View Full Version : Inconvenient "Truth" wins Oscar, Al Gore gains 3 pants sizes...
Devastatin Dave
02-26-2007, 20:03
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyid=2007-02-26T135859Z_01_N25248809_RTRUKOC_0_US-OSCARS-GORE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Interesting. I wonder how much polution has been caused by Mr Gore or his fanbase while they've been flying around in their private jets promoting their "science".
Well Orgahs, what do you think? We can discuss the hypocricy of the "do as I say not as I do" Gore-environazi crowd or you may be of the "we're all going to die in a atmospheric oven" crowd? Personally, I liked how 30 years ago the same folks were ready to start buying igloo tralier park lots in Florida.
ShadeHonestus
02-26-2007, 20:16
When the "little ice age"(which lasted for ca. 500ish years) set its sights on Europe 700 years ago, the authority of the day first said that the devil was in the Alpine glaciers and did a bumper business in blessings and casting outs, then years later the pope declared that witches were responsible and over 50,000 people were burned at the stake for this one offense.
Of course it turned out to be a number of things with the coldest period due to a temporary cool down in the sun via less sunspots.
If the 'authority' of the day had the ability to make movies I'm sure they would have made a 'documentary' stating the truth about devils and witches. Later on I'm sure the agency for medieval films, funded by like minded political activist would have given them awards for it.
So in summation political propaganda and documentary can and often do mean the same thing.
:smash:
P.S. Those ice core samples Gore puts so much stock in as to their power to tell the entire worlds climatic history....can only be dated back 115,000 years. 115,000 years is a crap sample for stating authority on 4.5 billion years.
Why is does Northern Europe have such a good climate, compared to Canada which is at the same latitude?
We have a good gulfstream.
What will happen to that gulfstream if the ice melts?
It will disappear.
What consequences does that have?
It gets colder.
How much?
Well you can call it an ice age, as it will be the Younger Dryas all over again.
Global Warming=Hotter Summers=Hot Babes in skimpier out fits~:thumb: It's all good no need to worry ~;) But in all seriousness, they say it won't really affect us, but it will nail our grandchildren pretty hard, so I'll go to say that I think it is true and all and that we should attempt to decrease it's potential some what so that at least we can say we tried instead of think what we should HAVE done, because I don't think that we can stop it but that at least we can tone down(hopefully) it's potential to cause serious problems. That my opinion anyways.
Tristrem
02-26-2007, 20:54
Well to be honest by the time it will affect us we will probably already be dead from something else. Sure we might cause a "mass extinction" but I think it is better to die from our own doing than by some rock in space that just happens to hit our planet. I live in Maine, in the US, and we usually don't have the warmest weather. For once in the history of the country it would be nice to be in the ideal cliamte :2thumbsup: and the best place to live. :idea2: I can see it now, all those people who move to Florida will "Fry in the oven of GLOBAL WARMING" and I can say "haha told you so, you should of stayed in Maine". :laugh4:
There's a nice irony that countries which will be worse screwed over by global warming (man made or not) are the poorest, and therefore least polluting.
Why is does Northern Europe have such a good climate, compared to Canada which is at the same latitude?
We have a good gulfstream.
What will happen to that gulfstream if the ice melts?
It will disappear.
What consequences does that have?
It gets colder.
How much?
Well you can call it an ice age, as it will be the Younger Dryas all over again.
It's been said that the effects of the "conveyor" have been much over-stated.
Here's an article from the "American Scientist" for your enjoyment.
The Source of Europe's Mild Climate: The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/51963?fulltext=true&print=yes)
The Gulf Stream indeed contributes to Europe's warmth, but it is wrong to conflate the climate difference across the North Atlantic with the northward flow of warm water in the Gulf Stream. This erroneous logic leads to such statements as (from The Times of London): "The British Isles lie on the same latitude as Labrador on the East Coast of Canada, and are protected from a similarly icy climate by the Atlantic conveyor belt." Such claims are absolutely wrong.
Want to know an "Inconvenient Truth"?
I had to get up and shovel 24 inches of snow this morning to go to school and it's still coming down! :furious3:
Bad day for mr. Al Gore!
