tracks and slowing down the movement of storm systems. Meanwhile, the growing loss of ice in Antarctica and Greenland is accelerating sea level rise and threatening low-lying coastal cities and regions.
Not a word of that is true. None. The jet stream’s move south?
One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming. Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual. Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’
Who are you going to believe? Al Gore or Professor Collins? Who has the real chops. And note to that the Professor makes it clear that we don’t have the knowledge to make such a claim anyway. Not that such an impediment of factual knowledge ever stopped Al Gore.
Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.
On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.
So what do real scientists note?
“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes.
You might also remember that 2013 was the year the sophisticated models the alarmists base their claims upon said that the Arctic would be ice free. The gullible and true believers ate it up, and some even acted upon it.
Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.
Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.
D’oh! I think they ought to bill the forecasters for the cost of rescuing the yachts, don’t you?
So, I don’t know, given all of that, maybe we ought to be skeptical of the fidelity of the models and the science? You think?
I certainly do.
And Billy Nye? You’re an engineer and an actor – not a climate scientist. If you want to be among the alarmists, then be one. But do us all a favor and do it quietly.
That’s a legitimate question. The man makes it up as he goes. The latest evidence is his invention of a new category for hurricanes (which is right up there with his invention of the internet for veracity). Yes, friends, his claim came during an “interview” (here, see if you can hit these softballs, Al) by Ezra Klein. In it, he likened “deniers” to slave owners, racists and just about any other bit of nonsense he could muster.
A Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) expert says Al Gore goofed during his widely circulated Washington Post interview on global warming. Gore, noting stronger storms fueled by climate change, told the paper “the hurricane scale used to be 1-5, and now they’re adding a 6.”
I’m sorry, that’s more than a goof. It’s a lie. It is simply not true. Period. It never has been true, no have there been any plans to add such a category by the one place that would do it:
“There are no plans by the National Hurricane Center, the federal office responsible for categorizing storms, to create a new category,” she wrote on the environmental group’s website.
There there was this as well (James Taranto covers it):
Gore uses the interview to claim vindication for his 2006 "documentary," "An Inconvenient Truth": "You mentioned my movie back in the day. The single most common criticism from skeptics when the film came out focused on the animation showing ocean water flowing into the World Trade Center memorial site. Skeptics called that demagogic and absurd and irresponsible. It happened last October 29th, years ahead of schedule, and the impact of that and many, many other similar events here and around the world has really begun to create a profound shift."
But that’s not what Al referred too when he talked about water flowing into the WTC memorial site in his movie:
The reference is to Hurricane Sandy, a Category 2 storm when it struck the Northeastern U.S., flooding parts of New York and New Jersey, including downtown Manhattan. (Sandy peaked in the Caribbean as a Category 3 storm. By comparison, 2005′s Hurricane Katrina went as high as Category 5 and made landfall at Category 3.)
But if we roll the film–which is less than scintillating, but the clip lasts less than 2½ minutes–we find that what Gore predicted in "An Inconvenient Truth" was something far direr than a storm and a flood. He predicted that lower Manhattan–along with vast and heavily populated swaths of Florida, California, the Netherlands, China, India and Bangladesh–would be permanently submerged owing to higher sea levels.
"Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they’re displaced by an environmental event," Gore intoned in the movie. "And then imagine the impact of 100 million or more." And then keep imagining. While Sandy caused severe temporary disruption and wrought an unusual amount of damage because it happened to hit a population center, it was not different in kind from other natural disasters. Lower Manhattan was soon dry again.
Again, a lie, or at best an extreme exaggeration.
And that has been typical of this entire politically driven “science based” effort to claim that we’re headed to disaster because of man. As Taranto says, “while Al Gore isn’t a scientist, the Climategate scandal showed that some scientists are no more scrupulous than he is.”
Have to agree. Exaggeration and alarm are the only way their science-deficient bunk can get any press. So they indulge in it freely and call their opponents names.
Hurricane Sandy was a Cat 2 hurricane. I’ve actually flown into a Cat 2 hurricane (Alex). Trust me no one was calling Alex a “super storm”. That’s because it hit Mexico. But Sandy hit one of the world’s biggest media centers (and it hit the area perfectly for maximum effect). Had it bumped into North Carolina instead it would have just been another Cat 2 already forgotten.
Instead we have this charlatan hyping it for headlines which are easily debunked. You have to wonder why? Certainly in hope of headline reading low information citizens seeing and believing his bunk. But there’s more to it than that … follow the money.
And on and on and on:
“We now have an elephant in the room, and its name is peak oil.” –Kjell Aleklett, Professor in Global Energy Systems
Lord I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that in the last 30 years. And always in the face of something like this:
Nearly a third of the world’s technically recoverable natural gas and 10 percent of its oil can be found in shale formations, according to anew report by the Energy Information Administration. Thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling, there’s a bounty of oil and gas available to countries around the world .
