The Al Gore Thread

[Andrew_Pakula]

Well just in case he does decide to run, here's a thread for him.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/...4_archive.html

He'd probably have a better chance then Hilary or Obama or any other democrate for that matter.

[BlueStar]

As I posted previously, though, Gore himself has stated that he will not run this time. But, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I do, though, think that if he was even possibly considering running that he would have made an appearance at the DNC winter meeting. And while there is still 326 days until the first primary, he would have a lot of ground to make up - this is especially true because he no longer has a strong base of support in Iowa, he lost New Hampshire, and Nevada and South Carolina were not early, important states when he ran last time. While there's no doubt he has popularity and appeal, he needs to have those things in the first four states and he doesn't (but, again, there is of course time to build that - he is, though, already behind as the other candidates have been doing that for months now). He would also have to get away from his current image of being the environmental guy and show that he is about more issues than just global warming. I really don't think he is going to run.

[Mood ring]

he looks like he's on pregnazone.

[Andrew_Pakula]

Could Gore's road to the Oval Office begin in Hollywood?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/...ore/index.html

[Nimrod's Son]

I think BlueStar wakes up with nightmares that Gore might run

[The Melty Man]

Gore ran, Gore won, and Bush fucked up the world.

[Nimrod's Son]

Except that Gore didn't win.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by The Melty Man

Gore ran, Gore won, and Bush fucked up the world.

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Except that Gore didn't win.

You're both right and wrong.

It depends.

If the limited recount specifically ordered by the florida supreme court (and halted by the federal) were completed, Bush would have won.

If there was a statewide recount (that Gore never requested), Gore would have won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

[The Omega Concern]

Al Gore is an idiot.

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[ravenguy2000]

that's great, i was just wondering what Vaclav Klaus thought of global warming

[sppunk]

Originally Posted by ravenguy2000

that's great, i was just wondering what Vaclav Klaus thought of global warming

Santa was unavailable for comment.

[TuralyonW3]

wow omega concern, you totally swayed my opinion, great post

[zsp77]

Originally Posted by Andrew_Pakula

Well just in case he does decide to run, here's a thread for him.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/...4_archive.html

He'd probably have a better chance then Hilary or Obama or any other democrate for that matter.

Obama will eventually win the country over. The man is absolutely contagious ! (not literally of course!)

[MrPantyFAce]

turns out this bastard has a $2300 monthly power bill. i think he should be impeached.

[Trotskilicious]

yeah that's also an unfounded claim by an unaccredited conservative think tank

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by MrPantyFAce

turns out this bastard has a $2300 monthly power bill. i think he should be impeached.

What a pathetic attack that evaporates when you get all the facts.

Gore voluntarily pays almost 50% more expensive "green" power from renewable sources like wind and solar.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...cord-straight/

He also purchases carbon offsets to reduce his carbon footprint to zero.

[Future Boy]

[Ol' Couch Ass]

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

What a jackass.

[Debaser]

BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS AL GORE USES ELECTRICITY, OWNS BIG MANSION THAT SHOCKINGLY USES MORE ELECTRICITY THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

What a pathetic attack that evaporates when you get all the facts.

Gore voluntarily pays almost 50% more expensive "green" power from renewable sources like wind and solar.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...cord-straight/

He also purchases carbon offsets to reduce his carbon footprint to zero.

Part of the justification for the increased use is "He has 20 rooms in his house, and a guest house, and offices!" Pardon me while I shed a tear for the fact that Al Gore has an overly large house that he has to waste a lot of energy on.

If he's really as gravely serious about the environment as he claims he is, why doesn't he reduce his own energy usage by living in a more modest home and then still pay out the same amount of money each month to help friends, neighbors, etc. afford clean energy for their households? (spread the "green" around, literally and figuratively) As it is, he's still one guy using 20 households worth of energy for himself when he doesn't have to, no matter how much he pays for it. The message he's sending right now is "Its fine to use more energy than you really need, as long as you can afford to cover your own ass so you don't feel guilty about it." That sort of thing is probably not going to inspire the masses out there to go out of their way to reduce their energy usage and carbon footprints.

[The Omega Concern]

Politicians in hypocritical positions? pushaww, not in the U.S.

it was refreshing to see Michael Crichton, who knows and likes Al Gore, jump off the global warming bandwagon and question Charlie Rose on how unified scientist really are on this issue.

Charlie Rose played the typical lap-dog liberal while Crichton tactifully claimed the research from the IPCC shouldn't and couldn't be trusted and this notion that the debate is over is disconcerting.

"Consensus science is not science..." was one quote.

also, I guess in the documentary it makes the claim that sea-levels will rise 20 feet and the author mentioned that went against the IPCC's own report of 50 centimeter's...which itself is a figure that's been downgraded from the IPCC's report on the climate about 5 years ago because their projections of how quickly the planet would warm were wrong.