It was a really really bad film, and a yet to be proven theory --> :oops:
(i like the title) :2thumbsup:
@Xiahou, they're not wrong, as the same caused the Younger Dryas. Cold water (from some St. Something river in Canada, Lawrence wasn't it?) came in the gulfstream. This repressing this. This caused the Ice Age in the Younger Dryas, ofcourse we won't get ice all over Holland, but the temperature will drop 10 degrees in 20 years. As it did before.
CrossLOPER
02-26-2007, 22:05
Want to know an "Inconvenient Truth"?
I had to get up and shovel 24 inches of snow this morning to go to school and it's still coming down! :furious3:
Bad day for mr. Al Gore!
OMG it was cold outside! GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL!
Tribesman
02-26-2007, 22:41
It's been said that the effects of the "conveyor" have been much over-stated.
Here's an article from the "American Scientist" for your enjoyment.
So its more of a combined conveyor and elevator system .
Randarkmaan
02-26-2007, 23:05
Well, I just have to say that the reason many people dismiss global warming is because of the people who claim it's happening; Their "holier than thou" attitude leads many to disagree with them on principle because these environmentalists are so smug all the time that you just want to prove them wrong no matter what just to have them swallow their words and accept a defeat. If we could somehow make care for the environment seem as a natural thing and not as some freak cause fronted by arrogant twerps we would probably not have to worry about the Netherlands sinking.
Lorenzo_H
02-26-2007, 23:08
I bet Al Gore is gonna run for prezEdunt.
You all live on big continents, and therefore have ridiculously hot summers and cold winters. Cunning people live on small islands in temperate zones, and just get rained on a lot.
ShadeHonestus
02-26-2007, 23:52
You all live on big continents, and therefore have ridiculously hot summers and cold winters. Cunning people live on small islands in temperate zones, and just get rained on a lot.
Or Tsunami'd.
I agree with Decker.
Global Warming=Hotter Summers=Hot Babes in skimpier out fits
Devastatin Dave
02-27-2007, 02:02
A little more Inconveniant "Truth" about Al Gore's ability to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm:laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
02-27-2007, 02:09
A little more Inconveniant "Truth" about Al Gore's ability to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm:laugh4:
And thus, Global Warming is false :bounce:
Devastatin Dave
02-27-2007, 02:13
And thus, Global Warming is false :bounce:
Maybe but maybe not, but if I was so concerned, I would limit my jet fuel and home consumption of energy. I know that's hard for a liberal to understand, but sometimes you need to take action besides making speeches and whining.
Al Gore has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Let us not forget that he is a politican,and politicians aren't the most honest people around...Also, back when Al Gore ran for president he said he wanted to drain lake powell, which helps provide hydroelectric power for the western U.S.
In any given year, the hydroelectric energy produce by the Glen Canyon Dam precludes the release of over 10 million pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. Multiply this by 40 years and you're talking about 400,000,000,000 (400 billion pounds of CO2).I found that here (http://www.lakepowell.org/page_two/information/25_reasons/25_reasons.html)
CrossLOPER
02-27-2007, 03:32
I know that's hard for a politician to understand, but sometimes you need to take action besides making speeches and whining.
*fixed
IMMAH LERN ME SOM THIN.
TevashSzat
02-27-2007, 03:36
Lignator, that 10 million pound per year may sound alot, but the world releases 24 trillion metric tons (2000 pounds) of CO2 a year. The US releases 5.8 trillion metric tons amounting to about 16 million metric tons a day or 32 billion pounds a day. The dam only releases 10 million pounds a year which is just 0.031% of US release in a single day. You have to put things in perspective.
Maybe but maybe not, but if I was so concerned, I would limit my jet fuel and home consumption of energy. I know that's hard for a liberal to understand, but sometimes you need to take action besides making speeches and whining.
Maybe he's in it for the money. :idea2:
One thing that has been discussed that seems to hit the US were it hurts(supposedly) nowadays is that we are short-sighted. I'm not trying to smash on anyone I'm just saying that either governmentally(not attempting to be political just making an example/point), medially, and even down to the citizen, we always tend to think about now and not about something that could nip us in the bud later on in our lives. It is like at school when the cute girls are not prepare for cold weather and they end up asking you for you jacket because they are cold, and you are in a delimma because it's cold as h3ll and you need your jacket but then you wanna look good in front of them. It is these kinds of things that cause major problems, whether on a personal or global basis that can cause societies to collapse.
