Should Al Gore Run again ?

[Aquafire]

Heard on the radio this morning that there are numbers of supporters of his who want him to run for President. (again)

Apparently they have even taken out expensive full page adverts in some newspapers in an attempt to encourage him back onto the campaign trail.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/11/in_times_ad_a_plea_for_gore_to_enter_race/

Do you think he should or shouldn't ?

Should we toss hats into the air...or throw brickbats..?

And while we're discussing Gore....why on Earth is he being considered for a Nobel Peace prize...?


Cheers.

Aquafire

[tonton]

I for one would definitely vote for him over Clinton or Obama. I also think he has a far greater chance of winning if he runs. Problem is, he really needs to get on a diet!

[Jubelum]

I think Gore would bring a lot to the race... maybe get Shrillary off her coronation tour as well.

[franksargent]

Al Gore(and the IPCC)
:D
The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/)
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. 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.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

[BRussell]

Jeez, first an Oscar, now a Nobel. What's next, is he going to win a Gold medal in ice skating?

I think him winning the Nobel prize makes it less likely for him to run for president. Now he has less to prove. He's also not a very charismatic presidential candidate. He's very smart, and he'd be a good president, but he's not a great candidate, as he proved in 1988 and 2000.

And, as tonton points out, more important is the No-belly rather than the Nobel.

[tonton]

Wow. Just Wow. Now maybe he'll think about running?

Clinton: Rhodes Scholar.
Gore: Nobel Prize winner.
GW Bush: Knows all the episodes of Dukes of Hazzard by heart.

[Aquafire]

Wow. Just Wow. Now maybe he'll think about running?

Clinton: Rhodes Scholar.
Gore: Nobel Prize winner.
GW Bush: Knows all the episodes of Dukes of Hazzard by heart.

Hehe

Clinton: The only President who did strange things with Cigars and never inhaled...

Bush: The only President to speak in Tongues in Congress, but never in Church.

Gore..Living proof that Carbon credits are seriously Fattening,

Aquafire

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.exposetheleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/gore-snl.jpg (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836335648849838385)

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/30409/2006112399219266203_fs.jpg (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/11/94854/280)

Al Gore 2008..................pleeeease...

[trumptman]

I think he should grow his hair out and let a beard come as well. Then he can go around healing the sick and the poor while continuing to convert many more people to his religion.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

I think he should grow his hair out and let a beard come as well. Then he can go around healing the sick and the poor while continuing to convert many more people to his religion.

Nick

Ya mean like this?...

http://question-everything.mahost.org/images/BushBinLaden.jpg

:D

[jimmac]

If Gore would run this time he'd win.

Pure and simple.

Do I wish he would run? Hell yes!

[jimmac]

Ya mean like this?...

http://question-everything.mahost.org/images/BushBinLaden.jpg

:D



:lol:

[Outsider]

He would do a lot in fixing our image abroad, healing international relationships and repairing the alienation W has done over the years.

The scientific community would benefit from his presidency because I believe he will reinvest in biological, astronomical, environmental, energy and medical research. And his administration will not bully them like the current one has been for the past 7 years.

Gore will not get us into unnecessary wars or conflicts that are meant to expand American influence in parts of the world that do not want western influence.

http://www.draftgore.com/

[@_@ Artman]

He would do a lot in fixing our image abroad, healing international relationships and repairing the alienation W has done over the years.

The scientific community would benefit from his presidency because I believe he will reinvest in biological, astrological, environmental, energy and medical research. And his administration will not bully them like the current one has been for the past 7 years.

Gore will not get us into unnecessary wars or conflicts that are meant to expand American influence in parts of the world that do not want western influence.

http://www.draftgore.com/

Astrological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_sign)? :err:

[Outsider]

Oops, that's what happens when you let spell check go crazy. Astronomical. George would be better suited in studying astrology.

[e1618978]

I think him winning the Nobel prize makes it less likely for him to run for president. Now he has less to prove. He's also not a very charismatic presidential candidate. He's very smart, and he'd be a good president, but he's not a great candidate, as he proved in 1988 and 2000.

I think that he has improved dramatically since leaving office - to me he is very charismatic now.

But he is not serious about running, or he would not have bought such a large amount of energy burning real estate. Buying carbon credits is morally equivalent to buying your way out of the draft - in both cases the rich are asking the middle class and poor to do something they are not willing to do themselves.

[BRussell]

But he is not serious about running, or he would not have bought such a large amount of energy burning real estate.Hmm? I know conservatives complain that his family has for several generations owned his property. But I didn't know he had actually purchased "energy-burning real estate." To what are you referring?

[Jubelum]

Al Gore is the most ridiculously overqualified person on the planet.

All he's missing now is a Congressional Gold Medal/ Presidential Medal of Freedom (hey if the "Cat's in the Cradle" songwriter dude can get a CGM, why not Al?), BRussell's figure skating gold medal, sainthood, and possibly the Presidency.

Why don't we just go ahead and admit that he is Jesus Christ himself, sent to "free" us from the "bondage" of climate cycles? :no:

Hysteria is paying off for Albert Gore. Finally.

[AsLan^]

Without the global warming platform, wouldn't he still be a good president?

[shetline]

I'd love for Gore to be President, but I think it's way too late for him to jump into the race at this point, even if he wanted to (and I don't think he does). As long as a Democrat wins, perhaps Gore would be willing to be Secretary of Energy.

Maybe in 2016. :)

[Northgate]

He won't run.

Why should he? So people can complain about his weight? Or his choice in earth toned suits. Please. Why on earth would he subject himself to today's modern politics. Just ask Graham Frost, or wounded soldiers who oppose the war, or Michael J. Fox. Funk that!

At least he keeps his dignity and self-respect.

Should he be president? Absolutely. But not at the cost of the circus to get there.

[e1618978]

Hmm? I know conservatives complain that his family has for several generations owned his property. But I didn't know he had actually purchased "energy-burning real estate." To what are you referring?

He bought it in 2002.

http://images.usatoday.com/weather/_photos/2007/03/20/gore_solarx-large.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-03-20-gore-solar_N.htm

He also owns a 4000 sq foot home in Arlington, Va, a San Francisco condo in the St. Regis, and the family farm in Tennessee.

[Jubelum]

Should he be president? Absolutely. But not at the cost of the circus to get there.

Well Hell, if we are going to get a circus anyway- and we certainly are- why not have the world's most famous EnviroMessiah show up for the center ring?

[SpamSandwich]

Gore would be a fool to run again, and he knows it. He commands more respect these days out of politics.

[trumptman]

He bought it in 2002.

http://images.usatoday.com/weather/_photos/2007/03/20/gore_solarx-large.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-03-20-gore-solar_N.htm

He also owns a 4000 sq foot home in Arlington, Va, a San Francisco condo in the St. Regis, and the family farm in Tennessee.

E#.... you only bring up those... those.... those... facts because, well because you are anti-science, hate the planet and are a paid interest of the oil companies.

He would do a lot in fixing our image abroad, healing international relationships and repairing the alienation W has done over the years.

The scientific community would benefit from his presidency because I believe he will reinvest in biological, astronomical, environmental, energy and medical research. And his administration will not bully them like the current one has been for the past 7 years.

Gore will not get us into unnecessary wars or conflicts that are meant to expand American influence in parts of the world that do not want western influence.


http://www.draftgore.com/

You are aware that all those "international relationships" have been repaired by having the leaders attempting to Bush-bash for votes gone from office right?

Then again, your rendition of international community must have meant France and Germany.
Well Hell, if we are going to get a circus anyway- and we certainly are- why not have the world's most famous EnviroMessiah show up for the center ring?

EnviroMessiah... I like that. EnviroMessiah™ just for Jub.:)

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

BREAKING: SCOTUS Declares Bush the Nobel Peace Prize Winner (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/12/11451/905)

Oslo: A review of the ballots in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize has shown that George W. Bush is the winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. James Baker III has been sent by the Bush Administration to coordinate efforts on the ground. The United States Supreme Court in a surprise vote of 5 to 4 have declared George W. Bush the winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that "allowing Al Gore to win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize violates the spirit and intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Consitution." Justice Alito was joined in the majority decision by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts.

In a strongly worded dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated "This court has no jurisdiction over the Norwegian Nobel Committe and thus cannot award the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to President George W. Bush." Ginsburg was joined in her dissent by Justices Breyer and Stevens.

In a separate Dissenting Opinion, Justice Souter wrote, "This is just stupid. I quit."

The Department of Homeland Security have now staked out Gore's Tennessee home in order to detain him until after the prize is awarded next month. James Baker III will be in attendence at the awards ceremony to receive the award in the former vice president's absence.

[midwinter]

I'm of two minds about this. One the one mind, I think that Al Gore running could potentially function as a kind of cultural mulligan—a psychological re-setting of the clock. This could, of course, have world-wide implications.

On the other mind, Al Gore is a TERRIBLE candidate, and he, himself, said on Charlie Rose that he's simply not very good at politics.

OK. Maybe three minds:

If he runs, he could be like Jed Bartlett...a nobel-prize winning smart guy who becomes president.

[BRussell]

He bought it in 2002.

OK. I didn't know that.

[@_@ Artman]

Two minds too...

1. He would win. in. a. heartbeat.

Guiliani, Clinton, blah blah...

No one would have a chance. Bill O'reilly will finally pop that last remaining blood vessel screaming about the dangers of anyone without R at the end of their name. Ann Coulter will shave her head bald and start flashing her (assumed) vagina in the paparazzi. Obama and Hillary will start pandering to be veep...

As much as it's wishful thinking, I feel that the world might settle down and become a little more peaceful...

2. Or Gore would tell the Democratic party to go fuck itself. They threw his ass under the bus after the 2000 debacle, but the loss was largely their fault. They sucked at managing the media then and they suck at it now.

I would vote for Gore if he ran, but I personally hope he doesn't lower himself back into the cesspool that is politics after all he has accomplished.

A lot more accomplishments than anyone here in their cubicles, basements or offices has done anyway (including me). :smokey:

[Northgate]

Well Hell, if we are going to get a circus anyway- and we certainly are- why not have the world's most famous EnviroMessiah show up for the center ring?

Thanks for proving my point.

[Northgate]

BREAKING: SCOTUS Declares Bush the Nobel Peace Prize Winner (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/12/11451/905)

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Too friggin funny!!!

[franksargent]

Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger.

AG's Response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies#Use_of_energy_in_home)

I guess we all can ASSume AG is in four homes AT THE SAME TIME! :lol:

[Outsider]

He's still a young enough (59) to think about running in 2012 or 2016.

[Frank777]

Just out of curiosity, how does jetting around on private planes to lecture others about buying carbon offsets contribute to world peace?

[@_@ Artman]

I really believe that some members on this board have their memories erased. :rolleyes:

An 'error' is not the same thing as an error (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php)

[Jubelum]

I really believe that some members on this board have their memories erased. :rolleyes:

Yummy (http://www.drinksmixer.com/cat/328/).

Remember, Artman, Soylent Green is PEOPLE!

I hate the poor because they cannot afford carbon offsets. 8-)

[Jubelum]

Thanks for proving my point.

No problem. Glad to help.

[Jubelum]

An 'error' is not the same thing as an error (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php)

I can just see Billy Martin charging the umpire... " 'error', I'll show you a #*&$^ ERROR"

[franksargent]

Add some USEFUL commentary or ...

[Northgate]

Looks like Al and Tipper are going to donate the proceeds to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Assholes.

They, like, burn jet fuel and stuff.

[Northgate]

Just out of curiosity, how does jetting around on private planes to lecture others about buying carbon offsets contribute to world peace?


Be honest. You know good and well that Gore purchased carbon offsets for all 16 private flights he took, many of which were demanded by the Secret Service.

Do you buy carbon offsets when you fly Frank?

[SpamSandwich]

Isn't the concept of "carbon offsets" kinda like sinning all you want during the week, then going to confession on Sunday?

[shetline]

Isn't the concept of "carbon offsets" kinda like sinning all you want during the week, then going to confession on Sunday?
It all depends if you're playing the game of holier-than-thou, of using it against someone when they don't play holier-than-thou, or focus on practical benefits and end results.

This is not like a preacher who rails against homosexuality while having a gay affair on the side. The preacher says that all homosexuality is wrong, not that there's, say, a maximum safe limit for gay sex, and that we have to be careful not to exceed it. There's no escaping the blatant hypocrisy there.

