You prolly need a new set of cartoon names, not all quite so interconnected.
Try just one personality per thread, if you can. That is, if they all talk to one another or at least someone in charge.
Congratulations to Al Gore and the Internationl Panel on Climate Change for winning the most prestigious prize in the world:
"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
- the Nobel Committee
Mr. Energy Consumer's award does nothing but diminish the credibility of the "prestigious prize". Al Gore is a whore, a bore, a thoroughbred fraud!!!!
makes bitter whine, eh harry?
Well, Puck, I can't tell you what kind of "wine" one may get out of sour grapes, I have never made any wine. I suspect, however, that if you just eat the sour grapes rather than ferment them that they may make you "puck". In any event, Al Gore is a light weight, a liar, a spoiled brat, and a pan handler!!
Are the major reason that the dems may actually lose in 2008. they are still so bitter about their losses in 2000 and 2004 that they can't see straight.
the dems really ought to take a lesson from the reps, instead of wallowing in self pity after unsuccessfully impeaching Clinton(a stupid move IMHO) they came out and reclaimed the white house.
Dem's, quit your fucking whining and field an electable candidate. There are a lot of people(myself included) who don't really like anybody from the right side of the aisle, but if you try to cram Hillary down our throats we(I mean I) will vote for the other guy no matter how distasteful.
I think fielding an electable candidate is the goal. The libs are responding to Hillary, as a lib, I don't see why, but obvioulsy a lot of people like her.
Personally, I despise the term flip-flopper, and when people are charcterized as just playing politics, because I think it's a rather simple way of looking at the complexity of the choices that these people have to make. However, with Hillary, I think both tags are just. It just feels like her goal is to be President, not to lead this country, just to be President because she can and wants to.
In general, "fielding an electable" candidate isn't always the best method. That's how we got Bush Jr.
Finally, about Gore. Although people can certainly disagree with his stance on global warming, and call him a media whore without me getting very upset. You should be willing to give the guy some credit for attaching himself to a cause, and to his credit he seemingly has genuninely invested himself in it.
The fact that he loves the attention is not the point, celebrity is intoxicating, let him take a drink if he wants. He has called a great deal more attention to what he thinks is a major problem (I agree, but that's not really the point). I think it's a good thing that he's showing some passion that was sorely lacking as a Presidential candidate. So, call him a nut and a whore if you like, but I don't think it calls for disparaging the award itself or his claim to it.
Absolutely, he certainly did with no guard to the facts when they didnt fit. He just made up lies or ignored the facts.
Not to mention his fondness fo LEASED 727s from private leasing companies when smaller planes would do. Dont even think commercial.
He is a true Washington phoney operating in the international arena. If he ever had an once of integrity or belief in anything, these have long ago evaporated in his quest for power.
I pretty much stay away from the whole global warming debate. The science involved generally flies over my head. My main expertise is in the area of correcting Bill Kile's spelling while spelling words wrong myself.
If Gore is as bad as you say, then so be it. It may be the case. I don't know about the lying, but I'm sure (well, I'm not sure, but I'm going to say I'm sure anyway) he could find scientists to back him up, just as the other side can find ones who will call him a liar.
However, just because he's a hypocrite on a larger scale, doesn't mean he loses all points in his quest to bring attention to what he thinks is a problem. I don't know how many people talk about this war being about oil, and how we have to end our dependency on oil, etc...as they drive around in one of their families two Ford Expeditions. It doesn't make it right, but it happens all the time. It's like me, I'm against guns, but that doesn't mean I don't pull out the old 45 sometimes and shoot at the neighbors when they walk on my yard!
All things considered though, you may be right. I kind of tuned Gore out a while ago.
is probably a good idea. I believe that Gore is as disingeneous about global warming as he is about everything else. It's not about global warming, its about "look at me, look at me" the man just can't stand to be out of the spotlight, no wonder he invented the internet. lol that way people like you and me can keep talking about him. The worst thing we could ever do to Al Gore, is just ignore him
his environmental roots - nothing wrong with that. but the guy just flat out lies. Says that there is a consensus... sure there is IF you ignore ALL who credibly disagree with you.... and that is what he does.