Hope that came out right *crosses fingers*
Lignator, that 10 million pound per year may sound alot, but the world releases 24 trillion metric tons (2000 pounds) of CO2 a year. The US releases 5.8 trillion metric tons amounting to about 16 million metric tons a day or 32 billion pounds a day. The dam only releases 10 million pounds a year which is just 0.031% of US release in a single day. You have to put things in perspective.
Yea, but every bit counts, right? Anyways I was just trying to point out how much of a hypocrite I believe Al Gore to be.
TevashSzat
02-27-2007, 04:33
The dam however is far more efficient than any coal plant would be. It would probably be able to produce at least ten times the electricty at half of the co2 emissions.
Also, it releases less than 0.03 percent of us daily emissions in a whole year which is not much
Or Tsunami'd.
Not in the UK. Ireland even absorbs the worst of the rain.
God likes Britain.
EDIT: Except at sports.
It was a really really bad film, and a yet to be proven theory
Let's cover this one more time for the people who are sleeping in the back of the class: It is not a characteristic of a scientific theory to be provable. Proofs are for math. The characteristics of a scientific theory are falsifiability, refutability, or testability. In other words, can it be proved wrong, and can it be repeated.
As for fat jokes, I reserve them for people who make fun of other people's appearances. Just a little application of the Golden Rule (which is not a theory, just in case you're wondering).
Nobody who believes the world is more than 7,000 years old denies that the Earth experiences climate change. And nobody with an intact brain denies that we're in an interglacial period, with a likelihood of warming trends. I know people love to use "global warming" as a shorthand, but it's sloppy and misleading.
Gore & Co.'s assertion that manmade chemicals are contributing to the warming trend is difficult to support, 'cause it ain't disprovable, and it ain't repeatable. So I don't think it qualifies as a theory.
That said, I find people such as DevDave and Xiahou who declare that it's bunk and they just know it because they're such experts on climatology just as quixotic as Gore, if not more so. How anyone can declare anything with certainty on this subject is beyond my tiny lemur brain.
Devastatin Dave
02-27-2007, 19:54
That said, I find people such as DevDave and Xiahou who declare that it's bunk and they just know it because they're such experts on climatology just as quixotic as Gore, if not more so. How anyone can declare anything with certainty on this subject is beyond my tiny lemur brain.
Could you please quote me where I said "that it's bunk and they just know it because they're such experts on climatology". Thank you...
By the way, my energy bill is about 1/20 of Al :daisy:. I even have enviro friendly light bulbs and recycle all my class, alluminum, and plastic. I wonder how much of that is done at the :daisy: household? :beam:
Goofball
02-27-2007, 20:01
Maybe but maybe not, but if I was so concerned, I would limit my jet fuel and home consumption of energy. I know that's hard for a liberal to understand, but sometimes you need to take action besides making speeches and whining.
Agreed. We all know the only way to stop global warming is to generously apply "I Support Our Troops" bumper stickers on vehicles.
Crazed Rabbit
02-27-2007, 20:11
The really funny thing is when you compare Al Gore's house and Bush's Crawford house:
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.
This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.
From a anti-bush editorial:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm
Lemur - I am skeptical because of the period 1940 to 1970 with no warming, because of numerous scientific studies showing cooling and warming trends going back tens of thousands of years, because of the very little temp increase in the last decade, the cooling of the middle of Antarctica, the study showing the calving of the huge ice shelf is cyclic, the nature of sun spot cycles, and many, many other things, not least of which is that the envirowhackos are simplifying data and confusing correlation with causation, and ignoring history.
Is CO2 not responsible for any warming? It might be, but it pales in comparison to natural factors.
Crazed Rabbit
Devastatin Dave
02-27-2007, 20:58
Agreed. We all know the only way to stop global warming is to generously apply "I Support Our Troops" bumper stickers on vehicles.