Gore is "preaching" about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as "sinful" each and every C02-generating act. Of course, if you're eager to tar someone with the label "hypocrite", it's easier to simplify everything down to matters of symbolic piety.

[franksargent]

Be honest. You know good and well that Gore purchased carbon offsets for all 16 private flights he took, many of which were demanded by the Secret Service.

Do you buy carbon offsets when you fly Frank?

http://www.dynalifter.com/Dynaliftercom/Images/FlyingTruckC.jpg

[trumptman]

Looks like Al and Tipper are going to donate the proceeds to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Assholes.

They, like, burn jet fuel and stuff.

It's always good to toss a little cash at a woman after you have raped her. It makes it all good.

This is especially in good taste to do if you happen to declare that you want to take back the night and "stuff" like that.

The reasoning that you can be a great person for having good intentions, but terrible actions is fantastic to watch. We ought to apply it in several other areas as well.

Be honest. You know good and well that Gore purchased carbon offsets for all 16 private flights he took, many of which were demanded by the Secret Service.

Do you buy carbon offsets when you fly Frank?

I carbon offset. I simply kill several of my neighbors thereby stopping their wasteful energy use, preventing their future generations from murdering the planet from overpopulation and insuring mother earth remains balanced. I'm currently creating compost with their remains which I will use to fertilize several trees thus helping the planet further.

Nick

[Jubelum]

It's always good to toss a little cash at a woman after you have raped her. It makes it all good.

This is especially in good taste to do if you happen to declare that you want to take back the night and "stuff" like that.

The reasoning that you can be a great person for having good intentions, but terrible actions is fantastic to watch. We ought to apply it in several other areas as well.

I carbon offset. I simply kill several of my neighbors thereby stopping their wasteful energy use, preventing their future generations from murdering the planet from overpopulation and insuring mother earth remains balanced. I'm currently creating compost with their remains which I will use to fertilize several trees thus helping the planet further.

Nick

:lol: Great post.

[Jubelum]

a maximum safe limit for gay sex

Richard Simmons has been researching this in a double-blind study with Sen. Craig recently and has not yet discovered a "maximum safe level." The research continues. Fabulous!

Carbon credits are a scam. The carbon indulgence industry and associated buzz are the best racket since Social Security and income tax withholding. What exactly are poor people, who cannot afford to have their guilt absolved, supposed to do? Oh, wait a minute, we can create a government program to address that "inequality." A carbon credit in every pot.

Gore must be sitting around with Tipper in shocked amazement at how well the whole racket is going. I mean, this is MUCH more profitable than that whole PMRC thing.

[hardeeharhar]

Isn't the concept of "carbon offsets" kinda like sinning all you want during the week, then going to confession on Sunday?
It works for 1.2 Billion christians... why not me...

[Jubelum]

http://www.dynalifter.com/Dynaliftercom/Images/FlyingTruckC.jpg

Woah! Was that the Winnebago from Spaceballs?

Introducting Spaceballs, the Carbon Credit! Moooy-chen-dizing.

[franksargent]

It's always good to toss a little cash at a woman after you have raped her. It makes it all good.

This is especially in good taste to do if you happen to declare that you want to take back the night and "stuff" like that.

The reasoning that you can be a great person for having good intentions, but terrible actions is fantastic to watch. We ought to apply it in several other areas as well.



I carbon offset. I simply kill several of my neighbors thereby stopping their wasteful energy use, preventing their future generations from murdering the planet from overpopulation and insuring mother earth remains balanced. I'm currently creating compost with their remains which I will use to fertilize several trees thus helping the planet further.

Nick

It's much better to eat freshly aborted fetuses and newborn babies, no meat tenderizers needed! Eat them before they breed or bleed! Try the baby or fetus backstraps, Mmmm..., Mmmm..., Good! :p

[@_@ Artman]

It's much better to eat freshly aborted fetuses and newborn babies, no meat tenderizers needed! Eat them before they breed or bleed! Try the baby or fetus backstraps, Mmmm..., Mmmm..., Good! :p

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/96268sweetjesus1ly0.gif

:smokey:

[jimmac]

I can't read what he said but you guys must be on to something to get Jubelum to post so many times in a row. Probably struck a nerve.:lol:

Unfortunately he's not going to run. I think he knows himself that he got a lot farther for his cause not being in office. When you're president you have to compromise somewhat. Otherwise you end up like Bush.;)

[Northgate]

It all depends if you're playing the game of holier-than-thou, of using it against someone when they don't play holier-than-thou, or focus on practical benefits and end results.

This is not like a preacher who rails against homosexuality while having a gay affair on the side. The preacher says that all homosexuality is wrong, not that there's, say, a maximum safe limit for gay sex, and that we have to be careful not to exceed it. There's no escaping the blatant hypocrisy there.

Gore is "preaching" about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as "sinful" each and every C02-generating act. Of course, if you're eager to tar someone with the label "hypocrite", it's easier to simplify everything down to matters of symbolic piety.

Great post. Factual. Non emotional. Too bad Trumptman or Jubelum didn't read before typing their latest drive-by post.

[franksargent]

Al Gore is not in any way analogous to a rapist who afterwards compensates his victims.

That analogy is disturbing and inappropriate.



Carbon offsets are not in any way analogous to murder.



Can you be more specific?

Al Gore is not a "good person" because he follows up his "good intentions" with "terrible actions?" That's vague to the point of meaninglessness. We're not considering whether Al Gore is a "good person." Maybe he's a total jerk for all we know. Maybe he kicks his dog, berates his wife, and ignores his kids. That's not the issue. The issue is whether Al Gore deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his lifelong advocacy in bringing awareness to global warming and climate change issues. How the substance of his advocacy is undermined by "terrible actions" is baffling in how far it misconstrues Al Gore's message.

Al Gore's critics completely misconstrue his message as pertaining to criticizing personal energy use. As Shetline points out, "Gore is 'preaching' about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as 'sinful' each and every C02-generating act." The problems he addresses and the solutions he advances are primarily systemic in nature, not individual. If we're scrutinizing Al Gore, the relevant question is whether he supports other policies systemic in nature that conflict with his global warming and climate change advocacy. For instance, does he support subsidies for energy companies for uses other than clean or renewable energy? Does he support trade subsidies for companies known to engage in rain forest deforestation? Does he support the interests of auto companies instead of environmental groups in not supporting raising CAFE standards? If global warming is a planetary emergency, what interests could possibly trump the earth's on the policy level?

That would partially undermine his advocacy unless otherwise explainable.

I'm trying here.

... rational, logical, objective, and using your critical and analytical thinking skills, because I know you're just trying to warp my fragile little mind. ;) I'd much prefer the ad hominem MO, the personal attack POV, the simplistic lack of thought needed for the one line/word zingers. :rolleyes:

[Jubelum]

[QUOTE=jimmac;1156640]I can't read what he said



I love how we keep hearing about what you can't read. By choice. You have an ignore list, we're all extremely proud of you. So hey, here's a cookie. 8-)

[Frank777]

Be honest. You know good and well that Gore purchased carbon offsets for all 16 private flights he took, many of which were demanded by the Secret Service.

Do you buy carbon offsets when you fly Frank?

I don't actually care about the offsets. I'm just curious how this all relates to world peace.

[Jubelum]

I don't actually care about the offsets. I'm just curious how this all relates to world peace.

I doesn't relate to peace at all.

[Aquafire]

I don't actually care about the offsets. I'm just curious how this all relates to world peace.

Exactly.

While I am a Global Warming Skeptic, I just don't understand why both he and the IPCC should be given the "Peace Prize" .

Maybe the Nobel committee have lost their marbles.

Perhaps in similar vein, President Mugabe will being given the Nobel Prize for Science.

Aquafire.

[franksargent]

... read (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html)?

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

[Aquafire]

... read (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html)?


Actually the GW scaremongerers are already creating the conditions for exactly those sorts of scenarios.

Nothing like creating an environment of fear and anxiety to cause to masses to flee.

We are already seeing so called 'enviromental refugees' leaving Pacific islands such as the Carterets; and all because of scare mongeringly phoney IPCC data.

So don't be surprised to see millions banging down the doors to get into Europe, Australia and continental USA.

And don't be surprised when the UN gives us a new status for 'refugee'...aka..."Enviromental refugee'

Aquafire

[franksargent]

Actually the GW scaremongerers are already creating the conditions for exactly those sorts of scenarios.

Nothing like creating an environment of fear and anxiety to cause to masses to flee.

We are already seeing so called 'enviromental refugees' leaving Pacific islands such as the Carterets; and all becuase of scare mongeringly phoney data.

So don't be surprised to see millions banging down the doors to get into Europe, Australia and continental USA...

But we're building a fence to stop them! :lol:

And eventually we'll build 400 foot high levees along our ENTIRE coastlines to keep the oceans from flooding the ENTIRE United States! :err:

[Aquafire]

But we're building a fence to stop them! :lol: It won't work. Rabbits can dig tunnels.

And eventually we'll build 400 foot high levees along our ENTIRE coastlines to keep the oceans from flooding the ENTIRE United States! :err:


Well Frank, if everyone in the USA drank a gallon of saltwater a day, you'd have the problem licked..;)

Then again, you might turn saltwater into fuel..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo 8-)


Aquafire

[franksargent]

It won't work. Rabbits can dig tunnels.




Well Frank, if everyone in the USA drank a gallon of saltwater a day, you'd have the problem licked..;)

Then again, you might turn saltwater into fuel..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo 8-)


Aquafire

Burning water and other myths (http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070910/full/news070910-13.html)

Can you get more energy out than you put in?

I can answer that right now: no. You start with water, you break it apart into its constituent elements (hydrogen and oxygen), and then you recombine them by burning. Yes you can do that. Hydrogen, indeed, is the promised fuel of the new clean energy economy. But making hydrogen from water takes more energy than you can ever recover from burning it. Extracting net energy from this total cycle is impossible, if you believe in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise, you have the basis of a perpetual-motion machine.

But 'energy for free' enthusiasts don't want to know about thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a killjoy. Thermodynamics is like big government or big industry, always out to squash innovation. Thermodynamics is the enemy of the Edisonian spirit of the backyard inventor.

Thermodynamics? Check, been there, done that.

Coastal Engineering? Double check, been there, done that.

Environmental Fluid Mechanics? Triple check, been there, done that.

You really ARE out of your league here sonny boy! :\

[trumptman]

Al Gore is not in any way analogous to a rapist who afterwards compensates his victims.

That analogy is disturbing and inappropriate.

Listen Mr. Law School, you above anyone should know that there are monetary remedies. We cannot try people who live outside their carbon footprints as criminals. (yet) What has been proposed instead is a remedy whereby those who cannot limit or take carbon from others, must compensate them.

Many criticisms of carbon credits have noted that it does not end polluting as a harmful practice, rather it simply requires some wealth transfer to allow the continuation of such practices.

I noted a harmful action that was where the harm was compensated with a monetary transfer. The two are analogous.

Carbon offsets are not in any way analogous to murder.

It wasn't murder. It was reducing the carbon footprint of my community. I was advocating for reducing current energy use, limiting future population growth and finally taking human byproducts and returning them to nature in a productive and non-polluting state. Gore has framed global warming as a moral issue. If we pay people to not advance technologically, to remain in a state where famine and death are commonplace, it is no different than what I have stated. I simply applied it in the suburbs.

Within the climate change mindset the means of determining right and wrong is carbon footprint, sustainability and nothing more. Gore for example called for boycott of new coal burning power plants. If that means people go without power, or are harmed, that is of no consequence. You can call for anything as along as it meets those two criteria. The human cost in the mean time is of no consequence.

Can you be more specific?

I believe I already have been.

Al Gore is not a "good person" because he follows up his "good intentions" with "terrible actions?" That's vague to the point of meaninglessness. We're not considering whether Al Gore is a "good person." Maybe he's a total jerk for all we know. Maybe he kicks his dog, berates his wife, and ignores his kids. That's not the issue. The issue is whether Al Gore deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his lifelong advocacy in bringing awareness to global warming and climate change issues. How the substance of his advocacy is undermined by "terrible actions" is baffling in how far it misconstrues Al Gore's message.

Actually, Mr. Editor, the thread topic has to do with Gore running for president.;) Gore was given the peace prize for very strange reasons, preemptive peace. The belief by the committee was that global warming would cause such massive war, that advocation to stop it amounted to stopping future wars.