I DO support energy conservation - and alternative energy sources if for no other reason than 1) our national debt and 2) international relations that in the long run are not heathy for the country. Lets face it - we are in bed with some pretty nasty dudes over the oil that they provide... (Saudi Arabia comes to mind).
But what REALLY gets me going about Gore is that he makes a real good livin - offa lying - and in some ways hurting the ability of credible scientists to obtain funding. Worse, I think he is setting himself up to be some type of C-credit broker... and that my friends will mean even more jobs being exported from the US (and outsourced) to countries exempt from the Kyoto accords....
Think we will have money then for the hobby? Think you will be able to afford 1) the gas price and the 2) Carbon Credit to drive to your provider's outcall place? wow, ya must be dreaming.... Drive a car in Europe. Taxes are what makes the cost $7 a gal in Europe.
So, yea, lets give the dude a no bell prize... cause know what? you're gonna be givin him your wallet pretty soon.... worthless sack of shit that he is.
-- Modified on 10/12/2007 3:39:17 PM
along with anybody who ever contributed to Moveon. So what do you expect?
I'm gonna tell you a serious bigot, and that's Carly Simon. You can tell by looking at her. And watch her concerts. She hates shoes. She's unreasonably devoted to bare feet, and that's a dead giveaway of a liberal.
Actually, Mother Teresa was a bigot too. Mahatma Gandhi was unreasonably and intolerantly devoted to his views, too.
But I don't know any FUCKING MORONS!! Well, with the possible exception of BizarroBipolarMan.
big meanies.
so just hold still for the nice shot.
considering the same award was once given to Yasser Arafat, I'd say Gore is a definite step back up in the right direction.
...then Al Gore will be remembered as a great man. Provided that there are any survivors to remember him.
And if it turns out to be pretty much a dud? Except for all the economic carnage after he and others get the western world to waste trillions? Do you ever think about those possibilites?
and if they are nominally, they will never be effectively enforced. Green products might take off, but I think they are going to have limited success.
No, we're not going to avoid this crisis now. We're probably a few hundred years away from being able to address the problem. Meanwhile, get ready for the ride.
Well then,
If any of our efforts to stem the doom would be fruitless, why waste the money? We'd be much better off using the resources to focus on adapting to the impending changes.
if we take any measures and global warming isn't occurring, we could always reverse the measures. If global warming is occurring and we don't take measures, it's not like we can reverse the further damage.
At the rate change is occurring, (they're picking up 12,000 year old mammoth bones uncovered from melting ice!) and considering the political opposition that does exist, I don't think measures are going to be implemented till there's such a disaster that any talk of danger to the economy will be moot.
So, IMHO, don't worry. Even if he's president, for Al Gore to gain power enough to threaten the economy, it will take a catastrophe or two first. Perhaps losing a few cities more than New Orleans-- like say Atlanta.
Why do I mention that?
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 10:19:03 PM
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 10:19:40 PM
It does rather diminish the status of the Prize since Gores movie went so far off base from reality..
in point of fact, Gore's depiction of events fail to reflect even the contents of the IPCCs reports. closer to Gore's conclusions are the political summary of the contents of the report.
It should also be noted that if we really want to alter the earth to a more non-humankind influenced planet, then we should reduce the population (yet another reason I support the hobby!) See the graph- that is the ONLY graph that matters.
as for gore? well, he is out to make more money. Not a good choice for the committee
Sad that some of the other nominees were not taken more seriously - these include:
Martti Ahtisaari, for decades of peace mediation
Vietnamese monk Thich Quang Do for pro-democracy efforts.
