Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize!

[the4thpip]

Congratulations, Albert!


Now, about that run for president...

[darkhanamaru]

Congratulations, Albert!


Now, about that run for president...

please, please run AL

[the4thpip]

Oh, and congratulations to co-winners, the UN Climate Panel.

[Samurai]

Ridiculous... that asswipe doesn't deserve it at all.

[BnL]

Damn! I was sure Limbaugh had it in the bag. He was ROBBED.

[the4thpip]

Ridiculous... that asswipe doesn't deserve it at all.

Classy. Bitter much?

[BnL]

Classy. Bitter much?

Well, Gore DOES lack the grace and dignity of Limbaugh, you know.

RECOUNT! RECOUNT! RECOUNT!

[Paul McEnery]

Congratulations, Albert!


Now, about that run for president...

Now that's more like it.

[David O Burcham]

Congrats to Al Gore. It's not just anyone who can win a peace award for makling a documentary about themselves that contains eleven documented misrepresentations and lies. We should overlook how Gore thinks poor, under-developed nations should stay poor, under-developed nations to protect the Earth. The planet only likes polution that can be paid for, like Gore's private jet travels and energy-depleting mansions.

It isn't fact or result that matters, it's the noblity of one's intentions regarding how other people should live, not themself.

WAY TO GO AL!

[the4thpip]

Congrats to Al Gore. It's not just anyone who can win a peace award for makling a documentary about themselves that contains eleven documented misrepresentations and lies. We should overlook how Gore thinks poor, under-developed nations should stay poor, under-developed nations to protect the Earth. The planet only likes polution that can be paid for, like Gore's private jet travels and energy-depleting mansions.

It isn't fact or result that matters, it's the noblity of one's intentions regarding how other people should live, not themself.

WAY TO GO AL!

Classy. Bitter much?

[Michael P]

I should point out that Gore is *one* of this year's Nobel Peace recipients, sharing the prize with the rest of the UN panel on climate change. Obviously, the US media is going to focus on him, but it was a group effort.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh noes! Does this mean global warming is actually happening, and we're all going to have to change our ways? Say it isn't so!

[TomStillwell]

Interesing.

Gore wins a Nobel Peace prize.

Is there a Nobel War prize that Bush can win?

[Cam63]

*Cracks open a beer and smiles*

Good one, Bert.

[Cam63]

Interesing.

Gore wins a Nobel Peace prize.

Is there a Nobel War prize that Bush can win?

I wish I could award him The No-Bull Peace Prize, but no.

[Alan Lynch]

I'm confused...Environmentalism = Peace? Not saying I don't agree with what Gore and the UN scientists are doing, just confused over the criteria.

Also, does anyone else like the irony in people having arguments over the winner of a peace prize? Just me then...

[Paul McEnery]

I'm confused...Environmentalism = Peace? Not saying I don't agree with what Gore and the UN scientists are doing, just confused over the criteria.

Also, does anyone else like the irony in people having arguments over the winner of a peace prize? Just me then...

Those who have no peace in them are not going to be happy about this.

[the4thpip]

I'm confused...Environmentalism = Peace? Not saying I don't agree with what Gore and the UN scientists are doing, just confused over the criteria.

Also, does anyone else like the irony in people having arguments over the winner of a peace prize? Just me then...

The committee had announced a couple of years ago that they were going by a wider definition now. Remember that last year's winner was an economist, the creator of those micro-loans.

Also, look at how a lack of natural resources like water, or greed for oil can endanger peace. A sustainable environment is a necessary basis for peace.

[Alan Lynch]

The committee had announced a couple of years ago that they were going by a wider definition now. Remember that last year's winner was an economist, the creator of those micro-loans.

Also, look at how a lack of natural resources like water, or greed for oil can endanger peace. A sustainable environment is a necessary basis for peace.
Ah, I see. I remember nothing about who won last time, and haven't seen anything about how these winners were selected.

What I did know is that throwing Rush Limbaugh's name in there is the funniest thing I've seen all year.

[the4thpip]

Ah, I see. I remember nothing about who won last time, and haven't seen anything about how these winners were selected.

What I did know is that throwing Rush Limbaugh's name in there is the funniest thing I've seen all year.

Well, next year, we're nominating iWarrior.

[Alan Lynch]

Well, next year, we're nominating iWarrior.
He does bring people together.

[the4thpip]

Gore is gonna donate the money to an environmental protection non profit.

[rick]

I guess that it just isn't Rush's year is it? :)




Gore shares Nobel Peace Prize with U.N. panel

CNN) -- Former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their work to raise awareness about global warming.

"An Inconvenient Truth," a 2006 documentary featuring Al Gore, won two Academy Awards this year.

In a statement, Gore said he was "deeply honored," adding that "the climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

The former vice president said he would donate his half of the $1.5 million prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a U.S. organization he founded that aims to persuade people to cut emissions and reduce global warming.

The White House offered an initial reaction to the Nobel win by President Bush's 2000 opponent. "Of course, we're happy that Vice President Gore and the IPCC are receiving this recognition," said deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

During its announcement, the Nobel committee cited the winners "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 award ceremony will be held December 10 in Oslo, Norway.



A deserving prize for one of our nations great leaders.

[Cayman]

Yet again? :confused:

[rick]

Yet again? :confused:


No, this is his first one.

[Cayman]

No, this is his first one.

I was just kidding because The4thPip also started a thread regarding Al's win on the board http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=193750

[rick]

Ah fuck.

Nothing like not reading the front page first is there?

[Cayman]

Ah fuck.

Nothing like not reading the front page first is there?

That's ok, I've done it myself on more than one occasion.

[rick]

Well I go to excited and stared the thread all over again above.

Sorry about that.

As for Gore, it's good to see an actual American who truly deserves the prize, win it.

[rick]

Ridiculous... that asswipe doesn't deserve it at all.


Damm Tom, I think that this one has caused you to blow a gasket.

Is it because you spent all that money making up those "Congraulations Rush" t-shirts?

[KevinTBrown]

Threads merged. :)

[rick]

Threads merged. :)

Thank you.

[Alix Harrower]

Damm Tom, I think that this one has caused you to blow a gasket.


Like he has any more gaskets to blow after a kid talked about how S-CHIP helped his family. He's nothing but a sniveling little crybaby.

[Alan Lynch]

Like he has any more gaskets to blow after a kid talked about how S-CHIP helped his family. He's nothing but a sniveling little crybaby.
This is like therapy for you, isn't it?

[Alix Harrower]

This is like therapy for you, isn't it?

No, just fun.

[NickThompson]

Classy. Bitter much?
I heard it was nine, anyway ;)



Congrats to him and the IPCC. Who knows, maybe he will actually get the award this time (He doesn't have an Oscar I believe) :)

[rick]

I heard it was nine, anyway ;)



Congrats to him and the IPCC. Who knows, maybe he will actually get the award this time (He doesn't have an Oscar I believe) :)


Nope, he got both the Oscar and the Peace Prize.

How's that for covering all the bases?

[Crowley]

Ridiculous... that asswipe doesn't deserve it at all.

But RUSH does?

Holy crap... what color is the sky in your world?

[Alan Lynch]

Nope, he got both the Oscar and the Peace Prize.

How's that for covering all the bases?
I think he still needs an AVN for best Group Scene to really cover his ass. So to speak.

[NickThompson]

Nope, he got both the Oscar and the Peace Prize.

How's that for covering all the bases?
An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar, he didn't as he was neither Producer or Director.



IIRC :)

[rick]

I think he still needs an AVN for best Group Scene to really cover his ass. So to speak.


While I would certainly cheer his win, I don't think I would want to see the tape.

No, actually I'm certain I wouldn't want to see that tape. :eek:

[rick]

An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar, he didn't as he was neither Producer or Director.



IIRC :)


A fair, but minor distinction when you figure that the entire film was a filmed version of a Gore lecture.

Still, I'll bet that the near-combination is enough to make certain parties grit their teeth.

[NickThompson]

A fair, but minor distinction when you figure that the entire film was a filmed version of a Gore lecture.

Still, I'll bet that the near-combination is enough to make certain parties grit their teeth.
Hehe :)



"Not winning things he won seems to be a pattern for Al Gore" - Jimmy Kimmel :)

[TCJohnson]

I'm confused...Environmentalism = Peace? Not saying I don't agree with what Gore and the UN scientists are doing, just confused over the criteria.



The reasoning I heard on CNN is that enviromental problems = reduction of resources = fighting over the resources.

[TCJohnson]

Bow Down!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Al_Gore_on_Futurama.JPG

[Alan Lynch]

Bow Down!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Al_Gore_on_Futurama.JPG
I actually think his work on Futurama is deserving of a Nobel prize in it's own right.

[Red Jack]

I guess this proves the Supreme Court and some Florida Republicans can't steal everything.

Sweet.

Go Big Al.

[KevinTBrown]

Well, the inconvenient truth is that Davis Guggenheim won the Oscar for a film featuring Al Gore.

[Alix Harrower]

I guess this proves the Supreme Court and some Florida Republicans can't steal everything.

Sweet.

Go Big Al.

That's arguably the best part -- George W. Bush is pretty much universally reviled (except for the 28%ers) and his presidency is one of the most colossal failures in American history, while Gore is respected and admired (except for the 28%ers) and has been successful at just about everything he's done since the 2000 election. One of these men is of admirable character; the other is named George.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

This is great, I´ve always liked Gore.

Wish he had won the Presidency way back.

[Samurai]

Ahhh, but here's something Al Gore has lost... a court case in England.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

By Noel Sheppard | October 9, 2007 - 00:55 ET

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.

It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn't you agree?

For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.

Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media wouldn't find it newsworthy, would they?

Because of these lies/mistakes/false claims, whatever you want to call them, in what was supposed to be a "documentary", should they strip him of the Oscar and Peace Prize, the way a drugged athlete is stripped of their medals if their performance was falsely enhanced?

[the4thpip]

Ahhh, but here's something Al Gore has lost... a court case in England.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth


Because of these lies/mistakes/false claims, whatever you want to call them, in what was supposed to be a "documentary", should they strip him of the Oscar and Peace Prize, the way a drugged athlete is stripped of their medals if their performance was falsely enhanced?

It wasn't exactly a loss.

That same court also decided the documentary was still good and important enough to remain part of the curriculum in school in England. Some of the things teachers were told to correct are rather current changes in scientific models, like the theory that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream.

You have any idea how many errors like that are in pretty much every school book out there? The consensus of most nonpartisan scientists is that "An Inconvenient Truth" gets the vast majority of its facts right.

[NickThompson]

Ahhh, but here's something Al Gore has lost... a court case in England.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth


Because of these lies/mistakes/false claims, whatever you want to call them, in what was supposed to be a "documentary", should they strip him of the Oscar and Peace Prize, the way a drugged athlete is stripped of their medals if their performance was falsely enhanced?
The BBC article on the same subject said nine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

And that has someone saying nine in quotes :)



End of the day, the documentary can be shown in schools. That says something about it.

[Rattlehead]

Congratulations to Al Gore and his peacekeeping efforts in the neverending struggle to rid the world of ManBearPig.
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6218/manbearpiglb0.png
He's cereal about this.

[NickThompson]

Plus, Gore didn't lose the court case.

1 - It was the British Government vs a School Governer.

2 - The Governer wanted it banned, and it wasn't.

[Grazzt]

Now, about that run for president...

Why should he? I mean, he has all the respect he could want, he's actually doing something that he enjoys and that makes a difference, why would he want to go through the hassle of running a presidential campaign?

[Samurai]

The BBC article on the same subject said nine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

And that has someone saying nine in quotes :)



End of the day, the documentary can be shown in schools. That says something about it.
But for indoctrination purposes only... :mad:

Since they have to tell the kids up front that this is only 1 side of the debate and is a political work, how many schools do you think will actually show the other side? There are documentaries out there disputing the Goracle's wild claims, but they'll probably never be shown in school to counterbalance the distortions and falsehoods in A.I.T.

[Red Jack]

But for indoctrination purposes only... :mad:

Since they have to tell the kids up front that this is only 1 side of the debate and is a political work, how many schools do you think will actually show the other side? There are documentaries out there disputing the Goracle's wild claims, but they'll probably never be shown in school to counterbalance the distortions and falsehoods in A.I.T.

Dude.

At some point you really have to remove your head from the sand. being a conservative doesn't make you blind and stupid.

Well. not automatically.

[the4thpip]

But for indoctrination purposes only... :mad:

Since they have to tell the kids up front that this is only 1 side of the debate and is a political work, how many schools do you think will actually show the other side? There are documentaries out there disputing the Goracle's wild claims, but they'll probably never be shown in school to counterbalance the distortions and falsehoods in A.I.T.

I just love seeing you this bitter. This is what it's gonna be like when Hillary wins the presidency. :D

[Nick Soapdish]

But RUSH does?