Al Gore's critics completely misconstrue his message as pertaining to criticizing personal energy use. As Shetline points out, "Gore is 'preaching' about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as 'sinful' each and every C02-generating act." The problems he addresses and the solutions he advances are primarily systemic in nature, not individual. If we're scrutinizing Al Gore, the relevant question is whether he supports other policies systemic in nature that conflict with his global warming and climate change advocacy. For instance, does he support subsidies for energy companies for uses other than clean or renewable energy? Does he support trade subsidies for companies known to engage in rain forest deforestation? Does he support the interests of auto companies instead of environmental groups in not supporting raising CAFE standards? If global warming is a planetary emergency, what interests could possibly trump the earth's on the policy level?

That would partially undermine his advocacy unless otherwise explainable.

I'm trying here.

The reality is that once you get past the platitudes, if the planet has a maximum total carbon allowance, it would have to be divided up by each person and living outside or beyond that footprint amounts to a harmful act. He vacillates between alarmist rhetoric, and actions that show no true personal concern. He can argue for a system whereby everyone is coerced or has made available the means to remain within that footprint. However in the meantime he still should have a personal responsibility to demonstrate such an act is possible. If it is not possible on a personal level, how can we advocate for it on a societal level?

This is clearly understood outside of the debate with Gore and climate. Those who excuse him now are part of the problem.

It all depends if you're playing the game of holier-than-thou, of using it against someone when they don't play holier-than-thou, or focus on practical benefits and end results.

This is not like a preacher who rails against homosexuality while having a gay affair on the side. The preacher says that all homosexuality is wrong, not that there's, say, a maximum safe limit for gay sex, and that we have to be careful not to exceed it. There's no escaping the blatant hypocrisy there.

Gore is "preaching" about maximum safe limits, global effects, cumulative effects. He does not condemn as "sinful" each and every C02-generating act. Of course, if you're eager to tar someone with the label "hypocrite", it's easier to simplify everything down to matters of symbolic piety.


So what do you do then when Gore or someone like him exceeds their own recommended safe limits and ignore the cumulative effects of their actions? Would you call them a hypocrite then?

I'll tell you what shetline... you tell me what actions Gore would have to undertake to be considered hypocritical. If you don't like the criteria of myself or others, post yours.

Nick

[tonton]

You are aware that all those "international relationships" have been repaired by having the leaders attempting to Bush-bash for votes gone from office right?

Dude, are you serious? America is HATED, seriously HATED in all countries around the world, even your touted Iraq War allies. It has nothing to do with the leaders of those countries.

I issue you a challenge. Next time you leave the US, in ANY country, ask 10 people on the street, "what do you think about Bush and Clinton?" See what kind of response you get. That's the difference between someone who is respected internationally and someone who is not.

The problem is, that the world's disgust for GWB does seep in to their overall feelings about America.

International relationships definitely still need to be healed. A lot.

[tonton]

Double Post

[tonton]

So what do you do then when Gore or someone like him exceeds their own recommended safe limits and ignore the cumulative effects of their actions? Would you call them a hypocrite then?

I'll tell you what shetline... you tell me what actions Gore would have to undertake to be considered hypocritical. If you don't like the criteria of myself or others, post yours.

1. Doing SOMETHING about the environment is better than doing NOTHING. What have YOUR candidates done lately?
2. Have you ever considered that the detrimental effect of Gore's air travel is offset by the benefit of the education Gore is spreading to the international community?
3. If Gore had just one home he would have to do a lot MORE travelling.
4. If Gore drove a Hummer I would crucify him.

[franksargent]

Listen Mr. Law School, you above anyone should know that there are monetary remedies. We cannot try people who live outside their carbon footprints as criminals. (yet) What has been proposed instead is a remedy whereby those who cannot limit or take carbon from others, must compensate them.

Many criticisms of carbon credits have noted that it does not end polluting as a harmful practice, rather it simply requires some wealth transfer to allow the continuation of such practices.

I noted a harmful action that was allowed to continue because of a monetary transfer. The two are analogous.



It wasn't murder. It was reducing the carbon footprint of my community. I was advocating for reducing current energy use, limiting future population growth and finally taking human byproducts and returning them to nature in a productive and non-polluting state. Gore has framed global warming as a moral issue. If we pay people to not advance technologically, to remain in a state where famine and death are commonplace, it is no different than what I have stated. I simply applied it in the suburbs.

Within the climate change mindset the means of determining right and wrong is carbon footprint, sustainability and nothing more. Gore for example called for boycott of new coal burning power plants. If that means people go without power, or are harmed, that is of no consequence. You can call for anything as along as it meets those two criteria. The human cost in the mean time is of no consequence.



I believe I already have been.



Actually, Mr. Editor, the thread topic has to do with Gore running for president.;) Gore was given the peace prize for very strange reasons, preemptive peace. The belief by the committee was that global warming would cause such massive war, that advocation to stop it amounted to stopping future wars.



The reality is that once you get past the platitudes, if the planet has a maximum total carbon allowance, it would have to be divided up by each person and living outside or beyond that footprint amounts to a harmful act. He vacillates between alarmist rhetoric, and actions that show no true personal concern. He can argue for a system whereby everyone is coerced or has made available the means to remain within that footprint. However in the meantime he still should have a personal responsibility to demonstrate such an act is possible. If it is not possible on a personal level, how can we advocate for it on a societal level?

This is clearly understood outside of the debate with Gore and climate. Those who excuse him now are part of the problem.




So what do you do then when Gore or someone like him exceeds their own recommended safe limits and ignore the cumulative effects of their actions? Would you call them a hypocrite then?

I'll tell you what shetline... you tell me what actions Gore would have to undertake to be considered hypocritical. If you don't like the criteria of myself or others, post yours.

Nick

When are you going to release your greatest hits on CD? You know, I'm getting really tired of listening to that same broken record of yours!

[Frank777]

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

In the meantime, there are active and violent conflicts going on in Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq and Sudan, just to name a few. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars)

Simmering disputes include Taiwan vs. China, India vs. Pakistan, Arabs vs Israel and North Korea vs just about everybody. 50,000 American troops sit on the Korean border. In the meantime, Russia's Putin is sending bombers to go face to face with Canada's Air Force, for absolutely no good reason.

If there was no one who stood out as a 2007 peacemaker, no prize should have been given. That would have made a stronger statement and possibly prodded the world into noticing the lack of progress.

I understand that the Nobel Prize by necessity has to have a political component to it. But to "preemptively" give it to Al Gore in 2007 simply reduces it to irrelevance.

[hardeeharhar]

Perhaps in similar vein, President Mugabe will being given the Nobel Prize for Science.

Aquafire.

For science?

This is what I hate about people on this board. They begin to spout off and while doing so reveal their deep ignorance of the world around them. If you are ignorant, go back to your box. Shut up. I don't think your contributions are worth the bandwidth I pay to download them.

[Jubelum]

For science?

This is what I hate about people on this board. They begin to spout off and while doing so reveal their deep ignorance of the world around them. If you are ignorant, go back to your box. Shut up. I don't think your contributions are worth the bandwidth I pay to download them.

:lol:

OK, drink the GW kool-aid or you are "deeply ignorant." Got it. Cool.

[hardeeharhar]

Jubelum.... seriously, how did you get past high school, your reading comprehension is atrocious?

Re-read my post in it's entirety including the part quoted...

[Jubelum]

Jubelum.... seriously, how did you get past high school, your reading comprehension is atrocious?

Re-read my post in it's entirety including the part quoted...

More amazingly, how did I get a post-graduate education and then get a bunch of people to pay me for my opinions and knowledge! Innnn-credible!

Perhaps I misunderstood you... what was your intent regarding Mugabe and Aqua...

[Aquafire]

Thermodynamics? Check, been there, done that.

Coastal Engineering? Double check, been there, done that.

Environmental Fluid Mechanics? Triple check, been there, done that.

You really ARE out of your league here sonny boy! :\

Tsk tsk tsk...

So tell me Frank, does being a PEDANTIC TWIT come naturally to you ?

Or have you been working on it, over the years ?

In the meantime., (whenever your ready sunshine)...drop by the Physics Forums.

You'll find I've been a member for quite some time....

Cheers

Aquafire

[Aquafire]

For science?

This is what I hate about people on this board. They begin to spout off and while doing so reveal their deep ignorance of the world around them. If you are ignorant, go back to your box. Shut up. I don't think your contributions are worth the bandwidth I pay to download them.

Yet another numbskull who doesn't appreciate or understand humour....:rolleyes:

What is it with GW advocates...?

They're all so PC and so hysterically earnest and pedantic.

Anyway ... Hardeeharhar ...

Given your own misplaced histrionics, I can only assume you need a soothing cup of tea.. (http://holybuckfatman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/how-about-a-nice-cup-of-shut-the-fuck-up7662.jpg)

Go ahead, take a good long swig...:smokey:

Cheers


Aquafire...

[hardeeharhar]

More amazingly, how did I get a post-graduate education and then get a bunch of people to pay me for my opinions and knowledge! Innnn-credible!

Perhaps I misunderstood you... what was your intent regarding Mugabe and Aqua...

There is no Nobel Prize for science, never has been never will be... There are nobel prizes for fields of science, as in Medicine, Chemistry and Physics, but no nobel for science. It is ignorant not to understand that. It is willful ignorance considering that this week they announced three science related nobel prizes that weren't the nobel prize for science.

Yet another idiot savante who doesn't appreciate sarcasm'....:rolleyes:

Oh I got the sarcasm. You just moved further into the illiterate ignorant fool category, congrats!

[Jubelum]

It is ignorant not to understand that. It is willful ignorance considering that this week they announced three science related nobel prizes that weren't the nobel prize for science.


:lol: Obee Kaybee.

<maybe we need a category for... oh, never mind>

[Aquafire]

. You just moved further into the illiterate ignorant fool category, congrats!

Clearly your a guy who likes to lead by example.:D

Note, there should be a comma between illiterate and ignorant fool...

Cheers


Aquafire

[tonton]

Note, there should be a comma between illiterate and ignorant fool...

Well, not necessarily. The object of the adjective "illiterate" could be the entire phrase "ignorant fool", rather than just the word "fool", in which case there would be no comma after the word "illiterate".

What kind of ignorant fool? An illiterate ignorant fool.

[tonton]

I too am not familiar with how closely Gore is associated with Carbon trading or the specifics of the system he promotes, if he in fact does. But I think carbon trading in general is bullshit. It does nothing to help the environment. If I found that Gore is promoting a form of carbon trading as I know it, then I'd be severely disappointed. It wouldn't necessarily bump him out of the "best candidate" category for me, but I'd still be disappointed.

[franksargent]

In the meantime, there are active and violent conflicts going on in Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq and Sudan, just to name a few. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars)

Simmering disputes include Taiwan vs. China, India vs. Pakistan, Arabs vs Israel and North Korea vs just about everybody. 50,000 American troops sit on the Korean border. In the meantime, Russia's Putin is sending bombers to go face to face with Canada's Air Force, for absolutely no good reason.

If there was no one who stood out as a 2007 peacemaker, no prize should have been given. That would have made a stronger statement and possibly prodded the world into noticing the lack of progress.

I understand that the Nobel Prize by necessity has to have a political component to it. But to "preemptively" give it to Al Gore in 2007 simply reduces it to irrelevance.

Not the Nobel WAR Prize, TYVM! GWB, et. al. would have won that one for the last five years! :D

It is my view that if any "prizes" are handed out it should be to those people (or groups) who are attempting to stop (or slow down) irrational human behaviors, as opposed to those people (or groups) who are attempting to start (or continue/speed up) irrational human behaviors.

You know like these people (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/)!

You would need to talk to the Nobel Foundation (http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/index.html) yourself to gain a better appreciation of their nomination/selection processes. :\

In fact, there have been 19 times this prize has not been given out, the last such year being 1972 (someone correct me if I miscounted).

[franksargent]

Tsk tsk tsk...

So tell me Frank, does being a PEDANTIC TWIT come naturally to you ?

Or have you been working on it, over the years ?

In the meantime., (whenever your ready sunshine)...drop by the Physics Forums.

You'll find I've been a member for quite some time....