Russian human rights lawyer Lidia Yusupova, who fought for victims of war in Chechnya
Rebiya Kadeer, an advocate for China's Uighur minorit
But then again, let us look at some past nominees to put this into perspective.
Hitler was nominated in 1939. Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini were also nominated! Some of the awards now appear, with hindsight, questionable, such as the awards given to Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, Lê Ðức Thọ, and Henry Kissinger.
So yea, this award is really up there! Certainly makes me think of Al - I invented the internet - Gore in a much different light! like "in the dark"!
Clueless yahoos.
I wouldn't throw her out of bed for eating crackers.
Of course, 2 vodkas isn't far from fucking Lassie, either.
Some of those names would make top ten on JackO's Halloween list.
I would just like to announce tonight that we of the IPCC will be starting a new campaign for International Beautification.
Toward this end, we have arranged the gracious contribution of 1 million ladies razors from Gillette, to be delivered to Baghdad, for distribution throughout the Mideast. We are recruiting fairy hairdressers starting in West Hollywood and San Francisco, and our goal, by 2025, is a 25% reduction in burkas throughout the mideast, with no significant regional increase in intestinal disorders.
For American women, we have reached an agreement with the noted philosopher and vicarious athlete, R. Lee Ermey, who will organize our Pills for Pushups program, allowing American women to trade their pills in for credits in their local gym club. They will be allowed to ride stationary bikes and similar equipment, hooked up to the power grid, while our DIs explain philosophy to them. Our goal is a 37% increase in bed pushups, by the end of the decade.
We are lobbying the Mexican government to ban the use of lard, and replace it with nice Italian olive oil. Our goal is a 42% reduction in body mass in Latin women over age 25, by 2030. Ay caramba!
We are researching psychotropic drugs to make lipstick lezzies amendable to bisexual date rape. We hope for a 32% conversion rate within 10 years.
And finally, we will donate $100M to makeovers of the women of the English royal family and their courtiers, in an ongoing project.
Now all of you gentlemen are welcome to join me at the bar. Please leave your wood at your tables. HarryJ, we cannot pay your tab.
Glad to see you are finally making a contribution. I especially like your idea of generating power from stationary bikes. Please promote the new Libbie bill making it a felony to jog which hopefully will get more yuppies in the saddle churning out megowatts, maybe even SlickMeister Willie will convert.I will be at the bar and bring my own bottle of Ripple which I will share with anyone having their own glass.
Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace prize. That is Excellent. While I am sure this rankles the GOP, Conservatives, and Global warming skeptics, it is now a fact.
How is he going to proceed from here? Will he run, or won't he?
If he chooses to throw his hat into the ring, the unstoppable juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton will immediately lose traction.
It will also create Swift boat groups in numbers unprecedented even by Rovian standards.
It won't reopen old Clinton administration wounds.... Hillary has the edge there.
But will it ultimately be the best path for him to take at this point?
No, I do not think so, not if he's sincere about wanting to make a difference. He's already done more good for this country and for the world since trading politics for activism. I believe he is smart enough to recognize that. I believe he recognizes the restrictions and limitations of political restraint are gone. It's also why I believe he has no intention of returning to the political arena AT THIS TIME.
Gore is still in his 50's. Plenty of time to develop an unbeatable message for a 2012 or 2016 run.
"it is now a fact." ??? What is now a fact? Global warming or that he won the Nobel Prize?
Global warming - first there are actually two questions here. the first - is it- or is it not happening? (independant of man's activites)... and that question is debatable. Remember - there have been warm periods in Earth's history before that had nothing to do with anything other than natural cycles of Nature. Greenland was once much warmer that is presently the case... The Mammoths were frozen somewhat suddenly, implying that the regions in which they were frozen were actually much warmer....
The Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD) followed by the "Little Ice Age" mid 1300s to 1800s or so are documented as part of they cyclical nature of earth's temperature. Curious that while some act with certainty of the temperatures prior to the era of recording the temperatures.... there are many who debate the "actual temps!" and on the subject of prediction, when the models used to predict the dire future of the earth are used to "predict" the past, they cannot!