Yes, that's right on topic, thanks for your contribution Goof...:beam:
The really funny thing is when you compare Al Gore's house and Bush's Crawford house:
From a anti-bush editorial:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm
Lemur - I am skeptical because of the period 1940 to 1970 with no warming, because of numerous scientific studies showing cooling and warming trends going back tens of thousands of years, because of the very little temp increase in the last decade, the cooling of the middle of Antarctica, the study showing the calving of the huge ice shelf is cyclic, the nature of sun spot cycles, and many, many other things, not least of which is that the envirowhackos are simplifying data and confusing correlation with causation, and ignoring history.
Is CO2 not responsible for any warming? It might be, but it pales in comparison to natural factors.
Crazed Rabbit
Sun has cycles of 11 years, right? Wierd, 1940-1970 well 30>+/-11. Another funny thing when in history has temperature gone up at this rate. Except for the times of global disasters (like the meteor impact that created the moon.) Also global warming isn't a good term if you ask me, as at some regions things probably will get warmer while other places probably will get colder.
------
Now there isn't full proof that's right. But we know one thing, temperatures have been getting higher together with CO2 emmisions. So the theory has a good basis, no. It's even verry probable. Now I must say that the movie had some stuff wrong. To bad I can't recall it anymore, it has been to long.
But you just gotta awnser me this question. Do you think it's good for planet earth and the enviroment to change the matter and it's quantities of which our atmosphere is build? We don't know if CO2 has been causing the drastic climate changes, we know CO2 has an effect on it. The whole theory about the evolution of life, the theory of the history of our earth,... is build upon the fact that CO2 made the globale temperature drasctically warmer. (Think about the two global ice ages,...) An dif you don't even believe tht, why do you watch or read the weather forcasts? And if you even don't believe in science than I just pitty you. Do you believe god to create cars? As far as I know the bible says: god created the world in seven days. And none of the days he created cars or computers or tv's or.... You can believe in God and that I respect but you should know that some stories in the bible are not true. Most christians I know, know and believe that. THey believe in god and all the usual, but they know that Eve wasn't the first woman, that dinosaurs existed,...
CO2 changes the climate if spread in a large enough quantity. That's a scientific fact. If CO2 is changing the climate at this moment yes, is it the only and biggest cause of the changes? Quite likley yes. However being the main reason or not, being a reason or not. If not now, it can become one of it. And it's a fact climate is changing. Why fasten it? We know CO2 helps it. And action against CO2 should be taken. But ofcourse we shouldn't be watching CO2 alone.
As humans we've been destroying large part of our world. Forrests, species and even ourselves. We being the only ones responsible for a lot of enviromental damage, we being the only ones understanding the problems, we being the only ones who can do something about, it is our duty to help mother earth as much as we can. It's our duty to stop things from getting worse. We have a duty my freinds, let's forfill it. Not only CO2.
Everybody knows what a succes the fight against CFK's were. Why not fight CO2. You may say it's bullshit; so many scientist say the opposite. You and I knwo why they are saying that. Not because of beliefs, not because they want the truth. Because they protect themselves instead of the world. Protecting overly rich people, who would make a little less money, if they'd take Kyoto into considiration. They protect themselves or get paid to.
So who to believe, people who have no own interest except for the world. Or those who do it out of own interest? We can limit the CO2 and we can fight a verry probable global disaster. And don't say we don't live by then. Within 50 years or less this will be so out of hand. And the chance of a meteor or something that kills us the first centuries is well almost zero. The only real threat are we. Why not try and save the world? I don't think you have anything beter to do than that. Climate changes are threat, we are that threat, but we can also be the solution. What do we have to lose? If we don't, we probably lose our climate, our world, ourselves. So, let's forfill our duty. Let's limit the CO2. Let's at least give it a shot, let us atleast try to save the world. That's the least you can do.
Edit: forgive me english and lack of English scientific terms.
Goofball
02-27-2007, 22:25
Maybe but maybe not, but if I was so concerned, I would limit my jet fuel and home consumption of energy. I know that's hard for a liberal to understand, but sometimes you need to take action besides making speeches and whining.Agreed. We all know the only way to stop global warming is to generously apply "I Support Our Troops" bumper stickers on vehicles.Yes, that's right on topic, thanks for your contribution Goof...:beam:
Actually, it's spot on topic.