Holy crap... what color is the sky in your world?

This is a joke, right?

Has anyone ever said that Rush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize? I don't think even Rush could say something so ridiculous.

[Samurai]

This is a joke, right?

Has anyone ever said that Rush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize? I don't think even Rush could say something so ridiculous.

I certainly didn't say he would win, or even is particularly deserving of a win. IMO, others besides him (and Gore) have probably done much more for peace... how about giving it to the Buddhist monks being killed in Myanmar, for instance? But no, this is all politics...

[TCJohnson]

This is a joke, right?

Has anyone ever said that Rush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize? I don't think even Rush could say something so ridiculous.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=193723

[Tom]

I certainly didn't say he would win, or even is particularly deserving of a win.


I highly doubt he'll win, but IMO, he deserves it far more than Gore.

__________________

[KevinTBrown]

I just love seeing you this bitter. This is what it's gonna be like when Hillary wins the presidency. :D

No.... I think it'll be cranked up to 11 then for most hard core conservatives.

:eek:

[Michael P]

An Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar, he didn't as he was neither Producer or Director.



IIRC :)

Yeah, Gore hasn't actually won any awards for An Inconvenient Truth, he was just in it.

[the4thpip]

__________________

http://www.steveklotz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/liar.jpg

[KevinTBrown]

TCJohnson & Tom = Da man.... er, men.... er... well. Aw hell, you know what I mean!

[Samurai]

__________________

Yeah, ... "more than Gore". That's like saying Rush deserves "humanitarian of the year" more than bin Laden. Doesn't mean either of them is particularly deserving of it. Like I said, there are far better candidates than either of them, like the Myanmar monks.

[Tom]

Yeah, ... "more than Gore". That's like saying Rush deserves "humanitarian of the year" more than bin Laden. Doesn't mean either of them is particularly deserving of it. Like I said, there are far better candidates than either of them, like the Myanmar monks.

Honestly, Sam.

[NickThompson]

But for indoctrination purposes only... :mad:

Since they have to tell the kids up front that this is only 1 side of the debate and is a political work, how many schools do you think will actually show the other side? There are documentaries out there disputing the Goracle's wild claims, but they'll probably never be shown in school to counterbalance the distortions and falsehoods in A.I.T.
They don't have to show the other side, just point out the bits that aren't true. Unless you think they should show a documentary that counters the nine things that were wrong, some of which are as simple as "Cant be proven either way".

[Samurai]

Honestly, Sam.

Yes Tom, honestly. IMHO, Rush deserves it more than Gore, but neither of them deserve it all that much, and there are better candidates than either of them out there. Is Gore, in your opinion, the best person to win this award? Really? Or would you more likely say "Gore deserves it more than Rush, but there are better folks out there..."?

[Michael P]

I wasn't aware there was a "fairness doctrine" in place for science education.

Does this mean I should sue my high school for not teaching me about Timecube?

[Tom]

No, no. I meant "Honestly, Sam. Are you really going to try and put forth the idea that you saying Rush deserves the award more than Gore doesn't contradict your assertion that you never said you though he deserved it? Really?"

But then, we already know what your response is.

[TCJohnson]

Wow, comparing Gore to Bin Laden. You have a tight grasp of reality there.

[the4thpip]

No.... I think it'll be cranked up to 11 then for most hard core conservatives.

:eek:

I'll drink to that.

http://a0.vox.com/6a00c2252787268fdb00d4143f57703c7f-200pi

[Alix Harrower]

No, no. I meant "Honestly, Sam. Are you really going to try and put forth the idea that you saying Rush deserves the award more than Gore doesn't contradict your assertion that you never said you though he deserved it? Really?"

But then, we already know what your response is.

Ooh! Ooh! I know! It'll go something like this: The "he" in the second clause of his sentence refers to someone other than the "he" in the first clause, and that should have been obvious, even though there was no textual reason to think that, and anyone who thinks Samurai meant what he clearly did mean is just an evil mind-reading hippie traitor who wants the terrorists to win and MoveOn ran an AD in a NEWSPAPER!

[Red Jack]

Yes Tom, honestly. IMHO, Rush deserves it more than Gore, but neither of them deserve it all that much, and there are better candidates than either of them out there. Is Gore, in your opinion, the best person to win this award? Really? Or would you more likely say "Gore deserves it more than Rush, but there are better folks out there..."?

let me understand this:

you don't believe Gore deserves the prize but, if HE's getting it, RUSH deserves it more than Gore.

Precisely what is it you believe that tub of guts, Limbaugh, has actually done to foster a moment of peace in the world?

be specific. we're not grading on a curve.

From where I sit Rush has added to the gross amount of hatred, bigotry and general not-get-alongness that makes life in this society so smooth and easy for so many. he gives scumbags and closet fascists permission to be so rather than, say, reminding them of the actual conservative values (some of which actually have value) he is (and they are) supposed to espouse.

Seriously. A Nobel for Rush?

I'm surprised he doesn't just implode from his own scumminess on an hourly basis.

[Draconomicon]

But for indoctrination purposes only... :mad:


Hmmm...

Dude.

At some point you really have to remove your head from the sand. being a conservative doesn't make you blind and stupid.

Well. not automatically.

Hmmm....

*looks back at Samurais post*

But for indoctrination purposes only...


*looks at Red Jacks*


At some point you really have to remove your head from the sand.

*Looks again at Samurais post*

But for indoctrination purposes only...


*glances back to Jacks*

Dude.
being a conservative doesn't make you blind and stupid.


*Looks over shoulder to Samurai*

:mad:


*turns towards Jack*


Well. not automatically.

*chuckles and watches Samurai again*

:mad:


*sits down and shakes head*

Dude.


"I think Red Jack is on to something..."

:mad:


"Ooops."

Dude.

[Royal]

Yes Tom, honestly. IMHO, Rush deserves it more than Gore, but neither of them deserve it all that much, and there are better candidates than either of them out there. Is Gore, in your opinion, the best person to win this award? Really? Or would you more likely say "Gore deserves it more than Rush, but there are better folks out there..."?

So like...how far are you going to ride this until you'll say that your statement doesn't count because at the time you typed it, you were drunk and in the basement closet of a four floor mansion during the witching hour of the atumnal equinox while the stars alined and the blood of a 20 year old pygmy virgin was shed, but because the pygmy was from Northern New Guinea istead of Southern New. Guinea, your statement will hold no validity what so ever?

[Paul McEnery]

So like...how far are you going to ride this until you'll say that your statement doesn't count because at the time you typed it, you were drunk and in the basement closet of a four floor mansion during the witching hour of the atumnal equinox while the stars alined and the blood of a 20 year old pygmy virgin was shed, but because the pygmy was from Northern New Guinea istead of Southern New. Guinea, your statement will hold no validity what so ever?

Shitfire.

My statements have no validity?

[Royal]

No.

You actually follow human sacrifice rituals.

[the4thpip]

So... has Bush called Gore yet to offer his congratulations?

[NickThompson]

So... has Bush called Gore yet to offer his congratulations?
Gore Wins Nobel Prize, High Court Gives It to Bush

Although former Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize this week for his work as a global-warming performance artist, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled early today that President George Bush would receive the gold medal, the diploma and the $750,000.
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2730

[titanfan]

While I still think it's a weird pick, I do think that there have been much *worse* winners of the Nobel Peace Prize in history. (For example Kofi Annan, Menachem Begin, and Yassar Arafat) And it's still less of a travesty than "An Inconvenient Truth" winning an Academy Award for best documentary.

[David O Burcham]

Jeez, Sam... comparing Al Gore to bin Laden!??!

And, just for the record, no way in hell does Rush Limbaugh deserve the Nobel.

And I apologize. Gore only told nine lies (as opposed to the eleven I've read from left-wing and right-wing blogs) in a movie where he stands for keeping Calcutta and West Africa poor and underdeveloped. Sorry.

The prize should have gone to Irena Sendler, a Polish woman who saved 2500 Warsaw Ghetto children from the horrors of the Holocaust. She was arrested for it by the Gestapo in 1943 and was horribly tortured and sentenced to death. She was saved by the Zegota council (created to help other Jews escape the Nazi extermination) when they bribed the German guards who were taking her to be executed. Officially, she was listed on public bulletin boards as actually being executed. Sendler then went into hiding where she continued her work for displaced Jewish children.

Irene Sendler, who endured torture and faced death to save children from the concentration camp ovens, or... proven liars like Gore and Limbaugh who don't practice what they preach? It doesn't seem like that hard of a choice to me.








The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

http://www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/images/gore.jpg
"Nummy-num-NUM! Destroying the environment makes my tummy HAPPY!"

[Dry Observer]

Damm Tom, I think that this one has caused you to blow a gasket.

Is it because you spent all that money making up those "Congraulations Rush" t-shirts?

That's nothing. I think I'm the only guy he got to buy one.

Man. I tried hedging my bets by buyin' this other shirt, but it turns out Ann Coulter wasn't even in the running.

Thanks, Sam.


(Note: The above message may in fact contain irony. This disclaimer included for the humor impaired.)

[Dry Observer]

I'm confused...Environmentalism = Peace? Not saying I don't agree with what Gore and the UN scientists are doing, just confused over the criteria.

Also, does anyone else like the irony in people having arguments over the winner of a peace prize? Just me then...

According to the internal strategic plans of the U.S. military (http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf) -- developed during the Bush Administration -- yes, global warming poses the threat of worldwide military conflict in the not-too-distant future.

And while the report linked above certainly does add disclaimers in describing its second-worst scenario... it's worth noting this was written in 2003, before the Ilulissat Glacier -- 3 miles wide by 1 mile tall -- began sliding into the sea at a rate of 2 meters an hour... including surges such as a 3-mile slide in 90 minutes. Before Greenland glaciers began floating on lakes of meltwater up to half-a-kilometer deep and triggering magnitude 1 to 3 earthquakes as they moved.

This was before Arctic summer sea ice shrank to roughly half of what it was in 1979. Before the area of sunlight-reflecting ice diminished this year by an area even larger than the surface area of Great Britain.

Before Australia nearly had to cut off irrigation this summer and give up on its crops in a river basin containing over 40% of its agricultural production -- and evacuate two of its major cities, Adelaide and Brisbane, containing 3 million people -- due to lack of rain. While wildfires rain rampant among that continent's eucalyptus forests, further straining her water resources.

Before the Antarctic Ocean stopped absorbing so much of the world's carbon output. Before the Arctic permafrost began melting down and releasing carbon in Alaska, Canada and Siberia. Before a group of scientists took an NPR team to a northern lake where they were measuring methane release only to find the lake seemingly boiling from the release of methane bubbles. Before most people realized that methane is about 22.6 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, and that the tundra and the oceans are full of tons of it -- all safely frozen away, until someone turns up the heat.

Before George W. Bush's chief scientific advisor admitted that global warming was real, humans were probably responsible, and that we would have to deal with it or risk turning the planet 'unlivable.'

And before so many people had to admit the global-warming deniers were right about one thing... the IPCC has been consistently wrong in its predictions in one respect: Reality has repeatedly been so much worse than the worst-case scenarios in its models.

From the Executive Summary:
There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations. Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production. With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment.

Later in the report:
As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.

[Paul McEnery]

No.

You actually follow human sacrifice rituals.

Well, I did cheat with the last one and substitute oregano for sage, but there's no bad results yeEEOOouulw'AOILU.lkj;/ql

[Paul McEnery]

The prize should have gone to Irena Sendler

Ah, yes Irena. The household name that's on everyone's lips right now.

Funny that.

Am I the only one who thinks there must be frantic text action between all the crazy fascists.

"NO. Ann. Sshh. We like Jews this week."

[Nick Soapdish]

And before so many people had to admit the global-warming deniers were right about one thing... the IPCC has been consistently wrong in its predictions in one respect: Reality has repeatedly been so much worse than the worst-case scenarios in its models.


But they're still wrong so we should stick with nailing down exactly what's going on before taking any kind of action.

[Citizen V]

Al Gore deserved it,he's trying to get people to see Global Warming before the ocean level rises and people drown.

[beetlebum]

I'm not a huge Al Gore fan. But I do have to give him grudging respect for bringing up such a critical issue. I just hope he has energy saving light bulbs in his house. I have come to the conclusion that denying climate change is happening is not to expatiate in reality. In otherwords: it's real.

But more or less, I am disappointed that Rush Limbaugh did not "rush" (hah! bad pun intended) the stage and do his best impression of Kanye West and say

I was robbed!

http://www.foxnews.com/images/237108/0_61_110306_kanye.jpg
Substitute Kanye for Rush.

Disappointing indeed.

[Dry Observer]

As I've said before...

Every Time You Say "I Believe in Global Warming" a Fairy Dies...