[Ol' Couch Ass]

As usual, Corganist swoops in and makes the game/set/match point to close the thread.

[Effloresce]

Originally Posted by Debaser

BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS AL GORE USES ELECTRICITY, OWNS BIG MANSION THAT SHOCKINGLY USES MORE ELECTRICITY THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

more modest home and then still pay out the same amount of money each month to help friends, neighbors, etc. afford clean energy for their households? (spread the "green" around, literally and figuratively)

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Part of the justification for the increased use is "He has 20 rooms in his house, and a guest house, and offices!" Pardon me while I shed a tear for the fact that Al Gore has an overly large house that he has to waste a lot of energy on.

If he's really as gravely serious about the environment as he claims he is, why doesn't he reduce his own energy usage by living in a more modest home and then still pay out the same amount of money each month to help friends, neighbors, etc. afford clean energy for their households? (spread the "green" around, literally and figuratively) As it is, he's still one guy using 20 households worth of energy for himself when he doesn't have to, no matter how much he pays for it. The message he's sending right now is "Its fine to use more energy than you really need, as long as you can afford to cover your own ass so you don't feel guilty about it." That sort of thing is probably not going to inspire the masses out there to go out of their way to reduce their energy usage and carbon footprints.

Wow, Corganist arguing that nobody should have an "overly" large house, despite the fact that Gore is a former vice president that needs the extra rooms for his offices, staff and security detail. Shall we set up a govt dept to determine exactly how big a house every family in America is allowed to get?

In every single major state of the union speech Bush throws bones out there calling for a serious change in energy consumption and addressing climate change. Let's go find out the exact size and energy usage of Bush family houses then.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Ol' Couch Ass

As usual, Corganist swoops in and makes the game/set/match point to close the thread.

Who the fuck is this worthless poster?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Wow, Corganist arguing that nobody should have an "overly" large house, despite the fact that Gore is a former vice president that needs the extra rooms for his offices, staff and security detail. Shall we set up a govt dept to determine exactly how big a house every family in America is allowed to get?

In every single major state of the union speech Bush throws bones out there calling for a serious change in energy consumption and addressing climate change. Let's go find out the exact size and energy usage of Bush family houses then.

I could really care less about how big Al Gore's house is. I'm not the one on an Oscar winning global environmental crusade going around telling people to be more energy efficient or whatever. I'm just saying if I were, then I'd probably go a little further to save the earth than merely making sure my own extravagent energy use had no ill effects before I go around asking regular middle class people to turn down their thermostats and use clothelines to dry their clothes.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I could really care less about how big Al Gore's house is.

So you admit that you don't even mean what you say. Partisan hackery to the fullest.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I'm not the one on an Oscar winning global environmental crusade going around telling people to be more energy efficient or whatever. I'm just saying if I were, then I'd probably go a little further to save the earth than merely making sure my own extravagent energy use had no ill effects before I go around asking regular middle class people to turn down their thermostats and use clothelines to dry their clothes.

Al Gore voluntarily spending 50% higher cost on his electricity bill just for green energy and his carbon offsets are already doing a lot more towards his cause than what he's asking everybody else to do.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

So you admit that you don't even mean what you say. Partisan hackery to the fullest.

That's not what I said. The issue is not the size of Al Gore's house, but rather the hypocrisy the guy is showing by using so much energy while at the same time lecturing everyone else to conserve.

Al Gore voluntarily spending 50% higher cost on his electricity bill just for green energy and his carbon offsets are already doing a lot more towards his cause than what he's asking everybody else to do.

The point is that he could do a lot more before asking anyone else to do anything. There's nothing wrong so much with the guy putting out money to keep his high energy use while keeping the environment at status quo. It keeps him in his huge mansion without causing more harm. But the guy could make some personal sacrifices, maybe only live in a 10 room mansion for instance, and actually improve things. But it appears right now he wants to have his cake and eat it too. You can't live the good life and save the world at the same time.

For a guy who's always so big on having the rich do their "fair share" about problems, you sure seem to be quick to give Gore a free pass. I can just imagine what you'd say if some rich Republican started saying that all people need to do volunteer work to solve the poverty problem, and then when it's revealed that he only did half the volunteer work the average American does, he says "I'm really busy, so I just don't have time. But I wrote some checks to charity, so that makes up for it, right?" You'd be all over him for hypocrisy.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I'm not the one on an Oscar winning global environmental crusade going around telling people to be more energy efficient or whatever.

And what exactly is wrong with this? Unless you're one of the holdouts that still doesn't believe in global warming that is.