Cheers

Aquafire

... a bright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement) (as opposed to a dim (Religiosity and intelligence)), or to take it down to your level ...

http://www.bullwinklestudios.com/images/characters/mr_peabody_main.gif

[SDW2001]

I haven't followed the thread in detail, but I think that Gore should consider running. The problem is, at least from what I've read, that he's concerned about the "Hillary Machine" and thinks she is invincible. He might be right. My gut check says he would be a very attractive candidate. He'd tap into the anti-war left, and have much less trouble with moderates than HRC or Edwards. He's got Barack's star power, Clinton's knowledge of issues and experience (and much more), etc. On a personal level, while I wouldn't vote for him, I'd be much happier with him as President than Hillary. Hands down.

[@_@ Artman]

I haven't followed the thread in detail, but I think that Gore should consider running. The problem is, at least from what I've read, that he's concerned about the "Hillary Machine" and thinks she is invincible. He might be right. My gut check says he would be a very attractive candidate. He'd tap into the anti-war left, and have much less trouble with moderates than HRC or Edwards. He's got Barack's star power, Clinton's knowledge of issues and experience (and much more), etc. On a personal level, while I wouldn't vote for him, I'd be much happier with him as President than Hillary. Hands down.

:wow: Wow. Thread over. :smokey:

[Jubelum]

:wow: Wow. Thread over. :smokey:

I second that. Good summary.

[Frank777]

Not the Nobel WAR Prize, TYVM! GWB, et. al. would have won that one for the last five years! :D

It is my view that if any "prizes" are handed out it should be to those people (or groups) who are attempting to stop (or slow down) irrational human behaviors, as opposed to those people (or groups) who are attempting to start (or continue/speed up) irrational human behaviors.

You know like these people (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/)!

You would need to talk to the Nobel Foundation (http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/index.html) yourself to gain a better appreciation of their nomination/selection processes. :\

In fact, there have been 19 times this prize has not been given out, the last such year being 1972 (someone correct me if I miscounted).

I wasn't suggesting the Nobel be given to the winner of "Best War on the Planet" ;), but to a person who has shown tenacity and courage in trying to end one of these ridiculous conflicts.

[hardeeharhar]

What of the prevention of future likely conflicts?

[Frank777]

What of the prevention of future likely conflicts?

You can't hand out Nobel Peace Prizes based on wars that never happened. This isn't Star Trek.

Changing weather patterns, even if all the most strident climate change advocates are right, won't impact the planet in any serious way for decades to come. The idea that all out wars will be fought over depleting food and water resources is highly speculative.

[franksargent]

You can't hand out Nobel Peace Prizes based on wars that never happened. This isn't Star Trek.

Changing weather patterns, even if all the most strident climate change advocates are right, won't impact the planet in any serious way for decades to come. The idea that all out wars will be fought over depleting food and water resources is highly speculative.

Actually there are some relatively nearterm certainties, the loss of snow pack melting runoff due to warmer than normal winters, mountain glacier losses again reducing fresh water runoff, and of course an ever increasing world population estimated to be in the 10B range by 2050. This will also affect crop yields (you know, food for people and livestock).

So yes, even though I'm rather old, I'm very likely to live long enough to see these very real effects. :\

[Frank777]

Actually there are some relatively nearterm certainties, the loss of snow pack melting runoff due to warmer than normal winters, mountain glacier losses again reducing fresh water runoff, and of course an ever increasing world population estimated to be in the 10B range by 2050. This will also affect crop yields (you know, food for people and livestock).

So yes even though I'm rather old, I verl likely to live long enough to see these very real effects. :\

Even if all that happens, nobody on Earth will die from any of those factors for a very long time.

All I'm saying is that, faced with large scale atrocities happening right now in places like Darfur, Burma and elsewhere, the Nobel committee either deliberately wimped out on their responsibility to promote world peace, or were politically influenced from outside.

Giving the Nobel to Gore makes zero sense. At this point, I'm willing to go all 'Sammi-Jo' and say these things are probably worked out in a Bilderberg session or something.

[hardeeharhar]

You can't hand out Nobel Peace Prizes based on wars that never happened. This isn't Star Trek.

Changing weather patterns, even if all the most strident climate change advocates are right, won't impact the planet in any serious way for decades to come. The idea that all out wars will be fought over depleting food and water resources is highly speculative.
That isn't for you to decide. The nobel committee for the peace prize vets nominations from thousands of individuals and then weighs them through their discussions. They are given the power to decide alone if they think that someone is deserving of the prize for peace. The first prize was given to the founder of the red cross, from the sound of it, you would have poo-pooed that decision as well...

[sammi jo]

How many people in the US (or anyone on the planet) live on a coastline, at or below an altitude of 16-55ft (http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2006/Ross-Ice-Shelf29nov06.htm) .....

Just some more anti-business propaganda, courtesy of those damned leftist treehugger potsmoking ecoterrorist hippy scientists with an agenda, and an attitude.

[franksargent]

Even if all that happens, nobody on Earth will die from any of those factors for a very long time.

All I'm saying is that, faced with large scale atrocities happening right now in places like Darfur, Burma and elsewhere, the Nobel committee either deliberately wimped out on their responsibility to promote world peace, or were politically influenced from outside.

Giving the Nobel to Gore makes zero sense. At this point, I'm willing to go all 'Sammi-Jo' and say these things are probably worked out in a Bilderberg session or something.

Actually, there may be some "western" (nee awards to people doing their work in America) bias in the Nobel science awards (at least), I've had a rather interesting conversation with a colleague here at work on that very subject over the past two days.

[@_@ Artman]

hardeeharhar. Don't feed this troll.

He doesn't understand the crack-head dependency on oil this country (and many others) has and what utter chaos will ensue if the tap was finally turned off. He doesn't understand that nobody, no one except Al Gore, being the popular figure he is has been the only person able to express his feelings on this crisis.

We are in Afghanistan for oil, we are in Iraq for oil, we will eventually be in Iran for oil. Nothing else matters for the ignorant, greedy assholes.

Frank777 doesn't have kids I guess. If he did he may have a different take on this. Because the next generation will carry the burden of all our misgivings and ignorance. Energy, climate change, social security, healthcare, freedom and their own lives. They are going to lose out big time if we don't change our ways and find new leaders that will make change. One of them is Al Gore.

[Frank777]

That isn't for you to decide. The nobel committee for the peace prize vets nominations from thousands of individuals and then weighs them through their discussions. They are given the power to decide alone if they think that someone is deserving of the prize for peace.

It's absolutely a private organization and they have the right to bestow the award on whomever they please. I'm not saying they should be forced to change it. I'm saying that they had built up a measure of trust in the brand and the ideals for which it stood.

And their latest choice is at best, uninspired. At worst, it is dishonest and reduces the Award to a political showpiece.


The first prize was given to the founder of the red cross, from the sound of it, you would have poo-pooed that decision as well...

Well I think a strong case could be made that the Red Cross has demonstrably saved human lives, and contributed vastly to the ethical conduct of mankind during wartime situations.

[franksargent]

Well I think a strong case could be made that the Red Cross has demonstrably saved human lives, and contributed vastly to the ethical conduct of mankind during wartime situations.

I think he meant at the time of the award (not using 106 years of hindsight), only hindsight (and our making the right choices) will prove whether AG is deserving of this award.

[Aquafire]

http://www.bullwinklestudios.com/images/characters/mr_peabody_main.gif

Frankly....

I prefer to hob nob with younger intellectuals...

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/070305/friends/brian_l.jpg

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20070305elpepuage_11/LCO340/Ies/Cabecera_programa_Up_late_with_Stewie_and_Brian.jp g

http://tvmedia.ign.com/tv/image/article/766/766953/family-guy-to-be-up-late-on-the-internet-20070222033920033.jpg

But by then, it's way past your bed time Frank....

Cheers


Aquafire...


Psssst...maybe if you ask your mommy nicely, she might let you stay up...8-)

[SpamSandwich]

It works for 1.2 Billion christians... why not me...

I think you meant "Catholics".

[SpamSandwich]

I don't actually care about the offsets. I'm just curious how this all relates to world peace.

The Nobel Peace Prize (Swedish and Norwegian: Nobels fredspris) is the name of one of five Nobel Prizes bequeathed by the Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize)

[franksargent]

Frankly....

I prefer to hob nob with younger intellectuals...


Aquafire...




Psssst...maybe if you ask your mommy nicely, she might let you stay up...8-)

Your NO match for me, sonny boy! :D

[Aquafire]

Your NO match for me, sonny boy! :D

Oh God...

Not more...Piss'n'Thunder....::rolleyes:

Phuleeeze Franky baby......enough with the public masturbation....

It's embarrassing and pitiful.:embarrass

If you really want to match wits, that's fine with me.:smokey:

But in the meantime...

Do us all a a really BIG favour...

Get back on subject OK ?

There's the good lad. :)

Cheers

Aquafire

[SDW2001]

I second that. Good summary.

Thanks guys. :)


Even if all that happens, nobody on Earth will die from any of those factors for a very long time.

All I'm saying is that, faced with large scale atrocities happening right now in places like Darfur, Burma and elsewhere, the Nobel committee either deliberately wimped out on their responsibility to promote world peace, or were politically influenced from outside.

Giving the Nobel to Gore makes zero sense. At this point, I'm willing to go all 'Sammi-Jo' and say these things are probably worked out in a Bilderberg session or something.

I agree. Whether one agrees with Gore or not, I don't think she should have received the Peace prize. It doesn't fit with what he's doing. Then of course there are my thoughts on the Nobel Peace Prize itself. I can't really take an award seriously when it's offered to Yasser Arafat. Again, no matter what side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue you come down on, I don't think there is much argument about Arafat being a peace advocate. Perhaps one thinks he was right (I certainly don't at all), but that's not the same in the least.

[franksargent]

Oh God...

Not more...Piss'n'Thunder....::rolleyes:

Phuleeeze Franky baby......enough with the public masturbation....

It's embarrassing and pitiful.:embarrass

If you really want to match wits, that's fine with me.:smokey:

But in the meantime...

Do us all a a really BIG favour...

Get back on subject OK ?

There's the good lad. :)

Cheers

Aquafire

What you ORIGINALLY posted;

Oh more...Piss'n'Thunder....lol...

From where I come from, we used to call twits like you..." Pseudo~Intellectuals"

But that's rarely used these days.

Nowadays, we prefer something more earthy ; something that reflects your true
intellectual value.

" Frank the Wanker"

Yep....no doubt about it...

It fits you like a glove..:smokey:

Cheers

Aquafire

I'd suggest you get back on your Ritalin LA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritalin)! :p:lol::p:lol::p

[franksargent]

Thanks guys. :)




I agree. Whether one agrees with Gore or not, I don't think she should have received the Peace prize. It doesn't fit with what he's doing. Then of course there are my thoughts on the Nobel Peace Prize itself. I can't really take an award seriously when it's offered to Yasser Arafat. Again, no matter what side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue you come down on, I don't think there is much argument about Arafat being a peace advocate. Perhaps one thinks he was right (I certainly don't at all), but that's not the same in the least.

There are some interesting articles at the Nobel Peace Prize site Nobel Peace Prize Articles (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/) particularly the first two;

The Nobel Peace Prize, 1901-2000 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/lundestad-review/index.html) and
Controversies and Criticisms (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/controversies/index.html)

See also wikipedia's Nobel Prize controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies)

Finally, go back to the Nobel site of All Nobel Peace Prize Laureates (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/) and note the years no prize was given out;

1914, 1915, 1916, 1918 (WWI, in 1917 the Red Cross received it (D'oh))
1923, 1924, 1928, 1932 (?)
1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 (WWII, in 1944 the Red Cross received it (D'oh again))
1948 (?)
1955, 1956 (escalation of the Cold War (???))
1966, 1967, 1972 (Vietnam War (???))


And if your going to critique Gore, for being Gore, whatever, but basically TRY to steer yourself away from the pure 100% ad hominem attacks, TYVM.

And if your going to critique the Nobel process itself, than don't just critique them, this isn't a movie plot, offer up your alternative or none if you prefer (which BTW hasn't happened since 1972). And if you do offer up an alternative that you think was more deserving, please provide a relevant link (or more) supporting your position (but I don't read op-ed bias with intent hit pieces (which are basically any or all op-ed's), TYVM).