You and other conservatives in this thread are lambasting liberal politicians for not walking the walk. Yet your "own" politicians talk the talk about how you need to be in Iraq, and the war there is of vital importance to the security of the American people, but they limit their personal sacrifice to putting bumper stickers on their cars.
I thought the parallel was quite obvious, but I guess I misread my audience.
I'll try to use smaller words next time...
:beam:
Actually, it's spot on topic.
You and other conservatives in this thread are lambasting liberal politicians for not walking the walk. Yet your "own" politicians talk the talk about how you need to be in Iraq, and the war there is of vital importance to the security of the American people, but they limit their personal sacrifice to putting bumper stickers on their cars.
I thought the parallel was quite obvious, but I guess I misread my audience.
I'll try to use smaller words next time...
:beam:
In other words, someone's attacking Gore and you're unable/unwilling to defend him- but still want to pick a fight anyhow... so you threw out a red herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html) statement that you thought would be easier to defend. That about right?
Someone says Al Gore is a total hypocrite on global warming, and your response is to say that you think conservatives are hypocrites on Iraq. And that's on topic? If you want to pick a fight on that issue, maybe you should start a thread for it. :yes:
Goofball
02-28-2007, 00:00
In other words, someone's attacking Gore and you're unable/unwilling to defend him- but still want to pick a fight anyhow... so you threw out a red herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html) statement that you thought would be easier to defend. That about right?
Someone says Al Gore is a total hypocrite on global warming, and your response is to say that you think conservatives are hypocrites on Iraq. And that's on topic? If you want to pick a fight on that issue, maybe you should start a thread for it. :yes:
No, actually. My comment was a direct response to this bit of Dave's earlier post:
I know that's hard for a liberal to understand, but sometimes you need to take action besides making speeches and whining.
Dave, made a sweeping statement about liberals, implying that a particular fault (hypocrisy, in this case) is unique to liberals. My post simply pointed out that hypocrisy is not unique to liberals, and that conservatives also can be hypocrites.
As Dave was the original poster, and was also the one to introduce the theme that followers of a particular political stance were rife with a particular fault, I was in no way off topic with my response that followers of a different political stance were also rife with that particular fault, countering his argument implication that this was a fault unique to the former political stance.
I agree, the issue of liberal and conservative hypocrisy is a red herring as it relates to the causes and impacts of global warming. But if the original poster hadn't wanted that to be part of the discussion, he shouldn't have introduced it himself.
CrossLOPER
02-28-2007, 00:34
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/theop.jpg
Marshal Murat
02-28-2007, 02:11
Already posted? Maybe, the Gore double-image (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6401489.stm)
He tried to ban heavy metal and his wife is ugly. Nothing he says about the environment will change a thing and he's already a person I don't like for other reasons beyond his stance on global warming.
Devastatin Dave
02-28-2007, 04:51
He tried to ban heavy metal and his wife is ugly. Nothing he says about the environment will change a thing and he's already a person I don't like for others reasons beyond his stance on global warming.
Don't write "person I don't like", I got a warning for saying "whore". Just thought I'd let you know. Then again maybe its ok to say "person I don't like", man I just can't keep it straight these day. :book:
You'd think Kukrikhan would have better things to do, eh? Been taking lessons from the Mithrandir school of moderation...
CrossLOPER
02-28-2007, 08:39
Should have been like this:
I really need to become an hero.
Fisherking
02-28-2007, 08:52
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6401489.stm
He has some explaining to do. How may solar panels would it take to make up the difference.
KukriKhan
02-28-2007, 13:48
You'd think Kukrikhan would have better things to do, eh? Been taking lessons from the Mithrandir school of moderation...
My goal in life: reduce global warming via modifying inappropriate keystrokes. No charge. :bow:
Hosakawa Tito
02-28-2007, 14:30
I'm surprised he found the time for this after inventing the Internet.~:rolleyes: He's making Edison and George Washington Carver look like such slackers....
Just when you thought this issue couldn't get more politicized and silly (http://www.wric.com/global/story.asp?s=6140669) ...