Recently, someone was telling me...

hmm. well, I wouldn't want to look like the stupid <bleep!>, but I've been seing some things lately that make me think a lot of the current hysteria over global warming is bunk. at least the human generated part of it.

much of what I've been reading is summarised here but you can find similar facts in other places.

No problem, Zac. One of the unfortunate things about this "controversy" is that despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community (particularly climatologists) that global warming is real and that human beings are a major contributor to the crisis, there's a tremendous amount of disinformation put out there. For example, the site you linked to (http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/), is a set of mirror pages from "Plant Fossils of West Virginia." In other words, that dispassionate, authoritative debunking of global warming comes straight from West Virginia coal interests.

Don't worry about it, though. There are some actual scientists out there who sharply criticize global warming -- in particular those being paid by oil and coal companies to do so. And there are even a few legitimate scientists with real credentials -- who haven't, actually, ever written a single peer-reviewed paper on global warming -- who also criticize the field.

Now, "Big Oil" can still argue (by proxy) that "all the evidence isn't in" and "Global Warming is just a theory," and they have a point. As they would with the Theory of Gravity. After all, we're still studying gravity and still trying to detect gravitational waves.

How do we know that we aren't all being pulled to the center of the Earth by invisible, ephemeral, (imaginary) fairies? How do we know the Earth isn't being warmed up by an invisible death ray from a cloaked Vogon warship in deep space? How do we know that the thousands upon thousands of kids and old people who die from their asthma during major atmospheric inversions actually died from the particulate matter reducing their lung capacity, and not from invisible fairy dust?

Really, we can't prove any of the above false, so why do we assume something else is true?

After all, dealing with global warming would mostly mean eliminating vast amounts of waste and hence lost money in the world's economy, which would mean that "facing up to it" would make us all richer in the end, as well as eliminating some other minor problems, like all those people dying of inversions and industrial-exhaust particulates... I mean fairy dust. I wonder who is making vast amounts of money from the existing situation, and who would stand to lose immense sums if we changed?

Well, at any rate, we can't believe that oil and coal are finite resources, or that global warming is real. After all, every time you say, "I believe in global warming" a fairy dies. And every time you say, "I believe in whatever Exxon is saying now," a fairy gets her wings. Um... right?

Here's a different perspective. Instead of leaping off a cliff and trusting to the fairies to catch you, instead of assuming virtually the entire scientific community is lying and only the brave oil and coal companies and oil-based dictatorships of the world are telling the truth, consider taking some basic steps that can only benefit you, instead of making that leap of faith.

Because it's a long way down.

[Dry Observer]

But they're still wrong so we should stick with nailing down exactly what's going on before taking any kind of action.

As I've noted on my blog and elsewhere...

Global Warming Maps -- Going Deep

Maps are now available (http://flood.firetree.net/) which show how much of the coastline near you will be inundated if water levels change between one and fourteen meters. Simply go to the maps, expand the image to take in the entire planet, center the map on your area of interest, and zoom in. And, of course, change the sea level elevations to whichever height you find most interesting.

Given that if Greenland melts down completely, sea levels will rise about 7 meters (20 to 22 feet), you can get a good idea of what that would do to the coastline near you. Of course, if Antarctica melts down as well, we're looking at a sea level rise of around 200 feet (nearly 70 meters).

The key thing to remember about these sea level rises is that while they sound frightening, our continents, unlike our islands, are mostly well above these altitudes. The truely terrifying thing about them is that most of the world's coastal cities are on, well, the seacoast.

And once a city is rendered uninhabitable by a combination of rising sea levels and factors such as storm surges from Katrina-plus weather events and brackish water seeping into their acquifers... well, all those people have to find someplace to go. Imagine virtually all of the world's coastal cities, towns, villages, suburbs, housing developments and independent homesteads having to be deserted over a period of a few years or less. Where do you think we will put that half of the human race either living in those coastal areas or in other regions where economies and agriculture have collapsed?

To be blunt, while we could very likely make provisions for most or all of these people, and take actions to reduce or avoid such devastating, widespread outcomes, we're not doing those things.

So what happens in a rich country like America when a single major city empties out because its electricity and fuel supplies got cut off and never restored and because it (unlike New York City) gets its water from pumping systems no longer in service? What happens when hundreds of thousands of people get in their cars and drive... to the next urban area facing a major strain on its resources? Especially when so many people will pick the towns and suburbs around that city as their next stop?

How many stores can be stripped bare, how many water tables exhausted, how many new populations forced to desert their homes and go looking for the necessities of life before that chain reaction spreads across much of the nation?

Answer: Answers will vary -- based on exactly how tenuous vital supply lines are at each location, and how robust their essential services -- food, water, power, health care, fuel, light manufacturing, etc -- are at those locations. If resources and key services are truly resilient over a large area, including its major urban locations, then it will likely survive. If not, and if the area is not particularly remote (Alaska, Nunavut/the Northwest Territories), then it will face serious risk of complete societal collapse.

Unfortunate, but something to be aware of. And possibly to prepare for and seek to avoid.

Here's a glimpse of southern Florida (http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=27.0396,-81.4966&z=10). Again, remember to look at this not just in terms of the exact sea level rise, but also in terms of what any major storm surge will do a community that is just above the waterline. And to remember this also in context of major water and energy shortages, massive agricultural disruptions and general economic implosion.

All of which are bad.

[Samurai]

As I've noted on my blog and elsewhere...



Given that if Greenland melts down completely, sea levels will rise about 7 meters (20 to 22 feet), you can get a good idea of what that would do to the coastline near you. Of course, if Antarctica melts down as well, we're looking at a sea level rise of around 200 feet (nearly 70 meters).

The key thing to remember about these sea level rises is that while they sound frightening, our continents, unlike our islands, are mostly well above these altitudes. The truely terrifying thing about them is that most of the world's coastal cities are on, well, the seacoast.

And once a city is rendered uninhabitable by a combination of rising sea levels and factors such as storm surges from Katrina-plus weather events and brackish water seeping into their acquifers... well, all those people have to find someplace to go. Imagine virtually all of the world's coastal cities, towns, villages, suburbs, housing developments and independent homesteads having to be deserted over a period of a few years or less. Where do you think we will put that half of the human race either living in those coastal areas or in other regions where economies and agriculture have collapsed?

To be blunt, while we could very likely make provisions for most or all of these people, and take actions to reduce or avoid such devastating, widespread outcomes, we're not doing those things.

So what happens in a rich country like America when a single major city empties out because its electricity and fuel supplies got cut off and never restored and because it (unlike New York City) gets its water from pumping systems no longer in service? What happens when hundreds of thousands of people get in their cars and drive... to the next urban area facing a major strain on its resources? Especially when so many people will pick the towns and suburbs around that city as their next stop?

How many stores can be stripped bare, how many water tables exhausted, how many new populations forced to desert their homes and go looking for the necessities of life before that chain reaction spreads across much of the nation?

Answer: Answers will vary -- based on exactly how tenuous vital supply lines are at each location, and how robust their essential services -- food, water, power, health care, fuel, light manufacturing, etc -- are at those locations. If resources and key services are truly resilient over a large area, including its major urban locations, then it will likely survive. If not, and if the area is not particularly remote (Alaska, Nunavut/the Northwest Territories), then it will face serious risk of complete societal collapse.

Unfortunate, but something to be aware of. And possibly to prepare for and seek to avoid.

Here's a glimpse of southern Florida (http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=27.0396,-81.4966&z=10). Again, remember to look at this not just in terms of the exact sea level rise, but also in terms of what any major storm surge will do a community that is just above the waterline. And to remember this also in context of major water and energy shortages, massive agricultural disruptions and general economic implosion.

All of which are bad.
Is there a setting to see what effect a rise of just 40cm will do? Because in the court case Gore's film lost, one of the lies in the film that teachers are required to correct is that sea levels may rise by only about 40cm in the next 100 years, not 7m. Guess the Goracle missed a decimal place...

[rick]

Because in the court case Gore's film lost, one of the lies in the film that teachers are required to correct is that sea levels may rise by only about 40cm in the next 100 years, not 7m. Guess the Goracle missed a decimal place...


Interesting use of framing in your post.

Let us be clear here.

The film, An Inconvenient Truth, did not lose any court case.

It was in fact recommended by the judge at the hearing as a worthwhile educational tool.


This whole Peace Prize thing is just killing you huh?

[Samurai]

Interesting use of framing in your post.

Let us be clear here.

The film, An Inconvenient Truth, did not lose any court case.

It was in fact recommended by the judge at the hearing as a worthwhile educational tool.


This whole Peace Prize thing is just killing you huh?

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=5626284&postcount=51

It was judged to be a 1-sided political polemic with at least 11 documented lies or inaccuracies that teachers showing the film are required to correct for students. That's a big loss in my book. "Banned from being shown" is not the only definition of a loss, and I don't think it needs to be banned... like Moore's crap, better that it be shown and all the lies pointed out as the film goes, in order to show the political bias in it.

[rick]

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=5626284&postcount=51

It was judged to be a 1-sided political polemic with at least 11 documented lies or inaccuracies that teachers showing the film are required to correct for students. That's a big loss in my book. "Banned from being shown" is not the only definition of a loss, and I don't think it needs to be banned... like Moore's crap, better that it be shown and all the lies pointed out as the film goes, in order to show the political bias in it.


See as always you have this problem where you post editorials that pretend to be news stories.

Here is an example of what an actual news story said about the case......

Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670882,00.html)

British Court: Gore Film 'Political'


Al Gore may have just won the Nobel Peace Prize, but some of his ideas are under fire in the British court system. Showing schoolchildren Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth is a political act, a High Court British judge has said, ruling on a challenge by a parent to remove the film from secondary schools. Although it does not ban the film, the decision requires that the film be shown with guidance notes to comply with laws prohibiting "partisan" material in the school curriculum.


In his 17-page ruling, published Wednesday, Justice Michael Burton wrote: "It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion but that it is a political film."

The criticism comes after months of legal and political maneuvering. In February, the national government announced plans to send a DVD of the documentary to each of England's 3,385 secondary schools as part of a climate change packet. In May, Stewart Dimmock, a parent of two from Kent and a member of a local school's governing board, initiated court proceedings to remove the film, which he called "propaganda," from schools. He also gained the support of the New Party, an independent, right of center political party, and launched a website called Straight Teaching, which explains his position.

"I am elated with today's result, but still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools," Dimmock said following the ruling. Gore, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this morning for raising awareness of man-made climate change, has not commented publicly.

While accepting the broad arguments of the film, the judge pointed out nine scientific errors and omissions that he believes Gore raised in the context of alarmism and exaggeration. For instance, Gore refers to a study indicating that polar bears have, in recent years, started drowning as they swim up to 60 miles (97km) in search of ice. According to Justice Burton, "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." He also dismissed what he called the film's "Armageddon scenario" in which the world's melting ice caps could cause sea levels to rise by up to 20 feet (6m) in the near future. Such a rise could take place, he said, but "only after, and over, millennia."

There was also not sufficient evidence to back the film's claims that global warming caused Hurricane Katrina, the melting of snows on Mount Kilimanjaro or the evaporation of most of Lake Chad, he said.

Government attorneys amended their existing teacher guidance notes following a preliminary ruling last Tuesday, and specifics of those guidelines were debated with Dimmock's attorneys before the court. Those notes detail, on a scene-by-scene basis, the areas where teaching staffs nationwide will be required to point out opposing arguments and scientific errors. According to the guidance, which is now available on the government's Teachernet web site, it is designed to help teaching staff "encourage their pupils to assess the validity and credibility of different information sources and explore different points of view so as to form their own opinions."

John Day, Dimmock's attorney, still wants the film removed and has plans to appeal the ruling. He believes the new guidance is no solution. "It's an unfair burden on teachers," he told TIME, noting that teachers will now need to wade through a 60-page document in order to understand the film's inaccuracies. "At the end of the day, if a teacher makes a mistake, they'll be breaking the law," he said. For already overworked teachers, that's an inconvenient truth indeed.




Now I grant you, the judge did say that there were 9 claims in the movie that he states have not been proven. However setting aside that this is a judge and not a scientist, and as such he can make whatever legal rulings he wants to, but that doesn't change scientific fact, I don't see the word lie or any indication that the film would be pulled from schools.

Which is of course what the challenge requested in the first place.

[Dry Observer]

Actually, I believe the judge referred to the alleged 'lies' with quotation marks, indicating that while the plaintiff considered them 'lies,' he did not necessarily share that opinion. And given that the film will continue being shown in Britain with a modified disclaimer, that's hardly overwhelming evidence of 'lies.'

And finally, of course, I'd like to congratulate you on finally embracing the truth of the International Panel on Climate Changes many declarations, as you are taking the plaintiff's position that Gore was exaggerating/lying because he deviated in several places from the IPCC's predictions.