Oh, and to top it off, Mars is also warming.... go figure.... but more on that later.
Second, assuming global warming is actually a reality - and not a cyclical pattern of nature... does man play a role. Gore would have us believe so. But - sun activity (actually the souce of the solar radiation that he claims will bake us to death if trapped by the earth's CO2) is not contributing? perhaps our Mars Rover is the cause of global warming on Mars?! as Mars is warming as well. Seriously, the numbers do not add up, and as I have posted in fairly detailed and annotated posts before, there are a lot of distinguished climatologists who disagree with BOTH premises.
yea, a no bell prize for a scientific conclusion, in a non-scientific area. especially given the others who have been nominated by this organization. really, putting gore with these folk, and excluding those who have put life and limb on the line for peace... well, that tells me more about the committee than about Gore.
-- Modified on 10/12/2007 3:19:33 PM
Many - Many others are more deserving. And while I may agree about limbaugh (who I find equally offensive) I am terribly distrubed by this award.
First - it is an award made for a promotion of an idea based upon faulty conclusions concering scientific data. That scientific data itself is in contestation (tree rings as indicators of temperatures prior to the recording of temperature? when rain, number of overcast days and other factors contribute to the width of tree growth rings?).
Second - If mankind is sooooo bad, then we need to get at the root of the problem - and not the symptoms of the problem... quite simply - have we overpopulated the earth? I would claim that(and actually have claimed that since the 70's). So the solution is NOT c-credits - but rather limited population growth ....
more than the committee gave him.
They're not called Crooks & Liars for nothing, bud.
(2) that it's not man-made?
Just asking.
But stating them as fact - is not the correct way to go about determining what to do. Personally - if you look at the graphs that we do KNOW are increasing - ie, population - then you will know that we should in fact, limit population growth.
That is the only way I know to absolutely decrease man's impact on the planet. AND it is within our ability to so do.
If there's no scientific evidence to support climate change, there isn't any evidence that birth control is going to control population. I've just reached that conclusion recently.
Why? Look at what's happening in the US, with immigration. The working-age population falls and people who are more careless about the birth-control will immigrate there, either to do necessary work, or to settle and squat. The country has a shortage of youthful workers starting at the bottom, and it can't spare the labor to patrol the population.
You're not going to win a Nobel Prize suggesting birth control.
look Z - I go bat shit everyday explaining easier stuff than this every day. Gore has elevated stupidity to a new level. In a previous post I've already demonstrated that the Nobel Peace prize process makes humogous mistakes. (after all Hitler, Stalin and Mousilini managed to make the invite list!)
Let me explain it one more time for you... 1) there is room for debate on BOTH issues - generalized Global waming (more accurately named climate change) and 2) that man creates some influence over that process....
Now - assuming that there is a warming trend -that is not part of a natural cyclical process (remember - back in the good ole Viking days... GREENLAND - was colonized by the Vikings - but they had to abandon their colonies because they could not grow enough food due to an increase in glacier advance - hence a warmer period that preceeded the advance.....) AND assuming that WE (mankind) contribute to it! the C-credit simply allows the same (or even MORE) C02 emissions thereby promoting the same level of increase in both atmospheric CO2 levels and therefore increase in global temp.... so how the fuck does that help?
Oh, and by the way - as a side effect YOU get to pay $7/gal of gas... and twice as much for heating your abode. In short - we outsource MORE JOBS while increasing the cost of goods and services in this country. That gonna help anyone? *(except GORE?)