So now having come this far I think it would have been fitting if the Nobel Peace Prize had not been awarded for the last five years (2003-7) given GWB's preemptive WAR and the neocon artists for adding greatly to destabilizing the WORLD and for their blatant ignorance on MANY fronts! :D

I don't think I need to provide links on that subject, as it's already been discussed thousands of times in thousands of these threads over the past SEVEN YEARS! :lol:

[Sherman Homan]

I too am not familiar with how closely Gore is associated with Carbon trading or the specifics of the system he promotes, if he in fact does. But I think carbon trading in general is bullshit. It does nothing to help the environment. If I found that Gore is promoting a form of carbon trading as I know it, then I'd be severely disappointed. It wouldn't necessarily bump him out of the "best candidate" category for me, but I'd still be disappointed.

tonton, prepare to become "severely disappointed". Al Gore "offsets" his enormous electric bill for his in ground electrically heated pool with carbon offset indulgences from the company that he is co-owner of. He is buying them from himself. Check out the deal with Generation Investment Management:
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
And why:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

[franksargent]

tonton, prepare to become "severely disappointed". Al Gore "offsets" his enormous electric bill for his in ground electrically heated pool with carbon offset indulgences from the company that he is co-owner of. He is buying them from himself. Check out the deal with Generation Investment Management:
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
And why:
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

Please present some OBJECTIVE evidence for this claim, as I did a keyword search on "pool" per your second link (basically an op-ed bias with intent ad hominem hit piece). :D

Please, pretty please?

And no, a picture of AG's pool or other evidence thereof of his possessions is not sufficient evidence that AG is not an environmentally conscious individual who manages his own assets in an environmentally conscious manner given his wealth.

To hear you people ridicule AG for having wealth is truly ironic, like he should live in a cardboard box, or be homeless to satisfy whatever warped POV you think is necessary, while at the same time espouse "free market" principles. Truly a high water mark of irony AND hypocrisy! :\

Also help us understand why YOU can't invest in those same companies that this firm becomes involved with, there is something called the stock market, you did know that, didn't you?

And please help us understand EXACTLY how much money AG makes as it's President, that would go a long way in attempting to make whatever point it is you are vainly trying to make, TYVM! :rolleyes:

[e1618978]

Al Al Gore's critics completely misconstrue his message as pertaining to criticizing personal energy use.

At the end of "an inconvenient truth", he talks about all the ways we should all conserve energy. He is absolutely criticizing personal energy use, without conserving energy himself.

4. If Gore drove a Hummer I would crucify him.

He has a masarati that gets 11mpg. Probably a lot more cars also - I would if I was that rich.

But the difference between somebody who flies on private planes and somebody who flies on commercial planes is so large, that once you start flying private the oil you burn in cars becomes insignificant, since the use of auto fuel is dwarfed by the use of aircraft fuel.

I too am not familiar with how closely Gore is associated with Carbon trading or the specifics of the system he promotes, if he in fact does. But I think carbon trading in general is bullshit. It does nothing to help the environment. If I found that Gore is promoting a form of carbon trading as I know it, then I'd be severely disappointed. It wouldn't necessarily bump him out of the "best candidate" category for me, but I'd still be disappointed.

Exactly - we burn every drop of oil we pump, and we pump at 100%. Not only is Carbon trading useless, so is any kind of conservation of oil (because conservation -> lower prices -> somebody else takes advantage of those prices -> same oil consumption as if you didn't conserve at all). If Gore said that global warming was inevitable, as I believe, then I would have a lot more respect for him.

I haven't followed the thread in detail, but I think that Gore should consider running. The problem is, at least from what I've read, that he's concerned about the "Hillary Machine" and thinks she is invincible. He might be right. My gut check says he would be a very attractive candidate. He'd tap into the anti-war left, and have much less trouble with moderates than HRC or Edwards. He's got Barack's star power, Clinton's knowledge of issues and experience (and much more), etc. On a personal level, while I wouldn't vote for him, I'd be much happier with him as President than Hillary. Hands down.

I agree, he is very appealing. I would vote for him, provided that all his global warming/kyoto talk turned into just hot air he needed to get elected.

[franksargent]

At the end of "an inconvenient truth", he talks about all the ways we should all conserve energy. He is absolutely criticizing personal energy use, without conserving energy himself.



He has a masarati that gets 11mpg. Probably a lot more cars also - I would if I was that rich.

But the difference between somebody who flies on private planes and somebody who flies on commercial planes is so large, that once you start flying private the oil you burn in cars becomes insignificant, since the use of auto fuel is dwarfed by the use of aircraft fuel.



Exactly - we burn every drop of oil we pump, and we pump at 100%. Not only is Carbon trading useless, so is any kind of conservation of oil (because conservation -> lower prices -> somebody else takes advantage of those prices -> same oil consumption as if you didn't conserve at all). If Gore said that global warming was inevitable, as I believe, then I would have a lot more respect for him.



I agree, he is very appealing. I would vote for him, provided that all his global warming/kyoto talk turned into just hot air he needed to get elected.

I don't buy your oil pricing argument for the following reasons;

1) Extracting proven reserves from LAND based sources is much cheaper than extracting oil from the deep ocean (that is incontrovertible and unmitigable), say at 300 (and above) meters. How do I know this, well I won't name drop, because the colleague I mentioned in an earlier post above is an ocean engineer who has worked for ALL of the major oil companies, is extremely well known in the oil industry, and has been involved in offshore oil platform designs and insurance for many, Many, MANY years, he knows the costs and the industry top to bottom.

2) So basically oil is priced to the more expensive sources, costs of deep ocean oil.

3) You can't us an American CPI index when dealing with profits generated for oil extracted from the Middle East, their actual costs are likely in the ~$10/barrel range. Besides look at who they hire for their labor pools, SE Asians (where overpopulation happens to be the greatest (say from Pakistan through to China/Korea)). So this labor pool comes at an extremely low cost (dollars/day).

4) Are we JUST talking about oil, or are we talking about the true costs of all fossil fuels?

5) Your demand-supply falls flat on it's face when we consider it's our demand and our wealth that drives world oil prices, and it's their relatively cheap (land based) oil that makes a very small fraction of wealthy individuals over there very, Very, VERY rich.

6) Say all the oil in the Middle East were ~$10/barrel versus ~$100/barrel, you're going to tell me that we will see a 10X increase in oil consumption? Immediately? :\

[@_@ Artman]

At the end of "an inconvenient truth", he talks about all the ways we should all conserve energy. He is absolutely criticizing personal energy use, without conserving energy himself.

He has a masarati that gets 11mpg. Probably a lot more cars also - I would if I was that rich.

But the difference between somebody who flies on private planes and somebody who flies on commercial planes is so large, that once you start flying private the oil you burn in cars becomes insignificant, since the use of auto fuel is dwarfed by the use of aircraft fuel.

Jesus on a popsicle stick will you cite your allegations? If not I have some controlled demolitions under the World Trade Towers if you want them.

How does anyone fight an energy/climate crisis on horse back or under candlelight...how? How do you get the attention? How does one endorse peace in war time? I'm gagging at the stupidity, gagging.


By the way, New Zealand is going ahead and ban coal and gas power plants -- 90% renewable energy by 2025 (http://ecotality.com/life/2007/10/13/new-zealand-to-ban-coal-and-gas-power-plants/). Gore may have not made the difference for them. They just took action and made change.

It's that simple. We are too addicted and greedy to change. Hopefully this honor to Gore and his associates will change the course.

[trumptman]

Not sure what you're talking about.

You're not sure, but you know that it is wrong. You take a very interesting position.

You appear not to understand that compensating someone for a crime, and then continuing to do the crime is not a good action or even intention no matter how you frame it.

I'm not sure if we're on the same page here, because that goes beyond the more sensible language of the press release.

From the press release, the committee is concerned about the dangers that migration and increased competition for our resources may pose on the most vulnerable nations. War and other violence are among those dangers. So it's more about reducing certain risks that could lead to conflict, than outright "stopping future wars," which is a bit overstated.

Shawn, you are dangerously close to falling below the threshold of warranting a reply.

From the press release....

There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

I'm not going to mince words with you. If you can't draw from that stopping future wars, then too bad for you. I mean it is a peace prize and they were the ones who had to come up with the deluded future tense for giving it to Gore. You can take the bad reasoning up with them rather than complaining that you thought the words I used to explain the bad reasoning were less "sensible." The rationale of giving an award for preventing future conflicts in any form or fashion, (or lessing their odds as calculated by the magic 8 ball) is not sensible in the first place.

It makes sense, doesn't it?

No it doesn't which is why the awarding of this has been ridiculed by many. It makes about as much sense as claiming that calling you an editor and a law school student are ad-homs.

How serious can you treat any two quotes that include the word "may" four times in five sentences? It amounts to saying that Gore has worked to prevent an apocalyptic future that he foretells and thus he is a good person even though his predictions and that future haven't proven to be true in any fashion.

Al Gore does not argue that.

Gore does not argue that carbon emissions above 300 ppm are artificial, have never naturally existed and as such are proof that humans have altered the environment? Gore does not claim that we must reduce our emissions to fall back within this upper limit of that natural variability?

Remember what I said about that threshold.... if you are going to ignore the statements of the very people you claim to defend in order to try to win some nonsensical argument, then you can argue alone and go to the ignore list.

You can't use limits and some meaningless platitude. If Gore proposes that we limit carbon dioxide production, that falls on the shoulders of someone, somewhere since we are above those limits now. You can pretend it doesn't, enjoy twisting words, and play games but if you aren't going to admit that a limit and reduction means limit and reduction, then ignored you will become.

Again, Al Gore does not argue that.

You've spent two replies now arguing that you don't like what I equate with Gore, or that he doesn't say what I have typed. You get no more replies until you add something besides critiques of my writing.

Got that Mr. Editor?

What are you talking about?

Since you can't figure it out, either don't reply, or reply and prepare to be ignored.

Nick

[franksargent]

You're not sure, but you know that it is wrong. You take a very interesting position.

You appear not to understand that compensating someone for a crime, and then continuing to do the crime is not a good action or even intention no matter how you frame it.



Shawn, you are dangerously close to falling below the threshold of warranting a reply.

From the press release....

There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

I'm not going to mince words with you. If you can't draw from that stopping future wars, then too bad for you. I mean it is a peace prize and they were the ones who had to come up with the deluded future tense for giving it to Gore. You can take the bad reasoning up with them rather than complaining that you thought the words I used to explain the bad reasoning were less "sensible." The rationale of giving an award for preventing future conflicts in any form or fashion, (or lessing their odds as calculated by the magic 8 ball) is not sensible in the first place.



No it doesn't which is why the awarding of this has been ridiculed by many. It makes about as much sense as claiming that calling you an editor and a law school student are ad-homs.

How serious can you treat any two quotes that include the word "may" four times in five sentences? It amounts to saying that Gore has worked to prevent an apocalyptic future that he foretells and thus he is a good person even though his predictions and that future haven't proven to be true in any fashion.



Gore does not argue that carbon emissions above 300 ppm are artificial, have never naturally existed and as such are proof that humans have altered the environment? Gore does not claim that we must reduce our emissions to fall back within this upper limit of that natural variability?

Remember what I said about that threshold.... if you are going to ignore the statements of the very people you claim to defend in order to try to win some nonsensical argument, then you can argue alone and go to the ignore list.

You can't use limits and some meaningless platitude. If Gore proposes that we limit carbon dioxide production, that falls on the shoulders of someone, somewhere since we are above those limits now. You can pretend it doesn't, enjoy twisting words, and play games but if you aren't going to admit that a limit and reduction means limit and reduction, then ignored you will become.



You've spent two replies now arguing that you don't like what I equate with Gore, or that he doesn't say what I have typed. You get no more replies until you add something besides critiques of my writing.

Got that Mr. Editor?



Since you can't figure it out, either don't reply, or reply and prepare to be ignored.

Nick

... you don't reply to this post! :D

But anyway, someone appears to be very frustrated, I'd go so far as to say very mad, I'd evn go so far as to say very IRATE!

Let me guess who disagrees with the Nobel Peace Prize being given to the IPCC and AG;

Hannity, Faux Noise, Freepers, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, the WSJ, you know the usual suspects, the right wing media and the climate nihilists, et. al.

Perhaps your ilk will petition the Nobel Foundation (http://nobelprize.org/) or place full page adds in the NYT, with a long list of wingnuts attached.