The Reverend Jerry Falwell says global warming is "Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus" from evangelism to environmentalism.
Falwell told his Baptist congregation in Lynchburg yesterday that "the jury is still out" on whether humans are causing -- or could stop -- global warming.
But he said some "naive Christian leaders" are being "duped" by arguments like those presented in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth. Falwell says the documentary should have been titled "A Convenient Untruth."
Falwell said the Bible teaches that God will maintain the Earth until Jesus returns, so Christians should be responsible environmentalists, but not what he calls ... quote ... "first-class nuts."
Fisherking
02-28-2007, 18:17
Don't you love it when nuts speak out about nuts speaking out?
And just what were you editing when you found that gem Lemur…hummmmmmmmmmm?
:laugh4:
Hosakawa Tito
03-01-2007, 00:13
Al's 'lectric bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_re_us/gore_electric_bill)
My yearly usage about 5,600 kwh. I wonder how much his critics are burning?Be interesting to compare.
But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information.
Sounds like the Policy Research Whatever is a dumpster-diving operation. They probably messed up the recycling bins going through the Gore family's trash. Eco-hypocrites!
My goal in life: reduce global warming via modifying inappropriate keystrokes. No charge. :bow:
Douche douche douche douche douche douche douche douche douche douche douche.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-01-2007, 07:51
A spokeswoman for Gore said he purchases enough "green power" — renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas — to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.
"Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said.
:smash:
Al's 'lectric bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_re_us/gore_electric_bill)
My yearly usage about 5,600 kwh. I wonder how much his critics are burning?Be interesting to compare.
Lol, reminds me of my favorite biojugend (ex)politician, hates these polluting cars soooooooooooooooooo much that he flies with a private jet. Incidently also the politician that hates poverty so much that he lives in the biggest house.
Adrian II
03-01-2007, 12:47
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyid=2007-02-26T135859Z_01_N25248809_RTRUKOC_0_US-OSCARS-GORE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Interesting. I wonder how much polution has been caused by Mr Gore or his fanbase while they've been flying around in their private jets promoting their "science".Beside the point. Primo: you can't expect environmental activists to travel the world on foot and shoot heir movies with hand-held cameras and bicycle-driven batteries. Secundo: their personal behavior has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their views.
I don't need the Republican gossip circuit to tell me what to think of it. I have actually seen the movie. The inconvenient truth about environmentalism is its willing and uncritical audience: a few convenient lies suffice to get a world hearing and an Oscar.
Devastatin Dave
03-02-2007, 04:50
Beside the point. Primo: you can't expect environmental activists to travel the world on foot and shoot heir movies with hand-held cameras and bicycle-driven batteries. Secundo: their personal behavior has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their views.
Boy, if I ever needed a better definition of hypocricy, I doubt I could have ever found it. Thanks!!!:laugh4:
Well, in fairness DevDave, if Al Gore lived in a hand-made yurt sewn from skins of oxen his family raised on his organic zero-impact mango orchard, you'd be just as disgusted with him. 'Fess up. It's not as though you were somehow undecided about the guy.
Suraknar
03-02-2007, 07:27
Well, I dont live in the US, and from an outside view, the only sad thing about all this is that a very valid message is being lost in from the minds of people failing to acknowledge it because of Political Partisanerie and political squables. :shame:
ShadeHonestus
03-02-2007, 07:59
"Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said."
That is along the same theoretical line as carbon credits. He doesn't preach the balancing of your usage, he preaches limiting your total ecological footprint and he would require his own shoemaker. The balancing with carbon or green credits is just a way for the rich to balance their liberal guilt.
When Rosie O'Donnell talks about being a dietitian while she snacks on a case of Ho-Ho's and Bon-Bon's and gets winded tying her shoes...I view with trepidation
When Streisand tells people to shut off their air conditioners to cut electricity usage, yet one of her homes' electricity usage could power Costa Rica....I view with trepidation
In fact, just take this Quiz (http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/doasisay/quiz.pdf)
It's funny we can't consider the source or the messenger when the message comes from the left, but the moment the right has a message, its criticized from every angle because we're all just a bunch of oil loving, fundamental Christians who want to keep minorities down.