As far as controlling population - and the impact... have you really read any of the scientific lit on Global warming. We could comply with Kyoto (by the way - easy to do, we simply outlaw the use of gasoline powered engines and gas powered electricity generation in the entire northeast - and Voila - we are in total compliance) but that would amount to less than 1-5% change in ANY of the projected temperature rate increases.... that enough? nope. not according to Gore.
so, while you criticize my solution (which by the way addressed a bunch of other manmade problems - like beach erosion due to building on sand beaches which contributes to beach erosion, or the introduction of plastic waste into the environment, or the reduction of wildlife habitat due to the encroachment of humans on forests and other natural habitats in the entire globe and other problems... which GORE ignores) please do not be so sanctimoneous... cause ya don't know shit. And I am not trying to win a no bell prize... would not wish to be on the same list as Hitler, and stalin.
-- Modified on 10/12/2007 11:07:59 PM
Birth control has been around for my entire life. During that time, the population of the world has more than doubled. Though it's slowing, if I live another forty years, I fully expect it will double again-- though it may also crash into destitution and carnage.
People have these theories about why it's not working, but the fact is, unless a species is living in a tight social system like a hive (something you want to avoid) animals will compete to put the most offspring they can out into the population. Sure some individuals will restrain their reproduction, our minds are that plastic, but over generations they are overrun and by those who won't, and yes, that's close to the "marching morons" hypothesis. (Close)
So, for individuals, I believe birth control might work. For populations, I don't think it will.
One thing for sure though, enough deprivation and destitution, and the population will drop.
Like an airplane cheats gravity, we can expand our capacity to cheat nature on population growth limits, but eventually, Malthus will win.
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 9:58:39 AM
Bwaahahahaa!
Sometime in the foreseeable future, it's not going to be economically possible.
Yes, but until then, don't even think about asking soccer moms, or Al fucking Gore for that matter to inconvience themselves for the greater good.
It's just not going to happen until it's an economical neccessity, and even then they'll blame it on the evil oil companies.
Really, whatever Gore says about the environment, if he's elected too soon, none of his policies are going to get through Congress. No way, shape, or form. I think he learned a few lessons from the Carter Presidency (not the Clinton one).
I'm guessing that if he runs again, he will run after there are catastrophes that will make economic considerations of his policies moot. Now, that is
He is definitely not going to be drafted to run this election. Look for him in 2116. I believe he is betting on Global Warming, and he's keeping himself in the public eye for the right time . . .
So, if you, GaGambler, are right about global warming, expect no threats from Al Gore. IMHO.
Al Gore’s Inconvenient Judgment
Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.
An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.
Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece
"Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts."
So that gives Gore the right to lie or make shit up about additional things? The ends justify the means?
Yup. That's really scientific now isn't it? Throwing in those untruths really adds to the scientific discourse now, doesn't it?
The judge didn't say the film couldn't be shown in schools, just that it needed some warnings.
But then you probably subscribe to the Joseph Goebbels's school of marketing.
that you like to misrepresent reports?
I didn't "represent" anything. None of the words are mine, except for the question to Carrie.
Learn to read.
Jesus! With friends like you, you don't need enemies.
Well it didn't take long for you to run out of reasoning and resort to name calling.
I NEVER said (nor even implied) that the British judge disagreed with the concept of global warming. The ENTIRE point of the judge's ruling (and my desired point as well) is that Gore severely exaggerated the effects consequences of climate change, and in other cases twisted the evidence
It's dishonest (or maybe just stupid) on Gore's part and was worthy of repair (by the judge).
This type of exaggeration also feeds fuel to those that are not yet convinced (as you are).
You need to quit looking at this as a partisan fight to the death.
a judge disagrees with Gore, when in fact he agrees with him?
Oh, it's just a little misleading, like you know, 180 out.
If you meant something, you could say it, I think - unless of course, you're an idiot.
OK, so you're not an idiot. Then you're a liar. Sheesh, I can't imagine why somebody would refer to RepubliCONS.
Oh, your feelings are hurt. You want everybody else to be responsible EXCEPT FOR YOU. Fucking sleazebag!
I made absolutely ZERO claims about the judge. Show me a quote.