Perhaps they already have, stay tuned ... :rolleyes:

[SDW2001]

There are some interesting articles at the Nobel Peace Prize site Nobel Peace Prize Articles (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/) particularly the first two;

The Nobel Peace Prize, 1901-2000 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/lundestad-review/index.html) and
Controversies and Criticisms (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/controversies/index.html)

See also wikipedia's Nobel Prize controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies)

Finally, go back to the Nobel site of All Nobel Peace Prize Laureates (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/) and note the years no prize was given out;

1914, 1915, 1916, 1918 (WWI, in 1917 the Red Cross received it (D'oh))
1923, 1924, 1928, 1932 (?)
1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 (WWII, in 1944 the Red Cross received it (D'oh again))
1948 (?)
1955, 1956 (escalation of the Cold War (???))
1966, 1967, 1972 (Vietnam War (???))


And if your going to critique Gore, for being Gore, whatever, but basically TRY to steer yourself away from the pure 100% ad hominem attacks, TYVM.

And if your going to critique the Nobel process itself, than don't just critique them, this isn't a movie plot, offer up your alternative or none if you prefer (which BTW hasn't happened since 1972). And if you do offer up an alternative that you think was more deserving, please provide a relevant link (or more) supporting your position (but I don't read op-ed bias with intent hit pieces (which are basically any or all op-ed's), TYVM).

So now having come this far I think it would have been fitting if the Nobel Peace Prize had not been awarded for the last five years (2003-7) given GWB's preemptive WAR and the neocon artists for adding greatly to destabilizing the WORLD and for their blatant ignorance on MANY fronts! :D

I don't think I need to provide links on that subject, as it's already been discussed thousands of times in thousands of these threads over the past SEVEN YEARS! :lol:


Dude...what? Are you actually suggesting that Al Gore won the Nobel because there was no one better?. By asking me to point out an alternative, that's exactly what you're arguing. In which case, I need only respond with a :lol:

[franksargent]

Dude...what? Are you actually suggesting that Al Gore won the Nobel because there was no one better?. By asking me to point out an alternative, that's exactly what you're arguing. In which case, I need only respond with a :lol:

.. and since you are incapable of neither, and incapable of suggesting any alternatives, and somehow conjecture that I think AG was the best choice (I mean how the heck should I know, I'm NOT part of the Nobel selection committee, I'm not privy to the list of nominees), why don't you just go and take a flying ... :D

At least TRY to add some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism! :\

[NOFEER]

I too am not familiar with how closely Gore is associated with Carbon trading or the specifics of the system he promotes, if he in fact does. But I think carbon trading in general is bullshit. It does nothing to help the environment. If I found that Gore is promoting a form of carbon trading as I know it, then I'd be severely disappointed. It wouldn't necessarily bump him out of the "best candidate" category for me, but I'd still be disappointed.

from what i understand he owns or has managerial income from a stock group that invests in "carbon" give backs. he won't run, because he doens't have to divulge his financial intrests and tax return, as he can blow smoke all he wants without accountability. he knows he is a bad campaigner and wants the benefits without the grief.....but mostly so he doesn't have to divulge, he will market himself to enviornment "harmers" like jesse jackson markets himself to business to the racial "equilizer" lots of money and influence in that.

[franksargent]

from what i understand he owns or has managerial income from a stock group that invests in "carbon" give backs. he won't run, because he doens't have to divulge his financial intrests and tax return, as he can blow smoke all he wants without accountability. he knows he is a bad campaigner and wants the benefits without the grief.....but mostly so he doesn't have to divulge, he will market himself to enviornment "harmers" like jesse jackson markets himself to business to the racial "equilizer" lots of money and influence in that.

http://www.eborg3.com/Graphics/Bible/66-Revelation/Rev21/an-guy_shaking_head_no_lg_blk.gif

[Sherman Homan]

OK, franksargent. Your turn: why do you deny that Al Gore is buying carbon credits from his own company? Why do you deny that his electrically heated pool consumes more power in a month than the average American family consumes in a year? Why are you defending Al Gore?

[screener]

OK, franksargent. Your turn: why do you deny that Al Gore is buying carbon credits from his own company? Why do you deny that his electrically heated pool consumes more power in a month than the average American family consumes in a year? Why are you defending Al Gore?

If true, jubelum could be honest and use this as his sig. instead of promoting a lie.

On topic, I think Gore's detractors wish he had just faded away.
The arrogance of this guy actually accomplishing something that raises awareness of a potential world problem.

Would this issue had gotten all the attention it has without him?

Believe in GW or not, discussing the possibility can't hurt.

[SDW2001]

.. and since you are incapable of neither, and incapable of suggesting any alternatives, and somehow conjecture that I think AG was the best choice (I mean how the heck should I know, I'm NOT part of the Nobel selection committee, I'm not privy to the list of nominees), why don't you just go and take a flying ... :D

At least TRY to add some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism! :\

So that IS your point then. Nice. What a joke.

[franksargent]

So that IS your point then. Nice. What a joke.

SDW, you make NO substitutive contributions to these threads, how many times, and how many people, does it take before it even begins to sink into your ... :\

Go back to watching Faux Noise or whatever, since you seem unable to add any constructive criticism to this current discussion. :\

[franksargent]

OK, franksargent. Your turn: why do you deny that Al Gore is buying carbon credits from his own company? Why do you deny that his electrically heated pool consumes more power in a month than the average American family consumes in a year? Why are you defending Al Gore?

Huh? You're the one who made the original claim, not I, am I right or wrong on that one?

A simple yes or no response is all you need to answer with.

And do you think that's all you need to do around here, make stuff up, and demand that others support (or deny) your claims?

You're the one that made the claim, you're the one that needs to support YOUR CLAIM WITH FACTS! Not I. Independently verifiable facts.

Please see Association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) and you might actually LEARN something, although I doubt it! :p

[Jubelum]

If true, jubelum could be honest and use this as his sig. instead of promoting a lie.

:lol: If you knew how much fun these few pixels have been thanks to you, you wouldn't remove them either. It's the gift that keeps on giving. (expletive)(nationality)
Promoting a lie? I don't even mention Gore in the sig. Shall I?

[Jubelum]

My Honda Civic runs on (and over) WHITE trash.


The White Trash in your area must be much smaller than the big bubbas around here in Texas. They'd total a Civic without breaking a bone. 8-)

[tonton]

The White Trash in your area must be much smaller than the big bubbas around here in Texas. They'd total a Civic without breaking a bone. 8-)

Yeah I've seen those guys. They're as big around the stomach as they are tall. There's definitely enough padding there to cushion their bones from damage by a Civic.

[tonton]

Here's my challenge to the Republicans or others opposing Gore:

1. Prove that he has a Maserati (don't just say it). Bush has a freebasing lab in his basement. Avideo of him getting in a Maserati is just proof that he rode in one. Owned by his sister. Does he make buying decisions for his sister?
2. Prove that he supports the common carbon trading principle.
3. Prove that he consumes more energy than anyone else of his level of fame, in or near his income bracket, who is required to travel frequently. Just name one person.

If you can do those things, then you have a pretty good case and I'll give you my full attention, and so will a lot of other liberals. If all these things are true, with the strength of the Conservative smear machine, why hasn't this gotten more attention?

[screener]

:lol: If you knew how much fun these few pixels have been thanks to you, you wouldn't remove them either. It's the gift that keeps on giving. (expletive)(nationality)
Promoting a lie? I don't even mention Gore in the sig. Shall I?

Now you're being dishonest about being dishonest.

How could you be promoting a lie by not including Gore's name in a signature that could only be referring to Gore.

Just perfect.

[Jubelum]

How could you be promoting a lie by not including Gore's name in a signature that could only be referring to Gore.


Have you even read the exchange where my sig came from?
You're out the loop as far as its meaning. Miles off. And looking silly in the process.

You read "Chilean Sea Bass" and make up your narrow little mind.

Please, though, don't stop. This is just getting good.

[Jubelum]

Gore Gets a Cold Shoulder (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html)

Dr. William Gray: "We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was."

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.


Dr. Gray- international expert and paid-off denier of the EnviroMessiah.

In other news... Generation Investment Management (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009730) news from that fringe "Wall Street Journal"

<Grist for the mill. Wash, rinse, repeat.>

[screener]

Have you even read the exchange where my sig came from?

No.

Explain why you removed it and then returned it.

[Jubelum]

No.
At least you admitted it. :\

Explain why you removed it and then returned it.
Just for you... and by popular demand. :)

[screener]

At least you admitted it. :\


Just for you... and by popular demand. :)

Why wouldn't I?

So are you going to let me in on the origin?

If it's not based on a lie, I'll let it go.

[tonton]

Dude...what? Are you actually suggesting that Al Gore won the Nobel because there was no one better?. By asking me to point out an alternative, that's exactly what you're arguing. In which case, I need only respond with a :lol:

If he's qualified, and there's no one better, then he should win. Obviously the Nobel Committee thought there was "no one better". What's wrong with that?

So... you can point out an alternative... or you can argue your opinion that he wasn't qualified. Of course your opinion doesn't really matter here, does it?

[Aquafire]

What you ORIGINALLY posted;



I'd suggest you get back on your Ritalin LA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritalin)! :p:lol::p:lol::p


Yes..and I withdrew it because I thought I was lowering myself to your level, as well as derailing the thread.

Furthermore,

Quoting from a post that has been deleted or altered , long before you actually replied, is considered very bad netiquette.:no:

But then again, (judging from your posting track record) your clearly a bloke who has a predeliction with anus's and 'asshats'.

Well Frank, I assume you know that in Freudian terms, your anal obssessions look for all the world as outward expressions of your latent and inwardly repressed, homosexual leanings ;)

Cheers

Aquafire

[tonton]

Have you even read the exchange where my sig came from?
You're out the loop as far as its meaning. Miles off. And looking silly in the process.

You read "Chilean Sea Bass" and make up your narrow little mind.

Please, though, don't stop. This is just getting good.

The "chilean sea bass" exchange was alleging that Gore was a hypocrite because he served chilean sea bass at a function, which is in danger of becoming a threatened species (or something like that - I forget the details). This claim against Gore was later disproved, when it was shown that he in fact served a specific kind of farm-raised fish that was nowhere near affecting the species' population.

To allude to this disproven claim by using the phrase is spreading the lie. Just like the use of other disproven phrases like "invented the internet". You actually show no aversion to doing this type of thing, frequently. It shows that you're intellectually dishonest about disproven right-wing smear tactics.

In fact, to be true to form, youshould change your sig to read "My Maserati runs on Chilean Sea Bass".

[vinea]

Burning water and other myths (http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070910/full/news070910-13.html)

Thermodynamics? Check, been there, done that.



Except that the earth isn't a closed system and you have this big energy producer pumping energy into the system which could be used to break down seawater into hydrogen and oxygen to use when its dark...

[vinea]

I haven't followed the thread in detail, but I think that Gore should consider running. The problem is, at least from what I've read, that he's concerned about the "Hillary Machine" and thinks she is invincible. He might be right. My gut check says he would be a very attractive candidate. He'd tap into the anti-war left, and have much less trouble with moderates than HRC or Edwards. He's got Barack's star power, Clinton's knowledge of issues and experience (and much more), etc. On a personal level, while I wouldn't vote for him, I'd be much happier with him as President than Hillary. Hands down.

Only way he'd enter is if Obama looks at the cards in his hand, remember that in 8 years he's still a relatively young guy and says "I'll bow out to be Al's running mate if he enters the race".

Al's not that charismatic...and Obama would go a long way to fix that.

[vinea]

Please present some OBJECTIVE evidence for this claim, as I did a keyword search on "pool" per your second link (basically an op-ed bias with intent ad hominem hit piece). :D

Please, pretty please?

And no, a picture of AG's pool or other evidence thereof of his possessions is not sufficient evidence that AG is not an environmentally conscious individual who manages his own assets in an environmentally conscious manner given his wealth.


I dunno what AG does to heat his pool but you can partially do so with a geothermal tap and the remainder with solar. A pool cover reduces heat loss even further.

So you can have a pool and be energy conscious.

[franksargent]

Yes..and I withdrew it because I thought I was lowering myself to your level, as well as derailing the thread.

Furthermore,

Quoting from a post that has been deleted or altered , long before you actually replied, is considered very bad netiquette.:no:

But then again, (judging from your posting track record) your clearly a bloke who has a predeliction with anus's and 'asshats'.

Well Frank, I assume you know that in Freudian terms, your anal obssessions look for all the world as outward expressions of your latent and inwardly repressed, homosexual leanings ;)

Cheers

Aquafire

That was what showed up in MY email box, and at that time this forum was down, otherwise I'd likely never would have even read it.