Adrian II
03-02-2007, 12:31
Boy, if I ever needed a better definition of hypocricy, I doubt I could have ever found it. Thanks!!!:laugh4:On the contrary, my friend, you have sought and found the cheapest of reasons not to listen to Gore's message. Instead of thinking about the issue and making up your own mind, you ridicule the messenger and plug your ears.
There is enough to criticise in the movie -- what Gore says about polar bears for instance is pure nonsense. But I'll bet you hardly know what we are talking about anyway.
Oh, I understand that American liberals have overspent their credit with the average Joe and nobody will so much as listen when Barbra Streisand 'speaks out' or give their vote to a Heinz billionaire who pretends to represent the common man. But in the end, it is views and content that are most important in politics, not character. If you scrutinize a man -- any man -- closely enough, he will turn out to be fallible, weak and inconsistent. You should balance his weakness with his achievements to properly judge him. George Washington was a great man even though he held slaves. Al Gore can be right even though he flies first class.
Of course Washington was, and Gore isn't. But not because of slaves or frequent flier miles.
ShadeHonestus
03-02-2007, 12:38
Well speaking for myself. I watched the movie, it had me wanting to believe in what he said as he's very persuasive.
1.) Then I found research that contradicts what he presented.
2.) Then I found instances where his own arguments lacked consistency that was not embellished.
3.) Then I looked at Gore the man and his practices and found it to be another example of a politician championing a cause for political gain, but at the cost of the message he chose to champion.
Adrian II
03-02-2007, 12:52
Well speaking for myself. I watched the movie, it had me wanting to believe in what he said as he's very persuasive.
1.) Then I found research that contradicts what he presented.
2.) Then I found instances where his own arguments lacked consistency that was not embellished.
3.) Then I looked at Gore the man and his practices and found it to be another example of a politician championing a cause for political gain, but at the cost of the message he chose to champion.Well, apart from its scientific content, his message is kind of ambiguous, isn't it? It might be: we are slowly destroying the world. Then again, it might be: I, Al Gore, am your best bet to save the world. To my mind, both messages defy belief...
Banquo's Ghost
03-02-2007, 13:58
Well, I don't really have a clue whether the polar bears are going to melt or if cutting down the Amazon prevents the baby seals migrating.
But I do know a winner when I see one (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/01/boffins_climate_wibble/).
Hand over the money Sir Richard. :yes:
Hold your breath, save the planet
Bristol boffins answer Branson's challenge
By Lucy Sherriff
Somebody call Al Gore and tell him he can leave the lights on in his house for as long as he likes: some academics in Bristol have solved the climate change crisis. Oh yes, and they want their $25m prize money from Richard Branson, thankyewverymuch.
Branson and Gore joined forces at the beginning of the month to offer the cash to the person who comes up with the best way of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The winner, should there actually be one, will have to find a way of removing a billion tons of the gas from the atmosphere.
Now researchers at the University of Bristol have put forward their suggestion: stop breathing.
This idea, while drastic, has the advantage of not costing anything, and requiring no significant investment in developing new technologies. The side effects are pretty messy, though, so the researchers offer a second suggestion: stop breathing so much.
Dr Mark Steer (in the background of the photograph above, in which he is accompanied by his colleague Dr. Andrew Impey) explains: "If we merely cut out one breath in three, we could decrease the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year by a staggering 0.63 gigatonnes. That's the same effect as saving five million acres of land (an area the size of Wales) from deforestation."
As well as averting the mass suicide of the planet's entire human population, this also means heading to the gym is a no-no.
In their press statement, the researchers explain that "the average person exercising at the recommended level of 30 minutes five times a week could be adding as much as 1.3kg of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year".
Multiplied (quite unjustly, we know) across a global population of 6.5 billion, this equates to a lung-busting 14 million tonnes. Multiplied across the 35 people who actually regularly meet the 5x30 minutes recommendation, it would save considerably less, but that rather spoils the fun.
In closing, Steer does concede: "The amount of carbon dioxide saved by remaining sedentary is nothing compared to what you would save by running somewhere instead of driving there."
The research is published in The Journal of Unlikely Science, a not-so-serious journal, run by the authors.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.