I hadn't expected you to declare the IPCC to be the unquestioned Yardstick of Truth, Samurai, but clearly you've made enormous progress in accepting the reality of climate change.

I hesitate to point out that only one global-warming denialist criticism of the IPCC actually holds water -- their predictions have not proven very accurate, as the rate of global warming has almost invariably proven to be far faster and more devastating than predicted in their models.

But still, at least you've come this far, Sam, so who am I to complain? =)

[Samurai]

See as always you have this problem where you post editorials that pretend to be news stories.

Here is an example of what an actual news story said about the case......




Now I grant you, the judge did say that there were 9 claims in the movie that he states have not been proven. However setting aside that this is a judge and not a scientist, and as such he can make whatever legal rulings he wants to, but that doesn't change scientific fact, I don't see the word lie or any indication that the film would be pulled from schools.

Which is of course what the challenge requested in the first place.

I think we basically agree on the facts of the case... there's no dispute over what the ruling said (except whether you believe that Katrina, Kilimanjaro, and Lake Chad represent 3 falsehoods or 1, changing the total from 11 to 9 depending upon your count)

You are trying to spin this split decision as a victory, I as a loss. You bold the line "based on scientific research and opinion", while I would bold "but that it's a political film". You celebrate the fact that it can still be shown, I celebrate the fact that in order for it to be shown, teachers must point out that it's a 1-sided political polemic full of almost a dozen inaccuracies and falsehoods, massively weakening the argument of the film IMO. And if teachers fail to point that out, they will be breaking the law.

I guess if both sides are happy, the judge made a pretty good decision.

[Samurai]

Actually, I believe the judge referred to the alleged 'lies' with quotation marks, indicating that while the plaintiff considered them 'lies,' he did not necessarily share that opinion. And given that the film will continue being shown in Britain with a modified disclaimer, that's hardly overwhelming evidence of 'lies.'

And finally, of course, I'd like to congratulate you on finally embracing the truth of the International Panel on Climate Changes many declarations, as you are taking the plaintiff's position that Gore was exaggerating/lying because he deviated in several places from the IPCC's predictions.

I hadn't expected you to declare the IPCC to be the unquestioned Yardstick of Truth, Samurai, but clearly you've made enormous progress in accepting the reality of climate change.

I hesitate to point out that only one global-warming denialist criticism of the IPCC actually holds water -- their predictions have not proven very accurate, as the rate of global warming has almost invariably proven to be far faster and more devastating than predicted in their models.

But still, at least you've come this far, Sam, so who am I to complain? =)
Using the IPCC as a yardstick was the judge's decision, not mine. I'm just glad that the film will now come with a 60 page book full of the falsehoods and inaccuracies in the film.

[Kyuubi]

Snarf was disappointed but happy for Gore.



I think. All he said was "snarf".

[Cam63]

I have no idea what this Snarf thing is, but I'm liking it.

[Kyuubi]

Imagine the offspring of a dog, an alligator, and a hobbit.



BTW, this is not an answer to your previous statement.

[Cam63]

Using the IPCC as a yardstick was the judge's decision, not mine. I'm just glad that the film will now come with a 60 page book full of the falsehoods and inaccuracies in the film.

Don't make me do the Happy Al Dance...





Oh, what the hell... *strips down to snug Riverdance outfit and launches into a wild Irish jig*

I'm...huff...gunna...huff....be hurtin'... tomorrow... DAMN YOU, SAM !

[Samurai]

Don't make me do the Happy Al Dance...





Oh, what the hell... *strips down to snug Riverdance outfit and launches into a wild Irish jig*

I'm...huff...gunna...huff....be hurtin'... tomorrow... DAMN YOU, SAM !

Feel the burn, baby! Feel the BURN!

[Mia]

I hope he runs for President. I truly dislike Hilary Clinton.

[Sabrinaset]

I hope he runs for President. I truly dislike Hilary Clinton.

Amen to that. I'd much rather have Gore in there than Shrillery ... although the comedy potential with her in there is pure gold.

I dunno ... Global Warming prolly exists, but I'm still unsure that it's caused by men. I mean, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling ... I'm guessing that's why they were growing crops in Greenland 1,000 year ago because of global warming caused by carbon-dioxide emissions from all of the 11th century cars and factories.

But you know, kudos to Gore anyways. He's trying to do something good, even if I think he's sorta misguided in how he's going about it.

[Paul McEnery]

See as always you have this problem where you post editorials that pretend to be news stories.

Here is an example of what an actual news story said about the case......




Now I grant you, the judge did say that there were 9 claims in the movie that he states have not been proven. However setting aside that this is a judge and not a scientist, and as such he can make whatever legal rulings he wants to, but that doesn't change scientific fact, I don't see the word lie or any indication that the film would be pulled from schools.

Which is of course what the challenge requested in the first place.

It's a classic fascist manoeuvre.

Back in the 80s, Ken Livingstone was providing subsidised public transport throughout London, which is an obviously useful thing. Broke people get mobility. Private transport usage goes down. Environmentally better. Less traffic. Everybody happy.

Except Thatcher, who hated people "getting something for nothing", the bitch. But politically, she couldn't shut the program down. So they got some local borough to sue, saying they were disproportionatly being taxed (and never mind that people out in the boonies were getting the best out of the deal), and the judge gave them the case.

It's how these creeps operate.

Same diff with these crazy Christians who really really want their bogus religion shoved down students' necks.

And same diff with these two stupid parents.

[Samurai]

Amen to that. I'd much rather have Gore in there than Shrillery ... although the comedy potential with her in there is pure gold.

I dunno ... Global Warming prolly exists, but I'm still unsure that it's caused by men. I mean, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling ... I'm guessing that's why they were growing crops in Greenland 1,000 year ago because of global warming caused by carbon-dioxide emissions from all of the 11th century cars and factories.

But you know, kudos to Gore anyways. He's trying to do something good, even if I think he's sorta misguided in how he's going about it.

Is he really out to "help the planet", or just make himself rich? Besides all the paid speeches he gives, he owns his own carbon credits company. The more people buy, the richer he gets. And ask yourself this... if he's really so terribly worried about the environment, why does he fly around in his private jet everywhere (which uses a ton of fuel), drive in SUVs, own a mansion that uses the energy of 10 regular homes, and has generally done little if anything to reduce his own "carbon emissions" besides buying credits from the very company that he owns?

[Samurai]

It's a classic fascist manoeuvre.

Back in the 80s, Ken Livingstone was providing subsidised public transport throughout London, which is an obviously useful thing. Broke people get mobility. Private transport usage goes down. Environmentally better. Less traffic. Everybody happy.

Except Thatcher, who hated people "getting something for nothing", the bitch. But politically, she couldn't shut the program down. So they got some local borough to sue, saying they were disproportionatly being taxed (and never mind that people out in the boonies were getting the best out of the deal), and the judge gave them the case.

It's how these creeps operate.

Same diff with these crazy Christians who really really want their bogus religion shoved down students' necks.

And same diff with these two stupid parents.

How terrible, they didn't want their kids indoctrinated in school with lies and inaccuracies from political schlockumentary!

[the4thpip]

Is he really out to "help the planet", or just make himself rich? Besides all the paid speeches he gives, he owns his own carbon credits company. The more people buy, the richer he gets. And ask yourself this... if he's really so terribly worried about the environment, why does he fly around in his private jet everywhere (which uses a ton of fuel), drive in SUVs, own a mansion that uses the energy of 10 regular homes, and has generally done little if anything to reduce his own "carbon emissions" besides buying credits from the very company that he owns?

It would be a lot less work for him to get rich by just giving speeches about politics. Gore is actually working without having to do so. It's called altruism. You should try it out some time.

[the4thpip]

Oops, I forgot. Sam's a villain. Villains don't do altruism. Except maybe Black Adam. Depending who writes him.

[rick]

How terrible, they didn't want their kids indoctrinated in school with lies and inaccuracies from political schlockumentary!


Have you, ya know, actually seen the movie?

[Chris Hansbrough]

I hope he runs for President. I truly dislike Hilary Clinton.

oh so true. If it comes down to hilary as the candidate I just won't vote at all. and I'm as douchey liberal as they come.

However on the Al gore thing. after talking to my staunch conservative grandpappy I've started doing his thing for fun......My car broke down....>DAMNED AL GORE!

parents got in a fight?

Al Gores fault.

yep...It's all Al Gore's fault...

[Alix Harrower]

It would be a lot less work for him to get rich by just giving speeches about politics. Gore is actually working without having to do so. It's called altruism. You should try it out some time.

And Gore is far, far more successful than George W. Bush ever was in the private sector. It's ironically delicious!

[Chris Hansbrough]

And Gore is far, far more successful than George W. Bush ever was in the private sector. It's ironically delicious!

that's why bush had to go to war and veto kids......it's al gores fault :p

[the4thpip]

oh so true. If it comes down to hilary as the candidate I just won't vote at all. and I'm as douchey liberal as they come.

However on the Al gore thing. after talking to my staunch conservative grandpappy I've started doing his thing for fun......My car broke down....>DAMNED AL GORE!

parents got in a fight?

Al Gores fault.

yep...It's all Al Gore's fault...

What, he inherited THAT mantle from Clinton, but not the presidency? Seems unfair!

[Dry Observer]

And Gore is far, far more successful than George W. Bush ever was in the private sector. It's ironically delicious!

To be fair, I don't think anyone knows whether Al Gore has accumulated $100 million or $200 million or so from his Apple, Google and other tech stocks (earned as an advisor and/or board member for those and other companies).

Of course, in political terms that means he could instantly "raise" $50 million for a presidential campaign if he felt like it. Combine those funds with Internet fundraising and the thousands of activists who are apparently chomping at the bit to sign up with him and he could assemble a formidable organization overnight. And having such huge amounts of cash available and not having to burn money on the last several months or to establish name recognition means Gore could easily do something else... like half-hour primetime discussions of major issues, etc, reaching out to the public with a few paid broadcasts.

And of this in the wake of a total non-campaign in which he has been urging the present candidates to step up to the global warming crisis in a major way. While Gore has been leaving the way open for these candidates to take up the mantle of environmental champion, he has effectively earned an Oscar, an Emmy and the Nobel Peace Prize. His work has been the subject of the most recognized documentary in the world, he is now known as the world's foremost champion of the environment, and has vast national and international credibility on a whole range of issues. And, of course, most of the world's major musical performers have lent their considerable talents and fame to promoting his environmental cause.

Given the desperate political straights of a certain political party, it is entirely possible that a well-planned and executed Gore run could end said organization as a national party -- in this election.

All of which we should keep in mind as we watch, er... certain members of the list go into, how do you say, hysterics?

Have mercy, my friends.

And have an excellent day. =)

[David O Burcham]

But you know, kudos to Gore anyways. He's trying to do something good, even if I think he's sorta misguided in how he's going about it.

I can't give any sort of kudos to a man who preaches to everyone else about saving the environment and does jack-shit in his own personal life to preserve it.

I believe an environmentalist should win the Nobel Peace prize... it would have been better if had been awarded to a real one, though.

[Paul McEnery]

I can't give any sort of kudos to a man who preaches to everyone else about saving the environment and does jack-shit in his own personal life to preserve it.

I believe an environmentalist should win the Nobel Peace prize... it would have been better if had been awarded to a real one, though.

I think you'll find people who want to listen to this crap over at Town Hall. It's just over there and to the right.

[David O Burcham]

Ah, yes Irena. The household name that's on everyone's lips right now.

Funny that.

Am I the only one who thinks there must be frantic text action between all the crazy fascists.

"NO. Ann. Sshh. We like Jews this week."

Are you implying that I'm one of those people who only comes to the defense of Jewish people when it's beneficial?

Wow! I never realized that about myself! I don't know how I'll be able to break that news to the aunts, uncles, and cousins on my grandmother's (my mom's mom) side of the family... the Millers.

And you wouldn't believe my suprise in your implications that people like me who strongly avoid Republican party hacks (such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter) like the plague are fascists.

[Paul McEnery]

Are you implying that I'm one of those people who only comes to the defense of Jewish people when it's beneficial?

Wow! I never realized that about myself! I don't know how I'll be able to break that news to the aunts, uncles, and cousins on my grandmother's (my mom's mom) side of the family... the Millers.

And you wouldn't believe my suprise in your implications that people like me who strongly avoid Republican party hacks (such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter) like the plague are fascists.

Actually, I'm asserting that you're the kind of person who repeats disinformation from fascist websites.

[Charles RB]

and evacuate two of its major cities, Adelaide and Brisbane, containing 3 million people -- due to lack of rain.

I remember hearing they evacuated some small towns due to lack of water and I know they had to evacuate thousands of people due to subsequent floods (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6739919.stm), but I haven't heard of them evacuating Brisbane & Adelaide, nor can I find anything on BBC News about it. Pretty sure they'd have reported on that.