But I did, and you did say it, so given your "Freudian" :lol: slip, it WAS definitely worth noting to others in this forum.

You'll also notice that during your last several blatant ad hominem attacks, that I haven't responded in kind (e. g. at your level).

But carry on, you started this thread under false pretenses, you've been slammed by numerous others in this thread.

We just have to sit back and let you entertain us all with your clear lack of knowledge and intellect. :smokey:

It's kind of like collecting baseball cards, and I'm collecting the entire set of your butt nuggets, keep them coming, wheeee, this IS fun! :)

[franksargent]

Except that the earth isn't a closed system and you have this big energy producer pumping energy into the system which could be used to break down seawater into hydrogen and oxygen to use when its dark...

But since we don't know the (in)efficiency of this method, why go through a process like it, when we can use the solar power directly, instead of using it to produce even less efficient energy?

[vinea]

But since we don't know the (in)efficiency of this method, why go through a process like it, when we can use the solar power directly, instead of using it to produce even less efficient energy?

Looking out the window...it appears to be dark. I wonder why that is?

[franksargent]

Looking out the window...it appears to be dark. I wonder why that is?

That's when we use the resources we already have, D'oh! :\ From the very same source (the sun) and converted to useful energy by old Mother Nature!

[franksargent]

Gore Gets a Cold Shoulder (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html)



Dr. Gray- international expert and paid-off denier of the EnviroMessiah.

In other news... Generation Investment Management (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009730) news from that fringe "Wall Street Journal"

<Grist for the mill. Wash, rinse, repeat.>

Not Another Ad Hominem Bias Wias With Intent Op-Ed Hit Piece from the Wall Street URINAL! :lol:

[franksargent]

At least you admitted it. :\


Just for you... and by popular demand. :)

Al Gore's fish dinner turns out green (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/19/eagore119.xml)

Rather, the restaurant later confirmed, they had come from one of the world's few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations. The Gores' spokesman, Kalee Kreider, admitted that the fish has been on the menu, but said: "The Gores absolutely agree with this humane society and the rest of the environmental community about illegally caught Chilean sea bass.

[vinea]

That's when we use the resources we already have, D'oh! :\ From the very same source (the sun) and converted to useful energy by old Mother Nature!

Oddly, I would think that the combustion of hydrogen is cleaner than the combustion of fossil fuels...granted in pure oxygen environment very ineffecient but if we manage to figure out semi-efficient utilization of solar then the inefficiencies are secondary because they are cheaper in comparison to the costs of burning coal for electricity.

[Aquafire]

That was what showed up in MY email box, and at that time this forum was down, otherwise I'd likely never would have even read it.

Aghh... quit the bullshit Frank...

The forum was never down.

Your just lying to cover your bad netiquette.

At the time of that posting, I was on the forums for over three hours without a hitch.

Proof ?

Being an admin and mod on other forums, it is quite normal for posters to make a post or put a complaint into the 'feedback' areas in relation to such downtimes..

So stop telling porkies..

You'll also notice that during your last several blatant ad hominem attacks, that I haven't responded in kind (e. g. at your level).

Please allow me to refresh your memory.

You started the ball rolling with this intentionally antagonistic remark...

You really ARE out of your league here sonny boy!

And what exactly did I do, to deserve that ad hominem..?

Oh I know...!

I posted a link to the ridiculous notion of "Burning Salt Water' which if you check... was in keeping with my joking about everyone drinking a gallon of salt water to keep the sea levels down.

But instead of taking it in as part of the humour of that post, you went off half cocked...shooting your mouth off about your alleged knowledge on all things concerning thermodynamics etc

And as for me firing back at you...it is regrettable.

But like anyone who is attacked without cause or justification, I am entitled to defend myself.

Remember Frank, in many parts of the world (not just the USA), calling someone 'sonny boy' or 'boy' anything, most especially to an adult, runs the risk, not only of being clearly condescending, but also of being intentionally racist.:grumble:

And given your age and your apparent 'left wing political leanings'...then you have no excuses...:no:

So if I were you, I'd simply apologize for going off on an insulting tangent from the very beginning.

It's up to you Frank.

Go on, be a man.

And "do the right thing'

Cheers

Aquafire

[franksargent]

Aghh... quit the bullshit Frank...

The forum was never down.

Your just lying to cover your bad netiquette.

At the time of that posting, I was on the forums for over three hours without a hitch.

Proof ?

Being an admin and mod on other forums, it is quite normal for posters to make a post or put a complaint into the 'feedback' areas in relation to such downtimes..

So stop telling porkies..



Please allow me to refresh your memory.

You started the ball rolling with this intentionally antagonistic remark...



And what exactly did I do, to deserve that ad hominem..?

Oh I know...!

I posted a link to the ridiculous notion of "Burning Salt Water' which if you check... was in keeping with my joking about everyone drinking a gallon of salt water to keep the sea levels down.

But instead of taking it in as part of the humour of that post, you went off half cocked...shooting your mouth off about your alleged knowledge on all things concerning thermodynamics etc

And as for me firing back at you...it is regrettable.

But like anyone who is attacked without cause or justification, I am entitled to defend myself.

Remember Frank, in many parts of the world (not just the USA), calling someone 'sonny boy' or 'boy' anything, most especially to an adult, runs the risk, not only of being clearly condescending, but also of being intentionally racist.:grumble:

And given your age and your apparent 'left wing political leanings'...then you have no excuses...:no:

So if I were you, I'd simply apologize for going off on an insulting tangent from the very beginning.

It's up to you Frank.

Go on, be a man.

And "do the right thing'

Cheers

Aquafire

... except that I don't lie, ask the moderators here about the "... forums are too busy ..." message. Now remind me who started this thread under false pretenses?

My reply actually covered your two previous posts, it is quite clear what your position is, as was shown in a previous GW thread several month's ago, you made a unsubstantiated claim something along the lines of "I'll be back with links ..." and you basically disappeared. :\

EDIT: This post (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1067102&postcount=390) is what I'm referring to back in an April 2007 GW thread, and no, I won't rehash GW nihilists like M&M, TYVM! :no:

And please show us your previous reference as bold and underlined above, I guess I missed that one (EDIT - I found it), also it's a non sequitur as jokes go, based simply on the conservation of mass principle! :D

You get the last word, to me, it's all water off a duck's back, it's called being thick skinned, read my sig, FLAB, SLAB! :)

[franksargent]

Oddly, I would think that the combustion of hydrogen is cleaner than the combustion of fossil fuels...granted in pure oxygen environment very ineffecient but if we manage to figure out semi-efficient utilization of solar then the inefficiencies are secondary because they are cheaper in comparison to the costs of burning coal for electricity.

... in the sense that obtaining our energy needs from renewable (or other non-CO2 emitting) sources would be a good thing. Only time will tell if this method is more (or less) efficient then other methods of hydrogen extraction. The goal is reducing our GHG emissions, isn't it?

[e1618978]

6) Say all the oil in the Middle East were ~$10/barrel versus ~$100/barrel, you're going to tell me that we will see a 10X increase in oil consumption? Immediately? :\

Not immediately, but it will happen - it has happened in the past, in fact. Look at all the SUVs and Chineese factories that showed up in the 80s and 90s when oil was cheap.

The rest of your post didn't make any sense to me, and I certainly don't see how any of it could possibly be a rebuttal of conservation -> lower prices -> increased consumption. People drive less when the price of gas is high, and they buy gas guzzlers when the price of gas is low, same with industry.

Jesus on a popsicle stick will you cite your allegations?

http://airmouse.vox.com/library/post/al-gore-iii-caught-speeding-in-prius-released-to-maserati.html

[franksargent]

Not immediately, but it will happen - it has happened in the past, in fact. Look at all the SUVs and Chineese factories that showed up in the 80s and 90s when oil was cheap.

The rest of your post didn't make any sense to me, and I certainly don't see how any of it could possibly be a rebuttal of conservation -> lower prices -> increased consumption.



http://airmouse.vox.com/library/post/al-gore-iii-caught-speeding-in-prius-released-to-maserati.html

Try to give me a timeframe 100 years, 1000 years, it sure as heck wouldn't be 10 years, 1X per year increase over current levels? :lol:

Go back and CAREFULLY reread my post, if you still don't understand it, well I don't have the time right now to slowly walk you through it. :\

Making assumptions based on flawed premises is usually not a good thing, :\

[e1618978]

Try to give me a timeframe 100 years, 1000 years, it sure as heck wouldn't be 10 years, 1X per year increase over current levels? :lol:

Go back and CAREFULLY reread my post, if you still don't understand it, well I don't have the time right now to slowly walk you through it. :\

Making assumptions based on flawed premises is usually not a good thing, :\

Each of us thinks the other one is failing to understand or make a point, I think we are at a stalemate.

[Jubelum]

The "chilean sea bass" exchange was alleging that Gore was a hypocrite because he served chilean sea bass at a function, which is in danger of becoming a threatened species (or something like that - I forget the details). This claim against Gore was later disproved, when it was shown that he in fact served a specific kind of farm-raised fish that was nowhere near affecting the species' population.

To allude to this disproven claim by using the phrase is spreading the lie. Just like the use of other disproven phrases like "invented the internet". You actually show no aversion to doing this type of thing, frequently. It shows that you're intellectually dishonest about disproven right-wing smear tactics.

In fact, to be true to form, youshould change your sig to read "My Maserati runs on Chilean Sea Bass".

But I didn't, did I? Nor do I mention Gore or the entire controversy. Did I? Good.

Let me get this straight. By posting the name of a threatened species I am contributing to a lie, propagating a right-wing smear, am intellectually dishonest... all that? Wow. That was better than using my Easy button. Did you read the thread, either? You guys need to go back and read the context of things before you start tossing out the kind of "substance" above. Again, go deeper than reading three words and knee-jerking.

The Maserati belongs to Gore's daughter. Who cares.

[@_@ Artman]

http://airmouse.vox.com/library/post/al-gore-iii-caught-speeding-in-prius-released-to-maserati.html

So...

He has a masarati that gets 11mpg. Probably a lot more cars also - I would if I was that rich.

1. Ain't Al Gore, it's his son. 2. He got in the back seat of a Masarati, who's Masarati we don't seem to know from that tape. 3. Baseless bullshit.

Try again.

[screener]

But I didn't, did I? Nor do I mention Gore or the entire controversy. Did I? Good.

Let me get this straight. By posting the name of a threatened species I am contributing to a lie, propagating a right-wing smear, am intellectually dishonest... all that? Wow. That was better than using my Easy button. Did you read the thread, either? You guys need to go back and read the context of things before you start tossing out the kind of "substance" above. Again, go deeper than reading three words and knee-jerking.

The Maserati belongs to Gore's daughter. Who cares.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

To anyone that heard about the failed smear attack, your sig continues a falsehood.
What else could it possibly reference?

If I never heard of Chilean Sea Bass and asked what your sig meant, what would you tell me?

[Jubelum]

If I never heard of Chilean Sea Bass and asked what your sig meant, what would you tell me?

I really hesitate to explain it to you, because of the weeks of fun your posts regarding it have provided. I'm torn between demonstrating the silliness of your outrage, and letting it continue for my own enjoyment. Oh, well, all good things must come to an end:

I'd tell you that its because I do not buy the schtick of the environmentally hysterical, and that "I'd run my SUV on Chilean Sea Bass if I could", as a comedic affront to climate hysterics and to demonstrate that I am not buying the mandatory guilt of living a capitalist lifestyle. If you understood it in context, you'd see that it is self-deprecating humor, not "propagating a lie" about the EnviroMessiah.

There, you can relax now. Apology for that whole "what an asshole you are" (expletive nationality) accepted.

In the same vein, how much do you know about the Cat and the Watermelon? ;)

[Jubelum]

"Chilean Sea Bass" is the commercial name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonian_toothfish) for Patagonian Toothfish.

Appetizing, huh?

That is precisely why they do not belong at a wedding feast and in the tank of my, uh, tank. :D

[@_@ Artman]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/images/061129-sea-bass.jpg

[screener]

I really hesitate to explain it to you, because of the weeks of fun your posts regarding it have provided. I'm torn between demonstrating the silliness of your outrage, and letting it continue for my own enjoyment. Oh, well, all good things must come to an end:

I'd tell you that its because I do not buy the schtick of the environmentally hysterical, and that "I'd run my SUV on Chilean Sea Bass if I could", as a comedic affront to climate hysterics and to demonstrate that I am not buying the mandatory guilt of living a capitalist lifestyle. If you understood it in context, you'd see that it is self-deprecating humor, not "propagating a lie" about the EnviroMessiah.