This report, which has a much larger scope than previous reports, bumped up the estimated global amount of technically recoverable shale gas by 9.3 percent. In its regional breakdown North America looks like a big winner. Of the 41 countries surveyed, Mexico had the seventh and Canada the ninth largest reserves of shale oil, while the US was second only to Russia. Meanwhile, the US, Canada, and Mexico were in fourth, fifth and sixth place, respectively in the EIA’s ranking of the largest technically recoverable shale gas reserves.
Of course part of the reason the peak oil crowd continues to issue it’s predictions is it seems tied into, well, another bit of a scam:
Are you optimistic about the future? Do you think that politicians will, at some point, address the problem of peak oil?
I’ve been working in this field for many years now, and it’s sad to see how little has been done. The measures that have been taken have been implemented largely because of climate change. Energy challenges such as peak oil are closely linked with climate-related issues, so victories within the field of climate change tend to be victories for peak oil as well. The good news is that we have started to tread the right path. Ultimately, we have to act. Whichever way you look at it, we won’t be able to use as much energy in the future as we do today.
I’m sorry, but that’s just nonsense. A) there’s no reason, at least at this point, that we can’t use as much energy in the future as we do today, and B) perhaps that energy will come from a different source but not necessarily. Unless, of course, these sorts of people have their way. More importantly though, politicians need to be kept strictly out of this business.
As we note often, this isn’t about energy or climate-related issues – it’s about control.
Make the warnings scary and dire enough and we’ll pitch control over to them. See “war on terrorism” as a case study.
Meanwhile, in the back forty, a certain cow is still mooing the same old song:
Former Vice President Al Gore lamented today that scientists “will not let us link record-breaking” tornadoes in Oklahoma and elsewhere to climate change because of inadequate record keeping on the twisters.
“But when you put more energy into a system, it gets more energetic,” Gore said at an environmental event in Washington hosted by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
Yeah, darn those scientists anyway. Oh, wait, I thought all his stuff was from scientists. No?
As to that familiar tune?
“It is well-past time that we put a price on carbon and not just accept the price that it extracts from us,” he said.
He noted that some officials won’t pay for tornado shelters in public schools. But “if we’re having arguments about how to pay to recover” from storms, he said, that’s one more reason to fix the climate change that is leading to stronger storms.
Even if the “price” can’t be supported by science.
Some interesting stuff here in the "lets look under the rock and see what’s there” sort of interesting. Here’s Al Gore’s pitch:
I have great interest in this simply because of the approach. It’s all about "fake scientists" and who paid for that "fake science". Note Gore’s premise. It’s reality, you can’t deny it. That’s simply another version of "scientific consensus makes this indisputable". This seems to be an attempt to try to demonize and discredit those who disagree and actually have produced scientific work to back their positions. He won’t answer the objections, he’s going to tell you who he claims they work for and (like the cigarette reference) why they should be ignored.
If the vid doesn’t show up for you, the links are below them. I’ve copied their embed codes, but it may or may not show up depending on your browser. Take a look and tell us what you think.
Well this should be fun:
"24 Hours of Reality" will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.
The campaign also asks people to hand over control of their social networking accounts on Facebook and Twitter to it for 24 hours to deliver Gore’s message.
"There will be 200 new slides arguing the connection between more extreme weather and climate change," Trewin Restorick, chief executive of the event’s UK partner Global Action Plan, told Reuters on Monday.
"There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from."
Remember, much of Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” has been shown to be nonsense. So this is sort of a make or break moment for Gore, I suppose. He’s either cleaned up his act and is prepared, with his new slide show, to actually present scientific fact and argument, or we’re going to be treated to “An Inconvenient Truth 2.0”.
I’m guessing 2.0.
Concern about climate change in the United States, the world’s second biggest emitter, has fallen steadily to 48 percent in 2011, from 62 percent in 2007, an opinion poll showed in August.
Obviously the economy figures into some of those numbers (by displacement if nothing else – whatever we have to do to get it rolling again and that puts such concerns in a lower priority), but this is a trend that began before the economic collapse. It should be interesting to see his “double down” presentation and the argument and debate that follows.
The exposition and conclusion he presents concerning funding should also be interesting. Sounds more like a political assault than a scientific one. We’ll see.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but Al Gore is again trying to heat up the
global warming climate change debate. In a 7,000 word Rolling Stone article, Gore rails against the news media for being on the wrong side of the debate and giving the “deniers” much more coverage than Gore thinks they deserve. He’s also not particularly happy with Barack Obama’s progress on that front either. And finally, he pitches 4 ways activists can reignite the panic he was once successful in creating.