Because in the court case Gore's film lost

It's been pointed out to you that it didn't lose and has still been said to be a valid educational tool & be used. You know this and earlier acknowledged it's still going to be used in schools. Had you honestly forgotten all that when you made this post or are you deliberately lying for political reasons?

How terrible, they didn't want their kids indoctrinated in school with lies and inaccuracies from political schlockumentary!

Ah, hysterical reaction to something that was said to have nine points that couldn't be decisively proven but is still determined in court to be valid overall.

Well, that answers the above question - you were lying for political reasons.

[Red Jack]

Snarf was disappointed but happy for Gore.



I think. All he said was "snarf".


Then I saw her face. Now I'm a believer.

[David O Burcham]

Actually, I'm asserting that you're the kind of person who repeats disinformation from fascist websites.

Your assertations are wrong.

But, if those are imaginary jets Gore flies around in polluting the air, it might change my opinion of him.

[Crowley]

Your assertations are wrong.

But, if those are imaginary jets Gore flies around in polluting the air, it might change my opinion of him.

By that rational anyone who uses any modern transportation isn't an environmentalist... right?

[David O Burcham]

By that rational anyone who uses any modern transportation isn't an environmentalist... right?

Nope. Just the ones who say that everyone else should use public transportation if they cared about the Earth, but don't apply the same standards to themselves.

Much like the handful of self-proclaimed environmental activists who do everything in they can to block offshore wind-power structures because they are an eyesore.

[Michael P]

And exactly what public transportation is there that travels between coasts (to say nothing of to another continent)?

[Dry Observer]

I remember hearing they evacuated some small towns due to lack of water and I know they had to evacuate thousands of people due to subsequent floods (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6739919.stm), but I haven't heard of them evacuating Brisbane & Adelaide, nor can I find anything on BBC News about it. Pretty sure they'd have reported on that.

Ah, to clarify -- I wasn't saying they had evacuated those cities, only that authorities were saying they would have to -- just as they would have to cut irrigation to a huge swath of Australian farmland -- if they didn't get relief soon.

To me, the point wasn't so much whether it happened this time, but that we came so close to an event that would have severely hurt the Australian nation. And which, if their drought had continued at that intensity for a bit longer, could have seriously threatened the country's survival.

(See my earlier points about "What do you do with 3 million people when everyone else is short of water in your arid country?")

Remember, everyone still talks about global warming as if the really severe effects are at least 50 or 40 or 30 or 20 or 10 years away. Meanwhile, Australia faced a real risk of an environmental catastrophe last year, and hardly anyone noticed.

It's a bit like Atlanta now only having 90 days of water left. I don't think that city will evacuate in three months -- draconian water rationing, supplies pumped/trucked in and the possible loss of some thousands of people leaving soon due to economic/housing problems should keep them away from the red line -- this year.

But seriously, this is Atlanta. Not Miami, not Houston. A major Southeastern city that isn't all that far south, and sits next to a river over 1000 feet above sea level. But it still could actually run out of water in three months time.

Nevertheless, the real global warming problems "haven't started yet"?

Here's another one for you. Apparently the much smaller city of Athens, Georgia, with only 100,000 people or so, will run out of water at the present rate in just 30 days. They're much more likely to have to evacuate.

What impact do you think it will have on the voting public to see a city of 100,000 in the Not-So-Deep South evacuated, either this year or the next (on the eve of an election)?

[David O Burcham]

And exactly what public transportation is there that travels between coasts (to say nothing of to another continent)?

Why would Gore pump out even more poplution in the atmosphere using private jets. If he really cared, he'd travel strictly commercial air.

[Sabrinaset]

Actually, the worst of that bunch would be Barbra Streisand, Professional Limosine Liberal. During the rollong blackouts we had during Grey-Out Davis, she potificated about how Californians shoud save energy while she lived in a gajillion room mansion. The problem was that when someone asked Barb if she was using a clothsline as she was hectoring everyone else to, her spokesman said "She never meant that it necessarily applied to her."

I remember reading in one of the magazines we keep in the waiting rooms that Leonardo Dicaprio, on the other hand, flies commercial airlines whenever he can and only uses a private jet when absolutely necessary for reshoots or something, so he'd be an example of a celebrity who tries to live up to their words. Not so sure Gore does though.

[David O Burcham]

I remember reading in one of the magazines we keep in the waiting rooms that Leonardo Dicaprio, on the other hand, flies commercial airlines whenever he can and only uses a private jet when absolutely necessary for reshoots or something, so he'd be an example of a celebrity who tries to live up to their words. Not so sure Gore does though.

That's why I admire Leo Dicaprio as an environmental activist.

[Charles RB]

Meanwhile, Australia faced a real risk of an environmental catastrophe last year, and hardly anyone noticed.

Got quite a bit of coverage in the UK press - the front cover for an issue of the Independent outright said that this was/could be (I forget which) the first global-warming related catastrophe hitting a first-world nation. That said, I heard from an Australian on this forum that serious droughts have happened before and been sorted out, so it's possible it was an abberationally high one of those and next year won't see a sequel, I dunno.

Nevertheless, the real global warming problems "haven't started yet"?

Depends on how you define the real problems. If Athens, Georgia doesn't gain water and is evacuated, that'd probably be a real problem from the POV of American citizens. The major flooding in Britain this year was a problem.

But that's not one of the real problems yet because the flood water receded. The flood waters not going away and cities being permanently evacuated due to it, that's the sort of real problem that is going to have government officials concerned (because all four of the UK's capitals are either coastal or on/near a river).

[Paul McEnery]

Your assertations are wrong.

But, if those are imaginary jets Gore flies around in polluting the air, it might change my opinion of him.

Oh really.

And the noise about Al Gore came out of nowhere.

And the noise about Irena Suddenstar came out of nowhere.

[Tom]

From Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622009,00.html)Magazine:

He flies commercial most of the time to use less CO2 and buys offsets to maintain a carbon-neutral life

From Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html) Magazine:

Gore also flies commercial almost all of the time, and drives a hybrid.

From Larry King Live (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/05/lkl.01.html):

GORE: Well, first of all, I fly commercial most of the time. There are a few occasions when that's not possible. I came here on a commercial airliner and we just finished putting 33 solar photovoltaic cells on the roof of our house. We're right now in the midst of installing a geothermal system for the heating and cooling and changing the remaining lights and windows and insulation that haven't already been done and we are walking the walk and we're going to have a green standard, the lead certification, for our house. Drive a hybrid and all the rest and look, I've never claimed to be perfect but I'm doing the best I can and one of the pledges at the Live Earth concerts, the second pledge is to reduce my own global warming pollution as much as I can and offset the rest in order to become carbon neutral.

[Nick Soapdish]

Is there a setting to see what effect a rise of just 40cm will do? Because in the court case Gore's film lost, one of the lies in the film that teachers are required to correct is that sea levels may rise by only about 40cm in the next 100 years, not 7m. Guess the Goracle missed a decimal place...

Well, yeah. That's the low end of the IPCC predictions. On the other hand, they've consistently under-predicted the changes so I'm not sure if that's a good reason to go out and buy some beachfront property.

The IPCC has consistently been conservative in its predictions, simply because that's the nature of science. They have to go with what they can be very certain of, not just "most likely". That's why they've had to lower their predictions. Because the changes that they've been under-predicting have been throwing more variables in the mix.

But sure, you can distrust the thousands of scientists that publicly back the IPCC report and go with the dozen or so that don't also ignoring that some of the ones that don't, they don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions, but are just less certain.

[Sabrinaset]

Didn't Gore make some huge amount of money leasing a zinc mine or something near his property?

[Nick Soapdish]

Amen to that. I'd much rather have Gore in there than Shrillery ... although the comedy potential with her in there is pure gold.

I dunno ... Global Warming prolly exists, but I'm still unsure that it's caused by men. I mean, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling ... I'm guessing that's why they were growing crops in Greenland 1,000 year ago because of global warming caused by carbon-dioxide emissions from all of the 11th century cars and factories.

But you know, kudos to Gore anyways. He's trying to do something good, even if I think he's sorta misguided in how he's going about it.

Greenland wasn't all that green, even a thousand years ago. It was almost all grazing at the mouths of fjords and they needed to import food because it wasn't self-sufficient food-wise. (It could've been if they weren't morons and actually tried to hunt for food like the Inuit.)

It's like the vineyards in England. They did mostly close down during the Little Ice Age, but the reason that they were economically viable to begin with was because it was so hard to transport wine. So people generally went with the really bad wine that could be grown on English soil rather than the very expensive imported stuff. Once the imported stuff became less expensive, they ditched the bad stuff.

Didn't Gore make some huge amount of money leasing a zinc mine or something near his property?

Not sure. When?

And mining isn't necessarily anti-environmental. Only the most extreme environmentalists are going to be advocating that we halt all mining activity entirely. I mean, you might as well criticize him for making money for investing in corporations.

Now if the mining company isn't following environmental standards and he's letting them get away with it, it's more of a criticism.

[NickThompson]

From Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html) Magazine:

Gore also flies commercial almost all of the time, and drives a hybrid.

Hybrid meaning car, or some sort of twisted creature made from multiple animals? I'm hoping for some sort of horse with wings and a Chimpanzee's head.

[Michael P]

From Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622009,00.html)Magazine:



From Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html) Magazine:



From Larry King Live (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/05/lkl.01.html):Ruh roh, Raggy!

[KevinTBrown]

Didn't Gore make some huge amount of money leasing a zinc mine or something near his property?

His father bought the mine in 1973. And while not exactly "green", it could be deemed questionable if you want to view it that way. Most of the tests around the mine have come up to the levels of the zinc to be within standards. UNTIL 1999. In '96, the water supposedly failed 2 tests, but I've yet to find the actual results.

However, this particular zinc mine, when compared to others, has a far better record. It's not perfect, but it's not the worst either. And the "pollutants" only affect one thing: Humans. And the amount of zinc found in the water is not excessive, though it did exceed federal standards in '99 (1.480 mg/L vs 1.30 mg/L on the daily maximum). It's not like it's been spewing gobs of smoke in the air.

Does that make him a hypocrite? It all depends on how you want to view it. I say no because his cause is the reduction of fossil fuel usage and the amount of CO2 that's being released in the air. But if someone wants to say he is one, there's also an argument for that. No one would be wrong.

There's no absolute safe way to mine. No matter what it is.

[LtMarvel]

I can't give any sort of kudos to a man who preaches to everyone else about saving the environment and does jack-shit in his own personal life to preserve it.

I believe an environmentalist should win the Nobel Peace prize... it would have been better if had been awarded to a real one, though.
Not a clue, huh?

Gore buys cleaner energy at a premium price.

[the4thpip]

From Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622009,00.html)Magazine:



From Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html) Magazine:



From Larry King Live (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/05/lkl.01.html):

Stop that! Don't you realize that any information about Gore that is not damaging to his character and reputation is clearly propaganda?!

[Samurai]

Stop that! Don't you realize that any information about Gore that is not damaging to his character and reputation is clearly propaganda?!

After Gore's blatant hypocrisy was publicly revealed, he is only now taking steps to try and "walk the walk"... about time.

[the4thpip]

After Gore's blatant hypocrisy was publicly revealed, he is only now taking steps to try and "walk the walk"... about time.

I am sure you have a timeline to prove that? If not, it's just the usual slander.

[DavidAllred]

I don't understand the hub-bub. Any prize that given out by people who deem Arafat as peace-worthy is one that no rational person would want anyway.

[king mob]

Today's Observer reveals the people who have been behind the attacks on Gore's film in British schools.

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.
Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils.

A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was welcomed by climate-change sceptics.
The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.

The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.

The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.

In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive misunderstanding,' the report's authors said.

Martin Livermore, director of the alliance, confirmed Durward continued to support its work. 'He provides funds with other members,' Livermore said.

In the Nineties, Durward established the British Aggregates Association to campaign against a tax on sand, gravel and rock extracted from quarries. Durward does not talk to the media and calls to the association requesting an interview were not returned last week. However, he has written letters to newspapers setting out his personal philosophy. One letter claimed: 'It is time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way", declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals and roads.'

He later clarified his comments saying he was merely pointing out that the army had done a 'fantastic job' in dealing with the foot and mouth crisis. He has also asked whether there has been a 'witch-hunt against drunk drivers'.

Dimmock also received support from a new organisation, Straightteaching.com, which calls for politics to be left out of the classroom. The organisation, which established an online payment system for people to make contributions to Dimmock's campaign, was set up by Tipp and several others. Its website was registered last month to an anonymous Arizona-based internet company.

Tipp, who is described on the website as having been a science teacher in the Seventies and Eighties, declines to talk about who else is backing it. 'There are other people involved but I don't think they want to be revealed,' he said.