I will make this claim now.
You are delusional.
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 1:41:37 PM
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=51933&boardID=39&page=1
was immediately followed by Albert's quotation that the judge in fact agreed with Gore across a broad range.
You need to learn what Americans regard as fraudulent. That sort of statement gets people sued for fraud, sanctioned, etc.
You are making a representation of fact when you know or should know that the fact is misleading. You may think this is being clever and technical, but I don't think a jury would, and I know a judge wouldn't. Because I get people sanctioned for less.
I don't think you're delusional. I think you know what you are doing, and are a flat out liar. Sadly, I think you are a fair example of the Rush Limbaugh lie cheat & steal school of politics.
because all those words you object to were the first few paragraphs from the Timeonline news story, for which I provided the link, directly below,
Your fight is with the Timeonline, not me.
BTW, I subsequently agreed and reiterated that the judge subtantialy agreed with the film. I elaborated and further explained my position repeatedly. Which is something that your "very" close friend Albert Schweitzer refuses to do.
let's decide his position (without reading his posts or links) first. Then, we will name call, provide no facts to back up our position on things scientific - and make everything go back to our limited scope of expertise... civil litigation.
yea, for my money, I do not agree with ANY of GORE's hypothesis, but you did a good job of presenting the findings of the Br. Court. So sad.
That arguing with a partisan is a complete waste of time.
I seriously doubt that Gore, or Michael Moore for that matter are idiots. the people who are so blinded by their hate of Bush, and "everything" Republican that they will believe anything that supports their predisposed opinions, despite all facts to the contrary.
Now those people are idiots.
that Oops claimed that this judge found 9 errors.
Oops did NOT say that Gore exaggerated; his clear and only reasonable inference was that Gore had been found generally wrong in court.
Of course, the same article he cited went on to say that the same judge found that Gore was right in every major respect, and the overall thrust of the decision supported Gore's POV.
This is not being technical or clever. It's deliberately misleading. That's a lie; it's fraud.
Yes, I agree with you that it's pointless to talk to a person who will deliberatly mislead people.
Any businessman or litigant who behaves like that is going to get hammered, and rightly so.
It's only in politics that we permit such bullshit, and then we get the Rush Limbaughs of the world projecting their own shit onto everybody else. Some people think they should be ignored, but that results in people believing that Iraqis bombed the WTC, which leads to invading the wrong country - like amputating the wrong leg, you know? So I'm more inclined to give them a dose of their own medicine.
"SoI'm more inclined to give them a dose of their own medicine."
How's that working out for you?
It doesn't seem to terribly productive to me,but WTF do I know, I'm sitting here on a Saturday too.
and even cruising CL for strange stuff. I think if you're careful, it's not a bad thing to chance TOFTT.
After all, if the photo is inaccurate, you can walk, cancha? Well, sometimes I can, LOL!!
I think we otta just JUNK P&R, and replace it: New management kibitzes about CL babes instead. Even if it's only 2% worthwhile, it's still 2%, and feeds the need, you know?
It's that or mosey on down and see about a Ural sidecar.
Like your good friend SimpleCountryLawyer, Your quarrel is with the TimeOnline, not me.
If you had even bothered to read the article you would have been spared your machinations.
The Times said the Judge DID "find" 9 errors. The Times said the judge DID say that Gore exagerated.
The same paragraphs I cut and pasted ALSO included the portion that claimed the judge said that the film was "broadly correct".
Sorry I missed the big quote mark at the beginning and end, but the attribution link was right there.
You prolly need a new set of cartoon names, not all quite so interconnected.
Try just one personality per thread, if you can. That is, if they all talk to one another or at least someone in charge.
"agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change" So exactly HOW is that infering that the judge found Gore's presentation gnerally wrong?
Sheese, here I am arguing FOR Gore with people who supposedly support the idiot.... which proves that many times we do not (to quote Jack0) RTFM!!!