What is conspicuously missing from the rant are any facts. Other than a few of the same old assertions, and an attempt to tie weather events into his alarmism, he offers absolutely nothing new in the way of science nor does he even attempt to rebut the damning reports that have surfaced since “An Inconvenient Truth” and badly discredited his and other alarmist’s credibility.
Ironically he uses the analogy of professional wrestling as a means of attempting to shame the news media by likening them to the distracted referee in a “professional” bout who always was arguing with one corner or another while the “bad guy” took a metal chair to the “good guy”.
The irony, of course, was that is precisely what Gore, et. al. did early in their fraudulent campaign. And it was only when the skeptics were able to use actual science to raise so many points refuting key elements of Gore’s thesis that the media could no longer ignore them.
Gore’s attempt to rally the troops ends on the usual alarmist note:
What is now at risk in the climate debate is nothing less than our ability to communicate with one another according to a protocol that binds all participants to seek reason and evaluate facts honestly. The ability to perceive reality is a prerequisite for self-governance. Wishful thinking and denial lead to dead ends. When it works, the democratic process helps clear the way toward reality, by exposing false argumentation to the best available evidence. That is why the Constitution affords such unique protection to freedom of the press and of speech.
The climate crisis, in reality, is a struggle for the soul of America. It is about whether or not we are still capable — given the ill health of our democracy and the current dominance of wealth over reason — of perceiving important and complex realities clearly enough to promote and protect the sustainable well-being of the many. What hangs in the balance is the future of civilization as we know it.
His first paragraph describes precisely what happened to his climate assertions. They were destroyed by being exposed as false arguments. And I think it is telling that he doesn’t try to justify or factually support all the nonsense he presented as “fact” in his propaganda piece “An Inconvenient Truth”. Instead he just doubles down, whines about the media (that’s original) and distractions and claims nothing in the realm of science has changed primarily by simply ignoring that which has.
There is no “scientific consensus”, much of what he has presented as fact has been successfully disputed or refuted and “the democratic process [which] helps clear the way toward reality, by exposing false argumentation to the best available evidence” has worked. It is he who is in denial – and in this case, the wrestling is real, and he’s losing.
Michael Tobias has written what can only be described as an incredibly ignorant column praising Al Gore’s latest “let’s pretend the science is settled” ebook.
While reading it, I wondered how anyone could have not heard about the mounting controversy about AGW pointing to what seems to be an outright scam and embarrassment to the scientific community.
So I went to Tobias’s bio. Then it made some sense:
For forty years I’ve been tracking ecological issues as an environmental historian/advocate, field researcher and animal rights/biodiversity conservation activist. I climb mountains, study as many life forms as possible, did my Ph.D. in the History of Consciousness, and am president of the Dancing Star Foundation where we focus on global biodiversity, policy analysis, animal rights and international environmental education.
Or, “Al Gore is advocating doing what I want done and saying what I want said , so screw the science”.
But to the article:
The former Vice President’s “Inconvenient Truth” undoubtedly helped the planet. From Bangladesh to Argentina; from Texas to Germany I have heard policy makers, lawyers, students, educators and used-car salespersons discussing his well-earned Nobel Peace Prize, and the influence he has wielded. Indeed, Gore need only look at a glacier and it starts to melt (a case in point being the latest Extreme Ice Project that has been computing thousands of time-lapse images to get a better visual handle on just how fast glaciers are disappearing throughout the world).
And while many filmmakers thought of the Gore/David Guggenheim “Inconvenient Truth” as nothing more than an elaborate slide show plus the odd bit of filmic B-roll, it struck a chord like few advocacy films worldwide and has clearly pushed the climate debate in the direction where it should have gone in the first place: towards good science, not muddled politics.
Oh, my. “… towards good science, not muddled politics”?
Ye gods … I’d make an off-color reference here to his gushing tone, but we’re a family friendly blog. However, when you see articles like this, you have to ask where in the world has this guy been? Has he kept up at all? The refutations of almost all of Al Gore’s premises – I won’t dignify them with the word “theory” – have shown them to be mostly bunkum.
To be kind, you’d like to believe that Tobias is simply a victim of confirmation bias. That he’s finally found someone who is, at least partially, “confirming” what he’s been saying for years. But as you read the gushing review, it seems more like a religious tract – faith that his guru is infallible. How else do you analyze such nonsense?
Apparently, according to Tobias, Gore’s only sin was to leave a few things out of his new ebook:
Biodiversity, non-violence, animal rights, veganism – these are largely absent from the “30 summit”-based equations, and they are among the most crucial components needing to be addressed. Indeed, many ecologists see climate change as one of many sub-sets of the greater issues that include biodiversity loss, animal suffering, and habitat fragmentation. Gore does address the human population crisis which is, ultimately, the number one driver of all other human-induced crises.