He said he thought his organisation could bring more cases against the government. 'There are a lot of people who feel the climate change debate is being hyped up,' Tipp said. 'To try to scare people into believing the end is nigh is not helpful. We've been contacted by other teachers who raised concerns. There's a lot of interest, especially from people in the US.'


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html

The latest Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/) also features an article about Viscount Monckton (one of Thatcher's advisors in the 80's and now a major critic of manmade global warming) challenging Al Gore to a debate in the US.
Unfortunately for Monckton his claims had been attacked & rubbished last November in a series of articles by George Monbiot. Monckton's Wikipedia page claimed last week that The Guardian had paid £50k in libel costs to Monckton because of Monbiot's articles: something that is a complete lie.

Essentially Monckton's people had added the claim to his Wikipedia page & then Monckton refused to admit to Monbiot that this had happened, & even threatened to sue Monbiot for libel before refusing to reply to Monbiot's requests that he explain why he's sticking lies on his Wikipedia page.

[Charles RB]

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

I've had this incredible prediction that this little fact won't be reported much by the people who crowed about the court case...

[Sabrinaset]

Stop that! Don't you realize that any information about Gore that is not damaging to his character and reputation is clearly propaganda?!

He's just a politician, not the Second Coming.

[Draconomicon]

He's just a politician, not the Second Coming.

"...if you think the second coming was bad, then the third ones gonna be insane..."

Sorry, Stephen Lynch moment :(

[Michael P]

He's just a politician, not the Second Coming.

Works the other way, too. He's just a politician, not the Antichrist.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

I've had this incredible prediction that this little fact won't be reported much by the people who crowed about the court case...

Did I call it or did I call it?

[Chris Hansbrough]

Did I call it or did I call it?

you may have. unfortunately no one noticed.....you know why? Al Gore

[Sabrinaset]

Works the other way, too. He's just a politician, not the Antichrist.

I think I said elsewhere that I could trust him not to go nuts in the Oval Office. Or words to that effect. Sure, he has all the charisma of a chewed wad of gum, but he's not crazy.

Besides, Shrillery is the Antichrist anyways.

[Samurai]

I think I said elsewhere that I could trust him not to go nuts in the Oval Office. Or words to that effect. Sure, he has all the charisma of a chewed wad of gum, but he's not crazy.

Besides, Shrillery is the Antichrist anyways.

He's not? Then how do you explain this damning evidence?

http://www.iceagenow.com/GoreBreatingFire.jpg

[LtMarvel]

He only forgot to brush his teeth in the morning.

[Tobias March]

I wanna go to a barbecue at that guy's house!

Mind if I put on some NWA Tipper? Great stuff.

[Sabrinaset]

He's not? Then how do you explain this damning evidence?

http://www.iceagenow.com/GoreBreatingFire.jpg

Sorry, Sam. Shrill for teh win. All the evidence is right here. (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)

[BnL]

Sorry, Sam. Shrill for teh win. All the evidence is right here. (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton)

Well, according to that site, she's a lesbian. Gotta support family! Unless of course, they just threw that in as a homophobic "smear on her character." Oh well. As long as it bashes Hillary!

[Sabrinaset]

Well, according to that site, she's a lesbian. Gotta support family! Unless of course, they just threw that in as a homophobic "smear on her character." Oh well. As long as it bashes Hillary!

The Hive-Vagina voted her out.

[Cam63]

He's not? Then how do you explain this damning evidence?

http://www.iceagenow.com/GoreBreatingFire.jpg

I'd love to be able to do that.

[KevinTBrown]

How ironic.....

The conservatives start breaking out the unreal to prove their point.

And making comments like "Shrillary" definitely lessens whatever impact you might have later on in trying to prove a realistic point.

ONE of these days people on both sides will need one another, but there'll be so much idiotic animosity built up, that we'll all go down in flames..... IMO.

[Sabrinaset]

How ironic.....

The conservatives start breaking out the unreal to prove their point.

And making comments like "Shrillary" definitely lessens whatever impact you might have later on in trying to prove a realistic point.

ONE of these days people on both sides will need one another, but there'll be so much idiotic animosity built up, that we'll all go down in flames..... IMO.

I don't mean any offense here Kevin, but on a board where these are perfectly acceptable, and don't raise an eyebrow ...

Hush, you! Don't you know that asking rightwing chickenhawks to tell the truth is a form of hate speech?

America still hates Bush and hates his war. Poor little crybaby Republicans don't realize they're outnumbered...

I don't understand how rightwing idiots don't get that Catholic doctrine is opposed to both abortion AND the death-penalty.

Don't forget torture! Rightwingers LOVE them some torture!

... I figure not liking one politician, if not an entire group, must be okay.

[KevinTBrown]

None taken Sabrina. Pot-shots, etc., are the norm in these types of threads.

But the fake pic irritated me personally.

For the most part, it's been "level headed". :)



MY personal opinion, not that of a mod.

[Crowley]

Here's the bottom line:

The majority of real and credible scientists across the world agree that global warming is a real, serious and impending threat.

PERIOD.

[Sabrinaset]

None taken Sabrina. Pot-shots, etc., are the norm in these types of threads.

But the fake pic irritated me personally.

For the most part, it's been "level headed". :)

Unsure why a pic making fun of Gore would be that much of an issue. he's a public figure? Then he's a target. I once posted this ...

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/sabrinaset/coulter2.jpg

... and there weren't any complaints over it.

And I really wish I know how to do Photoshop.

[John Hays]

And I really wish I know how to do Photoshop.

Do you have Photoshop? I can answer any questions you might have if you'd like assistance!

[Sabrinaset]

Do you have Photoshop? I can answer any questions you might have if you'd like assistance!

It's one of those things where you'd haveta be looking over my shoulder to help me ... and Kris has tried to do that with me and failed. It's a weak spot with me. :( But thanks anyways!

[Nick Soapdish]

Today's Observer reveals the people who have been behind the attacks on Gore's film in British schools.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html


I'm not too bothered by where the money comes from when the argument is valid. I didn't like Gore's documentary as much as I'd hoped because I do think that he made some poorly substantiated claims. (I didn't remember which ones at the time, but the court case sounds like it summed them up about right.) I found it all the more annoying because he already had a slam-dunk case without it.


The latest Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/) also features an article about Viscount Monckton (one of Thatcher's advisors in the 80's and now a major critic of manmade global warming) challenging Al Gore to a debate in the US.
Unfortunately for Monckton his claims had been attacked & rubbished last November in a series of articles by George Monbiot. Monckton's Wikipedia page claimed last week that The Guardian had paid £50k in libel costs to Monckton because of Monbiot's articles: something that is a complete lie.

Essentially Monckton's people had added the claim to his Wikipedia page & then Monckton refused to admit to Monbiot that this had happened, & even threatened to sue Monbiot for libel before refusing to reply to Monbiot's requests that he explain why he's sticking lies on his Wikipedia page.

On the other hand, stuff like this and Durkin's outright strangulation of the truth do bother me.

[John Hays]

It's one of those things where you'd haveta be looking over my shoulder to help me ... and Kris has tried to do that with me and failed. It's a weak spot with me. :( But thanks anyways!

I understand. I think I could still help, but won't press it. Just know the offer's always open! :)

[Crowley]

Unsure why a pic making fun of Gore would be that much of an issue. he's a public figure? Then he's a target. I once posted this ...
... and there weren't any complaints over it.

And I really wish I know how to do Photoshop.

I think that's because Coulter is a racist, worthless, ignorant "human being" and the Gore is a former Vice President, environmentalist and intellectual advocate.

[Crowley]

Unsure why a pic making fun of Gore would be that much of an issue. he's a public figure? Then he's a target. I once posted this ...
... and there weren't any complaints over it.

And I really wish I know how to do Photoshop.

I think that's because Coulter is a racist, worthless, ignorant "human being" and the Gore is a former Vice President, environmentalist and intellectual advocate.

[Samurai]

I think that's because Coulter is a racist, worthless, ignorant "human being" and the Gore is a former Vice President, environmentalist and intellectual advocate.

Ah, so then we should respect President Bush too, right? Your bias is showing here... what you really mean to say is that Gore thinks "correct" thoughts, while Coulter and Bush think "bad-wrong" thoughts, IYO, and thus they should be ridiculed while Gore should be respected....

PS: Intellectual advocate? What do you mean by that? If he were really that smart, he wouldn't have filled his film with falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims...

[Alex L]

Unsure why a pic making fun of Gore would be that much of an issue. he's a public figure? Then he's a target. I once posted this ...

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/sabrinaset/coulter2.jpg

... and there weren't any complaints over it.

And I really wish I know how to do Photoshop.

I didn't see it.

Not that I would have complained, anyway...

And I don't particularly care if a pic makes fun of Gore -- or at least not that pic, anyway. Like you said, public figure, open to ribbing and all that.

[NickThompson]

I didn't see it.

Not that I would have complained, anyway...

And I don't particularly care if a pic makes fun of Gore -- or at least not that pic, anyway. Like you said, public figure, open to ribbing and all that.
But if you're not careful, he'll shut off his internets!


Still, I like his new greener mode of transport.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/ReaperFett/GoreEmu.jpg

[the4thpip]

But if you're not careful, he'll shut off his internets!


Still, I like his new greener mode of transport.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/ReaperFett/GoreEmu.jpg

The cool thing: That is Bush in the chicken costume.

[Adam C]

Ah, so then we should respect President Bush too, right? Your bias is showing here... what you really mean to say is that Gore thinks "correct" thoughts, while Coulter and Bush think "bad-wrong" thoughts, IYO, and thus they should be ridiculed while Gore should be respected....


Well yes, absolutely. If all you have to offer is half-baked foriegn policy views, shallow moralizing, privileging ideological opinion over fact, an inability to take responsibility for one's own follies, and incompetent administration (or dishonest hate-mongering in Coulter's case) then you will be ridiculed for your opinions. And rightfully so.

But if you're not careful, he'll shut off his internets!


Still, I like his new greener mode of transport.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/ReaperFett/GoreEmu.jpg

Now THAT is funny.

[LtMarvel]

Intellectual advocate? What do you mean by that? If he (Gore) were really that smart, he wouldn't have filled his film with falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims...

Suddenly the overwhelming irony of the person who fills his posts with falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims posting those sentences injuries dozens of post readers throughout the world.

And post readers are further injured when they realize that there is no basis for Samurai's claim about Gore's film.... The film was defended second hand and the judge still ruled that it was very educational and should be in schools...

[Samurai]

Suddenly the overwhelming irony of the person who fills his posts with falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims posting those sentences injuries dozens of post readers throughout the world.

And post readers are further injured when they realize that there is no basis for Samurai's claim about Gore's film.... The film was defended second hand and the judge still ruled that it was very educational and should be in schools...

No basis? Are you willfully ignoring facts that contradict your world view? How very Bush-like of you... a judge has ruled that there are at least 11 documented lies or falsehoods in the film severe enough to be pointed out to viewers, and that the film, while based on some scientific opinions, is in fact a political work, and a 1-sided one at that. Only if those conditions are met can the film be viewed in a classroom, and a teacher who does NOT point those things out is guilty of a crime.

[Tom]

No basis? Are you willfully ignoring facts that contradict your world view? How very Bush-like of you... a judge has ruled that there are at least 11 documented lies or falsehoods in the film severe enough to be pointed out to viewers, and that the film, while based on some scientific opinions, is in fact a political work, and a 1-sided one at that. Only if those conditions are met can the film be viewed in a classroom, and a teacher who does NOT point those things out is guilty of a crime.

Lie: (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html)

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

There were nine points in the film that the judge determined required rebuttals or supporting materials as per English education law.

[LtMarvel]

Again (and again and again...), who was this film defended by in this court? And who was behind the film's prosecution?

Further, there could never be a ruling like that in the USA.

[Samurai]

Lie: (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html)



There were nine points in the film that the judge determined required rebuttals or supporting materials as per English education law.

There were 9 if you combine Lake Chad, Kilimanjaro, and Hurricane Katrina into 1 item, 11 if you separate them. This has already been gone over, Tom. Here's the list, 11 items, count them:

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Supporters of the film are trying to merge items on the list to make it sound better, that's all.

[Tom]

There were 9 if you combine Lake Chad, Kilimanjaro, and Hurricane Katrina into 1 item, 11 if you separate them. This has already been gone over, Tom. Here's the list, 11 items, count them:


Supporters of the film are trying to merge items on the list to make it sound better, that's all.

No, the judge who ruled on the case determined that there were nine. Detractors are trying to turn that into eleven. They're also trying to claim that they were determined to be "lies" and "falsehoods" when in fact, the judge explicitly pointed out that it was not his job to determine such things.

[Paul McEnery]

No basis? Are you willfully ignoring facts that contradict your world view? How very Bush-like of you... a judge has ruled that there are at least 11 documented lies or falsehoods in the film severe enough to be pointed out to viewers, and that the film, while based on some scientific opinions, is in fact a political work, and a 1-sided one at that. Only if those conditions are met can the film be viewed in a classroom, and a teacher who does NOT point those things out is guilty of a crime.

Oh shut the fuck up.

When I want to know what's scientifically true, I'm not asking a fucking judge, am I.

Oh, and you're lying about them being lies, too. This is another fascist smear campaign.

Take the case to court against the school and not against the movie, wait for the judge to make the most conservative judgement, use that judgement to say the film is inaccurate.

[Samurai]

I just found one source that finally listed the 9, to see what they combined. In this case, at least, they combined Greenland, Antarctica, and the sea level rising 7m into 1 point, not Lake Chad et al.

The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:

1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")

4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/Story?id=3719791&page=2

But however you count it or combine it, all the same falsehoods are there, and all must now be pointed out to any school kids in Britain who watch the movie.

[Samurai]

Oh shut the fuck up.

When I want to know what's scientifically true, I'm not asking a fucking judge, am I.

Oh, and you're lying about them being lies, too. This is another fascist smear campaign.

Take the case to court against the school and not against the movie, wait for the judge to make the most conservative judgement, use that judgement to say the film is inaccurate.

The ruling isn't just for that 1 school, it was against the film itself. ANY schools in Britain that show the film in class will need to point out these falsehoods or else they will be breaking the law.

[Paul McEnery]

The ruling isn't just for that 1 school, it was against the film itself. ANY schools in Britain that show the film in class will need to point out these falsehoods or else they will be breaking the law.

You have never understood anything about how England works, not about global warning, nor about science in general, not about politics in general, nor about truth in general.

Shut up.

[KevinTBrown]

Unlike the other political thread, this one IS being moderated.

That's just an FYI to those who may or may not cross the line... and it's coming darn close.

[Tom]

They were not found to be falsehoods, Samurai. You know this and you keep using that term. Please stop lying to make your case.

[king mob]

Again (and again and again...), who was this film defended by in this court? And who was behind the film's prosecution?


What concerns me is that the people behind the prosecution are being backed by unnamed interests is the US, as well as some in the UK with some fairly extreme right wing views. It's part of the continuing Americanisation (see also the increase in attempts to teach Creationism as fact) of our education system & it's not a good thing.

Of course if one was to be fair, then The Great Global Warming Swindle should also undergo the scrutiny of a judge & similiar guidelines should be issued in schools.

[king mob]

The ruling isn't just for that 1 school, it was against the film itself. ANY schools in Britain that show the film in class will need to point out these falsehoods or else they will be breaking the law.

Sigh.

No they won't. These are points to be discussed & will not end up with teachers or schools being prosecuted, although I fully imagine someone will try to do so.

If anything I applaud discussion of the film as the facts, not lies, do still sit with Gore's films. It'll also hopefully mean the film becomes part of the curriculum across the UK and becomes a regular part of classes on global warming and the environment.

[Paul McEnery]

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

Can we spot the lie? I think so. It is simply that global warming can't be shown directly to have caused this. But it's scientifically illiterate to say that it wasn't a factor. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2337023.stm

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

Increased CO2 certainly causes global warming. So there's that.

* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

Fuck me, how many times have we got to do this. Katrina is typical of events that would have global warming as a co-factor.

* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

Co-factor. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4906692.stm

* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

Oh no, poor example. Except that the arctic ice is in fact disappearing, which does spell trouble for polar bears.

* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article520013.ece

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html

* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

"Will not"? "Millennia"? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0408_040408_greenlandicemelt.html

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

Oh look, a lie. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/02/04/MN159039.DTL

* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The last thing we should ever do is look at worst case scenarios, right. Oh, my mistake. That's exactly what we should do.

* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaC50Lp_M1nE

[Crowley]

Ah, so then we should respect President Bush too, right? Your bias is showing here... what you really mean to say is that Gore thinks "correct" thoughts, while Coulter and Bush think "bad-wrong" thoughts, IYO, and thus they should be ridiculed while Gore should be respected....

PS: Intellectual advocate? What do you mean by that? If he were really that smart, he wouldn't have filled his film with falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims...

I think Bush and Gore are people who are comparable to one another... Coulter isn't comparable to either and shouldn't really be considered in any real political conversation.

[Dry Observer]

Oh, by the way. Al Gore has put campaign-style videos on health care for all,
withdrawing from Iraq and warrantless wiretapping.

http://current.com/items/84987281_health_care_is_a_right

http://current.com/items/84986481_get_the_troops_home

http://current.com/items/84986911_americans_deserve_more_protection#

I'm sure that if it turns out he's running, we'll only see an elevation of the quality of this thread and all other discussions regarding politics, Iraq, health care, global warming, etc. =)

Which is why I am now buying a flak jacket. =)

[Nick Soapdish]

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

Increased CO2 certainly causes global warming. So there's that.


I can see it being described as misleading. The film did show that the rises in CO2 lagged behind the increase (IIRC), but it downplayed that and didn't give the explanation.


* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html


That one's a shocker. Did the government not even look?


* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

"Will not"? "Millennia"? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0408_040408_greenlandicemelt.html


This is another one of the claims that bugged me. Yeah, it could happen and everything that causes it could have happened by 2100, but it would still take hundreds of years to finish the job.

At least according to current predictions that have consistently under-predicted the changes.


* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

Oh look, a lie. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/02/04/MN159039.DTL


I thought it was doing both.

The current IPCC predictions are for it to grow ... more than the Greenland ones melt.


* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The last thing we should ever do is look at worst case scenarios, right. Oh, my mistake. That's exactly what we should do.


40 cm is certainly a lot closer to the median predictions than 7 m, but the predictions are more along the lines of 59 cm. And that's because they've been scaled back because they under-predicted the change before which adds more uncertainty. 40 cm is pretty close to the best case scenario. And if it's closer to the worst case scenarios of the IPCC, Bangladesh is pretty well screwed.

[Alan Lynch]

The ruling isn't just for that 1 school, it was against the film itself. ANY schools in Britain that show the film in class will need to point out these falsehoods or else they will be breaking the law.
As has already been pointed out, all that has to be done is to make clarifications when needed. And even that isn't a legal requirement, since the government had already made plans to do so I think. Besides, any teacher worth their salt should be putting any video they use in the classroom into the proper context.

Plus, it only applies in England and Wales. Us Scottish heathens can do what we like with it.

[NickThompson]

Plus, it only applies in England and Wales. Us Scottish heathens can do what we like with it.
There is a deep frying joke to be made here ;)

[Charles RB]

a judge has ruled that there are at least 11 documented lies or falsehoods in the film severe enough to be pointed out to viewers

As I recall, earlier in this thread in posts you replied to it was said that a judge ruled there were nine points that were disputed & thus would require supporting material/rebuttals, and that it was still valid as an educational tool.

Which is completely different to what you have said. Unless you have literally forgotten those previous posts that you read and replied to, you are deliberately lying for political reasons again, even though we can all tell you're doing so and you know we can tell. Please don't do that.

[Charles RB]

Plus, it only applies in England and Wales. Us Scottish heathens can do what we like with it.

Carry on being heathens! For justice!

Presumably Northern Ireland can do the same thing (if they show the film in schools there), right?

[KevinTBrown]

No basis? Are you willfully ignoring facts that contradict your world view? How very Bush-like of you... a judge has ruled that there are at least 9 documented lies or falsehoods in the film severe enough to be pointed out to viewers, and that the film, while based on some scientific opinions, is in fact a political work, and a 1-sided one at that. Only if those conditions are met can the film be viewed in a classroom, and a teacher who does NOT point those things out is guilty of a crime.

There, fixed it for you.



Look, at least get SOME facts right. It's not 11, it's 9.

[NickThompson]

There, fixed it for you.



Look, at least get SOME facts right. It's not 11, it's 9.
At least 1 documented falsehood in his post ;)

[EdContradictory]

Al Gore ccould say the sky was blue and the right would argue against it.

They hate him for some insane reason.

[Sabrinaset]

I think were like a number of times he was caught flat-out lying during the 2000 campaign, which was weird since he had no reason to lie about what he was talking about, such as his mom singing him to sleep with a union jingle, when it was invented when he was 27. He's not evil, but I'm not sure I'd trust him with anything like facts either.

[Tom]

I think were like a number of times he was caught flat-out lying during the 2000 campaign, which was weird since he had no reason to lie about what he was talking about, such as his mom singing him to sleep with a union jingle, when it was invented when he was 27. He's not evil, but I'm not sure I'd trust him with anything like facts either.

The "Al Gore is a liar" story was one completely made up by the press, who either completely misrepresented whatever he said or made things up out of wholecloth. The union label story was a joke and he said so at the time but the press decided it was a lie and ran with that.

[Sabrinaset]

The "Al Gore is a liar" story was one completely made up by the press, who either completely misrepresented whatever he said or made things up out of wholecloth. The union label story was a joke and he said so at the time but the press decided it was a lie and ran with that.

Gore claining it was a joke was a lame way of trying to get out of a pickle. I'm not really seeing any evidence of it. I am seeing articles like this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/shapiro/465.htm) though.

Actually, my favorite Gore gaffe was when he went up to Courtney Love, of all people, and told her he was a really big fan of hers. When Courtney said "Yeah right. Name a song, Al," he couldn't name one.

[Tom]

Gore claining it was a joke was a lame way of trying to get out of a pickle. I'm not really seeing any evidence of it. I am seeing articles like this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/shapiro/465.htm) though.
It's interesting that you link to Shapiro's article, since that's the very one Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore) referenced when they looked into the charge:
Often, the GOP didn't even have to prompt the press to create Gore exaggerations - reporters did it all on their own. During a September campaign stop, Gore recalled to a crowd of union workers that his mother used to sing him to sleep at night using "Look for the Union Label" as a lullaby. The press started digging and discovered the story was a fraud and "must be labeled untrue," as USA Today's political columnist Walter Shapiro reported. The TV jingle was written in 1975, when Gore was twenty-seven years old. The story was quickly picked up by cable TV's talkers and print columnists as another "bizarre fabrication."

The only problem was that Gore told the tale as a joke, confirmed by the video of the event, which showed the audience of Teamsters laughing at the mention of the so-called "lullaby." A week later, an editorial in USA Today addressed the issue and actually sided with Gore: "A review of the videotape gives plausibility to that explanation."

Gore himself addressed it on CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/22/ip.00.html):

GORE: If -- if somebody didn't get the joke, then I -- you know, I can't -- maybe I better tell better jokes then. But that -- but that was a joke. You know, nobody sings a lullaby to a little baby about union labels. OK?

[Samurai]

There, fixed it for you.



Look, at least get SOME facts right. It's not 11, it's 9.

Kevin, as I pointed out before, there are 11 distinct points that are disputed, and I named them all. The accounts saying there are only 9 combine several of the points... I've seen this done in 2 ways: One combined Katrina, Chad, and Kilimanjaro under 1 heading, saying there was no proof than any of them were caused by global warming. The 2nd left those separate but combined Antarctica, Greenland, and the 7m ocean rise claims into 1 heading (presumably because the south pole and Greenland melting are what will supposedly increase the sea level).

But it doesn't really matter whether you count each of them separately, or combine 3 of them, or even combine 6 of them if you want... it is all still the same thing. Each of those points were found to be false statements, or unproven statements, or lies, or whatever you want to call it. (This is Gore, so of course we need euphemisms when he fibs or exaggerates.) It's like taking a steak and cutting it into a dozen pieces... is it 1 steak, or 12 pieces of steak? Answer: It's both. Nothing changed when you cut it into smaller pieces.

[Tom]

The accounts saying there are only 9 combine several of the points...

The JUDGE WHO RULED IN THE CASE said there were nine;

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

[Sabrinaset]

You don't think it's just a TINY bit possible that they were laughing because they knew what Gore was saying was pure ya-ya, much like Armijarabs-whatever the heck his name is and his reaction when he said there were no gays in Iran? And Rolling Stone ... they're far from impartial in that case. In any event, maybe they're lying ...?

I still think he was doing his best to backpedal, so we're gunna haveta agree to disagree here

[Samurai]

The JUDGE WHO RULED IN THE CASE said there were nine;

Also part of the ruling:

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
And it then goes on to list specifically the 11 corrections that must be pointed out to school kids viewing the film.

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1143

So maybe he stated it both ways during his ruling, or felt that the points were better off divided for the kids to understand them better.

[Joe Rice]

You don't think it's just a TINY bit possible that they were laughing because they knew what Gore was saying was pure ya-ya, much like Armijarabs-whatever the heck his name is and his reaction when he said there were no gays in Iran? And Rolling Stone ... they're far from impartial in that case. In any event, maybe they're lying ...?