I have to tell you that when I run into the term “animal rights” I usually write the person off using the phrase as, well, a bit of a loon. Sorry, but that’s just the case. When every you use such a term, it is blazingly obvious that you have no idea about the concept of rights and why they’re so important to human beings. And because of that, you lose any credibility as a serious person of intellect in my eyes.
Finally, and in keeping with everything that Tobias says in the article, he recommends the following article: “5 Million Deaths From Climate Change Predicted By 2020”.
Well of course they are, because if they weren’t, how could we scare people into paying attention to our religion and buying into our solutions?
Oh, by the way, the article is published in Forbes. When you see things like this, it makes you wonder what has happened to what used to be a fairly good news and information source.
As predictable as your relatives showing up on your doorstep a few hours after it’s announced you won the lottery, Al Gore had emerged from his hole in the snowpack to make sure we understand that the reason we’re seeing so much snow is … wait for it … man-made global warming.
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming: “In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”
Well, yeah, except the UK is on record as having had the coldest December in its recorded history and possibly the coldest in 1,000 years. I assume that’s all wrapped up in whatever we want "global warming" to be today, isn’t it Al? Because this isn’t the same story we’ve been hearing about all of this for years:
So which is it?
Holy moly, perhaps the oceans will rise and hell will freeze over – but it won’t be because of “climate change” or whatever the warmists are calling it this week. Nope, Al Gore has found a government program he doesn’t like. Yup, that’s right. And not only that – and this is the hell freezing over part of it – it’s a “green” government program.
Yes, friends, Al Gore says that the US government’s subsidies for corn ethanol is “not good policy”.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol," said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.
"First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
"It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going."
Gadzooks. A flip-flop. He supported the program previously. Oh, wait – he was just making a political statement then:
He explained his own support for the original programme on his presidential ambitions.
"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."
Dear farmers – vote for me and I’ll pay you outrageous subsidies to grow corn for ethanol. "Certain fondness” my rear end. Nothing has changed about Gore in the “I’ll say anything to get what I want” department, has it? Flippin’ piece of crap – buying votes with your tax dollars. Not that he’s the only one that does it, but for heaven sake, given the financial situation we’re in does he have to be so freakin’ glib about it?
Of course the reason corn-ethanol is a crappy idea is the subsidies are high and thus 40% of the corn grown is grown for ethanol. That puts it in competition with corn for food. Any guess what corn based food products have done since this nifty little program has been in place?
Yes, they’ve gone up quite a bit. In this case, we call that the “law of unintended consequences” only as a rhetorical device. The consequences may have been unintended but there were any number of economists saying “if you do that you’re going to drive up food prices”. And, of course, the answer from our government experts was the “you don’t know what you’re talking about”.
You know, the same experts that have told us that more of us can have more health care and it will cost less.
Anyway I thought you’d enjoy Gore’s little walk-back. Don’t forget the same experts who brought you corn-based ethanol and higher food prices will be “debating” an energy bill at some point in the future. I’d hide my wallet before then if I was you.
Ask Kendrick Meek, the Democratic Senate candidate in Florida. Even the UK’s Telegraph noticed some interesting things, such as Meek never mentioned Obama once at the rally with Gore.
But, then, neither did Gore.
In Tampa, neither Mr Gore nor Mr Meek made direct reference to Mr Obama’s historic health care legislation, his proudest achievement, or the financial bailout. Both measures are unpopular with all but hardcore Democratic supporters.
Two years ago, every Democrat in the country was invoking Mr Obama’s name as they hoped to ride on his coat-tails to electoral victory. This year, he is a near-pariah, with many of the party’s candidates doing everything they can to distance themselves from him.
Gore also came in for a bit of heckling. When he mentioned “giving in to corporate special interests”, someone in the crowd yelled, “like you!”
But interestingly most of the people there seemed more nostalgic for Clinton/Gore than Obama/Biden. Meek called the Clinton/Gore team, "stellar public elected figures who once served and are still giving". People interviewed while leaving the event seemed resigned to the fact that the Obama administration was probably not long for this world:
"I was thinking that if we could get Clinton back in and Gore back in we might do something in this country," said Robert Henry, 62 a retired soldier. His wife Susan, 59, said that Obama was unlucky because he "got handed an absolute train wreck" while Gore "reminds us of good times, of prosperity and peace".
When the partisans have concluded that the “good times” are no more, support is most likely not going to develop on election day as Obama and the party hope it will.
Meek and Gore were there to rally support for Meek and tell them how well he’s starting to do. Said Gore, "Kendrick’s going up like a skyrocket", while Marco Rubio is just “bumbling along”.
Rubio leads Meek 46 to 18 in the most recent polls. Charlie Crist is at 33.
And a reminder as the media tries to paint all the Tea Party candidates is extremist and out of the main stream – unlikely to win in the general election. Rubio is the Tea Party pick in FL.