I still think he was doing his best to backpedal, so we're gunna haveta agree to disagree here

To say that you think Gore REALLY MEANT that his mom REALLY SANG a UNION SONG to him as a lullaby means

a) you're lying
b) you're willfully obtuse
c) you're a complete idiot
d) you have zero sense of humor
e) some combination thereof.

My GOD.

[Paul McEnery]

It's interesting that you link to Shapiro's article, since that's the very one Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore) referenced when they looked into the charge:

Just as a matter of interest, exactly what is the charge here? Is there in fact a charge?

[Sabrinaset]

To say that you think Gore REALLY MEANT that his mom REALLY SANG a UNION SONG to him as a lullaby means

a) you're lying
b) you're willfully obtuse
c) you're a complete idiot
d) you have zero sense of humor
e) some combination thereof.

My GOD.

Nice. You kinda lose credibility there when you go for the personal comments.

[Joe Rice]

Nice. You kinda lose credibility there when you go for the personal comments.

I don't care much about "credibility," especially in the face of such utter bullshit.

[Tom]

You don't think it's just a TINY bit possible that they were laughing because they knew what Gore was saying was pure ya-ya, much like Armijarabs-whatever the heck his name is and his reaction when he said there were no gays in Iran? And Rolling Stone ... they're far from impartial in that case. In any event, maybe they're lying ...?
Rolling Stone cited the very editorial from the very newspaper that reported the event initially which said that they were mistaken in their initial assessment. They came to that conclusion by watching the very videotape from the very event.

But you're right. Courtney Love is a much better source of information.

[Sabrinaset]

Rolling Stone cited the very editorial from the very newspaper that reported the event initially which said that they were mistaken in their initial assessment. They came to that conclusion by watching the very videotape from the very event.

But you're right. Courtney Love is a much better source of information.

Nah. She's a much more amusing source of information.

[Samurai]

To say that you think Gore REALLY MEANT that his mom REALLY SANG a UNION SONG to him as a lullaby means

a) you're lying
b) you're willfully obtuse
c) you're a complete idiot
d) you have zero sense of humor
e) some combination thereof.

My GOD.

Thing is, Gore, Clinton, and the rest of them do this kind of thing all the time. Hillary claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first climber who climbed Everest. Problem is, he didn't become famous by climbing Everest until 6 years after she was born.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hillary.asp

[Tom]

Also part of the ruling:

And it then goes on to list specifically the 11 corrections that must be pointed out to school kids viewing the film.

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1143
That's not part of the ruling. That's a link to an article which links to another article. And Oh! Look at this! From the originally linked article:

This article was first produced following an interim judgement of the High Court, since which time the full judgement has been given. In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below.

I'd say it was a nice try but it was really just sad.

[Paul McEnery]

Nice. You kinda lose credibility there when you go for the personal comments.

*ahem*

*adopts sanctimonious pose*

Exactly what are you doing here about Al Gore -- especially given that all of the slurs against him are swiftboating nonsense with no factual basis -- but making personal comments?

[Sabrinaset]

*ahem*

*adopts sanctimonious pose*

Exactly what are you doing here about Al Gore -- especially given that all of the slurs against him are swiftboating nonsense with no factual basis -- but making personal comments?

I'm fairly sure CBR posters themselves are supposed to not make personal attacks towards OTHER CBR posters ... as opposed to say, public figures. Meh, I'll let sk or Kevin decide.

[Tom]

Just as a matter of interest, exactly what is the charge here? Is there in fact a charge?

That he lied when he said his mother sang a union theme song as a lullabye to him.

[Tadhg]

I'm fairly sure CBR posters themselves are supposed to not make personal attacks towards OTHER CBR posters ... as opposed to say, public figures. Meh, I'll let sk or Kevin decide.

That's about the rules not about credibility. If you say personal attacks lose a person credability, well it stands to reason...

[Samurai]

That's not part of the ruling. That's a link to an article which links to another article. And Oh! Look at this! From the originally linked article:



I'd say it was a nice try but it was really just sad.

That's the first time I saw anyone state that there was a change between the interim ruling and the final ruling. Well, at least now we know where the difference came from. Since the final ruling with the combined points is controlling one, I'm willing to concede that. I hope you will in turn concede that it wasn't just Gore-haters trying to expand the count, but that the 11 was in fact the correct count on the interim ruling and was thus the reason why many stories listed 11 as the count.

[Joe Rice]

I'm fairly sure CBR posters themselves are supposed to not make personal attacks towards OTHER CBR posters ... as opposed to say, public figures. Meh, I'll let sk or Kevin decide.

CBR Rules are what they are and if there's a problem, I'll own up to it. It's worth it to expose the bullshit you're throwing around under your usual guise of "jus' bein' silly, a-hyuck!"

[Sabrinaset]

That's about the rules not about credibility. If you say personal attacks lose a person credability, well it stands to reason...

Well, when Tom and I are going back and forth without any personal comments in a pretty calm way, and Joe jumps in with nothing more than personal comments ...

Poster A: I agree.

Poster B: I disagree.

Poster C: Poster A is a lying, willfully obtuse idiot!

I dunno, it just doesn't seem to help the argument. Especially since we're sorta modded now, and we're supposed to be calling out this sorta behavior.

[BnL]

Well, when Tom and I are going back and forth without any personal comments in a pretty calm way, and Joe jumps in with nothing more than personal comments ...

Poster A: I agree.

Poster B: I disagree.

Poster C: Poster A is a lying, willfully obtuse idiot!

I dunno, it just doesn't seem to help the argument. Especially since we're sorta modded now, and we're supposed to be calling out this sorta behavior.

Him saying that you might be an idiot is crossing the line, but I don't see how saying you're being willfully obtuse is.

[Tom]

That's the first time I saw anyone state that there was a change between the interim ruling and the final ruling. Well, at least now we know where the difference came from. Since the final ruling with the combined points is controlling one, I'm willing to concede that. I hope you will in turn concede that it wasn't just Gore-haters trying to expand the count, but that the 11 was in fact the correct count on the interim ruling and was thus the reason why many stories listed 11 as the count.

Where did I claim anything about Gore-haters? I linked directly to the Judge's ruling and you still kept citing the wrong number.

By the way, are you going to stop referring to them as falsehoods? Because that's not what the judge's ruling said.

[Joe Rice]

Well, when Tom and I are going back and forth without any personal comments in a pretty calm way, and Joe jumps in with nothing more than personal comments ...

Poster A: I agree.

Poster B: I disagree.

Poster C: Poster A is a lying, willfully obtuse idiot!

I dunno, it just doesn't seem to help the argument. Especially since we're sorta modded now, and we're supposed to be calling out this sorta behavior.

Perhaps Tom has more patience for people willfully spreading bullshit about another person not here to defend himself. What I did was jerkish, but at least I did it to your face.

[Sabrinaset]

CBR Rules are what they are and if there's a problem, I'll own up to it. It's worth it to expose the bullshit you're throwing around under your usual guise of "jus' bein' silly, a-hyuck!"

Not even being silly here, actually.

[Samurai]

Where did I claim anything about Gore-haters? I linked directly to the Judge's ruling and you still kept citing the wrong number.

By the way, are you going to stop referring to them as falsehoods? Because that's not what the judge's ruling said.

He called them errors and inaccuracies. But after hearing so many times that the errors and inaccuracies in the numerous intelligence reports stating Saddam had WMD were in fact Bush "lies", I got the feeling that ya'll don't see any real difference between the 2...

[Tom]

He called them errors and inaccuracies. But after hearing so many times that the errors and inaccuracies in the numerous intelligence reports stating Saddam had WMD were in fact Bush "lies", I got the feeling that ya'll don't see any real difference between the 2...

Oh puh-leeze.

Who is "y'all?"

Sam, sometimes a thing is true simply because it's true and there's nothing partisan about that no matter how hard you try to make it so.

[sk716]

You don't think it's just a TINY bit possible that they were laughing because they knew what Gore was saying was pure ya-ya, much like Armijarabs-whatever the heck his name is and his reaction when he said there were no gays in Iran? And Rolling Stone ... they're far from impartial in that case. In any event, maybe they're lying ...?

I still think he was doing his best to backpedal, so we're gunna haveta agree to disagree here


To say that you think Gore REALLY MEANT that his mom REALLY SANG a UNION SONG to him as a lullaby means

a) you're lying
b) you're willfully obtuse
c) you're a complete idiot
d) you have zero sense of humor
e) some combination thereof.

My GOD.

Nice. You kinda lose credibility there when you go for the personal comments.

I don't care much about "credibility," especially in the face of such utter bullshit.

You called me in here for this? Seriously?

The idea is LESS reporting of posts and MORE handling of things like adults.

[Joe Rice]

Not even being silly here, actually.

With your premise so ludicrous, it's hard to tell.

[Joe Rice]

sk, what I did was wrong, no doubt. I apologize to you and will accept any reprimand (including what you've said) gladly. What Sabrinaset's doing is as wrong to me and it's worthwhile to say so.

[Sabrinaset]

Perhaps Tom has more patience for people willfully spreading bullshit about another person not here to defend himself. What I did was jerkish, but at least I did it to your face.

The problem with what you're saying is that we have many, many posts on CBR going way over the top about W, and he's not here to defend himself either. That's still not really an excuse.

I'd be willing to drop it if you'd just calm down and take your problems with me to PM.

[sk716]

sk, what I did was wrong, no doubt. I apologize to you and will accept any reprimand (including what you've said) gladly. What Sabrinaset's doing is as wrong to me and it's worthwhile to say so.

It goes for both of you.

[Tom]

Not even being silly here, actually.

You were either being silly (Courtney Love is a "more amusing" source) or you were being willfully obtuse (accusing the very newspaper you originally cited as being either biased or lying when it was pointed out that they reversed their story).

[Joe Rice]

The problem with what you're saying is that we have many, many posts on CBR going way over the top about W, and he's not here to defend himself either. That's still not really an excuse.


Find me saying, spreading untrue things about him.

EDIT: "They're doing it, too," doesn't work when my 10 year olds say it, either.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm fairly sure CBR posters themselves are supposed to not make personal attacks towards OTHER CBR posters ... as opposed to say, public figures. Meh, I'll let sk or Kevin decide.

So, you're saying it's okay for you to make baseless and rather important charges against a public figure, but terrrrrrible if someone says something trivial in your direction.

Hmm.

[Paul McEnery]

That he lied when he said his mother sang a union theme song as a lullabye to him.

Uh, yeah.

And that's a charge?

[KevinTBrown]

Damn.

Day late and a dollar short again. Shel got to it before me.....



Anyway, since she's had her say, I'll let you guys take it to PM. (REAL good idea there.....)

[Charles RB]

Kevin, as I pointed out before, there are 11 distinct points that are disputed

You said the judge ruled 11.

He ruled 9.

You are blatantly lying AGAIN, in a way where EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE DOING SO. How does this make sense to you?

That's the first time I saw anyone state that there was a change between the interim ruling and the final ruling

The judge's ruling was quoted multiple times, you cannot claim you hadn't realised he'd ruled 9 instead of 11. It's been pointed out again and again and AGAIN.

Also, you keep saying falsehoods - also what the judge didn't rule. Bloody cease.

[KevinTBrown]

Samurai, seriously, and I'm saying this not as a moderator, it's best if you stop while you're behind. Time and time and time again you've been proven wrong and/or proven to have posted out and out falsehoods. All you're succeeding in doing is digging yourself deeper into this quagmire of crap.

[rick]

Ah, so then we should respect President Bush too, right? Your bias is showing here... what you really mean to say is that Gore thinks "correct" thoughts, while Coulter and Bush think "bad-wrong" thoughts, IYO, and thus they should be ridiculed while Gore should be respected....

PS: Intellectual advocate? What do you mean by that? If he were really that smart, he wouldn't have filled his film with falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims...


Hey, I must of missed where you answered my question.

Have you seen the movie yet?

[Alix Harrower]

Sam, sometimes a thing is true simply because it's true and there's nothing partisan about that no matter how hard you try to make it so.

Facts have a well-known liberal bias.

[Alix Harrower]

I still think he was doing his best to backpedal, so we're gunna haveta agree to disagree here

You seem to think a lot of things that are complete and utter bullshit.

[Nick Soapdish]

You seem to think a lot of things that are complete and utter bullshit.

There's probably a more tactful way to say that.

I often don't agree with Bree, but I don't believe that she's deliberately being obtuse. It's just a different point of view.

[beetlebum]

There's probably a more tactful way to say that.

I often don't agree with Bree, but I don't believe that she's deliberately being obtuse. It's just a different point of view.

Spot on Nick. You can disagree with someone, people do it with me all the time. Just don't be a jerk.

[Paul McEnery]

You seem to think a lot of things that are complete and utter bullshit.

There are people who deserve that level of disdain, and Bree ain't one of them.