There, you can relax now. Apology for that whole "what an asshole you are" (expletive nationality) accepted.

In the same vein, how much do you know about the Cat and the Watermelon? ;)
If you think it's fun, amusing, to have to explain yourself, well....

Glad to see you admit it's self-deprecating.

From the dictionary,
self-deprecating, meaning ‘belittling or disparaging oneself,

[Jubelum]

If you think it's fun, amusing, to have to explain yourself, well....

Glad to see you admit it's self-deprecating.


It's amusing to have to explain myself to someone who does not know what they are talking about in context, but is outraged anyway. It's fun to toy with such misguided silliness.

BTW- That I admit it's self-deprecating? Do you understand the purpose/nature of such humor? I "admitted" that I made a joke... about myself?
Admit... what was in plain sight... done of my own hand... the whole time? :lol: As if you got it the whole time and I was denying it. I LOVE this!

You're grasping here. Just when I thought I was bringing you to a point of contrition concerning your error, you sink even further by spewing even more silliness.

screener, just go ahead and admit that you (a) didn't get it and (b) went off anyway, so that we can move on. No harm, no foul, and thanks for the memories. 8-)

[midwinter]

I am not buying the mandatory guilt of living a capitalist lifestyle.

And there is the crux of it all.

[Jubelum]

And there is the crux of it all.

Of course that is the crux. Guilt ain't just for the Roman Catholic Church. ;)

[Northgate]

Why is asking someone to try and be a little more environmentally conscious equated to making them feel "guilty" of a capitalistic lifestyle?

I don't get the connection.

[Jubelum]

Why is asking someone to try and be a little more environmentally conscious equated to making them feel "guilty" of a capitalistic lifestyle?

I don't get the connection.

Of course not.

This is not about being "little more environmentally conscious"- get real. To claim that is all that Gore is after is a deliberate mischaracterization. This is about carbon taxes, 50 cent a gallon gas taxes, "windfall profits" taxes and creating a crisis atmosphere whereby we get more and more (that's right) government. This is about one more "crisis" that has a statist solution, like PATRIOT before it.

[screener]

It's amusing to have to explain myself to someone who does not know what they are talking about in context, but is outraged anyway. It's fun to toy with such misguided silliness.

BTW- That I admit it's self-deprecating? Do you understand the purpose/nature of such humor? I "admitted" that I made a joke... about myself?
You're grasping here. Just when I thought I was bringing you to a point of contrition concerning your error, you sink even further by spewing even more silliness.

screener, just go ahead and admit that you (a) didn't get it and (b) went off anyway, so that we can move on. No harm, no foul, and thanks for the memories. 8-)

No outrage, just happy that you belittled yourself, according to the dictionary in reference to your use of "self-deprecating", in explaining your joke.

I got it the first time around, but was willing to let you show me the error of my ways.
But you showed me it was all about the "EnviroMessiah".

Unbridled hatred is tough to go against, all I can say is it "belittles" the hater.

By getting you on the defensive, fun as it was for you, is probably the best I can do so I'll settle for that.

[Jubelum]

By getting you on the defensive, fun as it was for you, is probably the best I can do so I'll settle for that.

On the defensive? By showing everyone that you don't understand self-deprecating humor? What a coup! :lol:

You still don't get that you haven't "made" me "belittle" myself- I made the joke MONTHS ago, long before your juvenile, red-eyed defense of Albert Gore, Jr.

But hey, by all means, please continue on with this manifest defeat. Or just admit that you're wrong. Either way, smiles abound on this side of the screen. :D

[midwinter]

Of course that is the crux. Guilt ain't just for the Roman Catholic Church. ;)

Well, the other thing I noticed up there that I didn't point out is this:

I'm increasingly convinced most conservatives don't give a rat's ass about global warming (and many even agree with many of the principles getting discussed) and only oppose it because they get a kick out of watching the liberals respond.

[screener]

On the defensive? By showing everyone that you don't understand self-deprecating humor? What a coup! :lol:

You still don't get that you haven't "made" me "belittle" myself- I made the joke MONTHS ago, long before your juvenile, red-eyed defense of Albert Gore, Jr.

But hey, by all means, please continue on with this manifest defeat. Or just admit that you're wrong. Either way, smiles abound on this side of the screen. :D

If you had said, I'm an idiot, referencing yourself with a smile, that would be self-deprecating humor.

Making a snide, belittling joke about someone else would be deprecating.

For an arrogant guy as yourself, I can see where the differences, subtle as they are, would be hard to grasp.

[Outsider]

Well, the other thing I noticed up there that I didn't point out is this:

I'm increasingly convinced most conservatives don't give a rat's ass about global warming (and many even agree with many of the principles getting discussed) and only oppose it because they get a kick out of watching the liberals respond.

That and they are money-grubbing selfish hypocrites. Hell, if you knew the rapture was coming would you give a crap about the planet? If you believed in an invisible super-wizard you would arrogantly smirk at your screen because you have SPECIAL knowledge of how the world works.

[Jubelum]

If you had said, I'm an idiot, referencing yourself with a smile, that would be self-deprecating humor.

Making a snide, belittling joke about someone else would be deprecating.

For an arrogant guy as yourself, I can see where the differences, subtle as they are, would be hard to grasp.

Oh, so now you, who still does not understand self-deprecating humor, is an expert of the topic.

You still don't get it, and keep posting the same thing over and over... this is a pleasure to watch.

[Jubelum]

That and they are money-grubbing selfish hypocrites. Hell, if you knew the rapture was coming would you give a crap about the planet? If you believed in an invisible super-wizard you would arrogantly smirk at your screen because you have SPECIAL knowledge of how the world works.

Conservatives have a monopoly on that "money grubbing" and "selfish hypocrite" thing? Here we go!

What does this have to do with the super-wizard? Is he somehow related to the EnviroMessiah? And can we get Dubya and Obama to call up to heaven and become "instruments?"

:smokey:

[franksargent]

On the defensive? By showing everyone that you don't understand self-deprecating humor? What a coup! :lol:

You still don't get that you haven't "made" me "belittle" myself- I made the joke MONTHS ago, long before your juvenile, red-eyed defense of Albert Gore, Jr.

But hey, by all means, please continue on with this manifest defeat. Or just admit that you're wrong. Either way, smiles abound on this side of the screen. :D

MY SUV RUNS ON CHILEAN SEA BASS

... fits into self-deprecating humor?

Self-deprecating or self-effacing humour is superficially similar to racial and stereotype jokes, but involves the targets laughing at themselves. It is said to maintain a sense of perspective and to be powerful in defusing confrontations. Probably the best-known and most common example is Jewish humour. The egalitarian tradition was strong among the Jewish communities of Eastern Europe in which the powerful were often mocked subtly. Prominent members of the community were kidded during social gatherings, part a good-natured tradition of humour as a leveling device. A similar situation exists in the Scandinavian "Ole and Lena" joke.

Self-deprecating humour has also been used by politicians, who recognize its ability to acknowledge controversial issues and steal the punch of criticism - for example, when Abraham Lincoln was accused of being two-faced he replied, "If I had two faces, do you think this is the one I’d be wearing?".

Types of Jokes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke#Types_of_jokes)

Self-deprecation (etymologically better is self-depreciation) is a form of humor in which people or comedians make jokes about themselves, their shortcomings, or their culture, usually without being guided by any underlying self-esteem issues.

The boundaries for this kind of humor are often more relaxed than for other kinds of humor. For example, whereas a Jewish joke told by a non-Jew may be considered anti-semitic and offensive, the same joke told by a Jew may be taken in good humor. The ability to laugh at oneself and the absurdities in one's own culture is often considered a good character trait.

Many comedians use self-deprecating humor to avoid seeming arrogant or pompous, and to help the audience identify with them. A number of comics, including Conan O'Brien, Phyllis Diller, Rodney Dangerfield, Jon Stewart, Woody Allen, Seth Neller, Dave Hughes, and, later in his career, George Burns - built their entire acts around their own perceived unattractiveness, weight, age and/or lack of appeal to the opposite sex.

Self-deprecation can also be used to better oneself in social situations.

Self-deprecation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation)

Is it A joke? YES! Is it humor? YES! Is it in any way, shape, or form self-deprecating humor? Definitely NOT! :rolleyes:

And if it is self-deprecating humor in your "warped" view, then you're the only one in on your inside joke! :p

Whatever it's origination or intent has been lost to those of us who are not inside YOUR head from the get go.

And considering your views on AGW (in general) there is NO WAY that what you call "self-deprecating humor" is IN FACT self-deprecating humor to the larger audience.

It might more properly be categorized as satire or caustic or bitter or snide or,

Other taboos are challenged by sick jokes and gallows humour; to joke about disability is considered in this group.

or,

Anti-jokes are jokes that aren't funny in regular sense, and often can be decidedly unfunny, but rely on the let-down from the expected joke to be funny in itself.

or more likely just simply mean spirited "humor."

Now take my sig (added in response to yours after you re-inflicted yours in this thread),

My Honda Civic runs on (and over) WHITE trash.

Now, I don't even remotely consider that "self-deprecating humor," it's mean spirited humor, nothing more, nothing less. And it mimics yours quite closely.

So, I'll ask you once again, how do you even remotely consider your sig "self-deprecating humor?"

[Jubelum]

I'll say again. Go and read the context.

a form of humor in which people or comedians make jokes about themselves, their shortcomings, or their culture, usually without being guided by any underlying self-esteem issues.

I made a joke about my lack of caring about environmental hysterics. A shortcoming to all of you to be sure.

The boundaries for this kind of humor are often more relaxed than for other kinds of humor. For example, whereas a Jewish joke told by a non-Jew may be considered anti-semitic and offensive, the same joke told by a Jew may be taken in good humor. The ability to laugh at oneself and the absurdities in one's own culture is often considered a good character trait.


I've been told that not buying the GW hysteria is absurd. There ya go. And as a conservative, I reserve the right to make light of my OWN side, by saying that I would run my auto on an endangered fish and not think twice. ;)

Many comedians use self-deprecating humor to avoid seeming arrogant or pompous, and to help the audience identify with them.
Around here, we conservatives deal with one assault after another, so what is wrong with my finally "internalizing" your assessment of my position. I'm a cold-heartless planet hater who wants to kill fish and drive a fat-capitalist SUV... all while enjoying no guilt.

(I'm sure screener appreciates the help, BTW) ;) You guys are taking yourselves much, much too seriously these days. All of this concern over a long-had signature is, well, wonderful. And also, please let me know what kind of mileage you are getting out of those bubbas... that's a much higher calorie-to-weight ratio than Chilean Sea Bass. Maybe I should consider "alternative fuels" from Mississippi instead of the south Pacific? :D

[franksargent]

I'll say again. Go and read the context.

If you have to constantly explain the joke's origin/meaning, it isn't a joke anymore.

Now every time we do see it, that is the context that we CURRENTLY see it in.

So in the CURRENT (and in the future), that's all we'll ever see, it's CURRENT context.

I'd strongly suggest NOT attempting a career as a standup comedian! :D

[Jubelum]

If you have to constantly explain the joke's origin/meaning, it isn't a joke anymore.

Funny thing is, I've never had to explain it until screener wet his Pull-Ups over it. It's been up there for months.
:\

[franksargent]

Funny thing is, I've never had to explain it until screener wet his Pull-Ups over it.
:\

OK, whatever, keep your sig, at least I know that you're not actually running your SUV on CSB!

However, I'm removing my recent addition, since, at least in my view, it's a "bit" over the top.

[Jubelum]

However, I'm removing my recent addition, since, at least in my view, it's a "bit" over the top.

Well, I'm sorry to see it go. I guess with all the shots required to recover fuel at NASCAR events, it was getting cost prohibitive. ;)

Northgate has me interested in running my car on Friedman Units.
We won't know if the technology will work for at least six months.

[screener]

Funny thing is, I've never had to explain it until screener wet his Pull-Ups over it. It's been up there for months.
:\

Wet his pull-ups?

Sounds like you're still having a lot of fun.:lol:

I said something about it, not thinking it meant anything in some other thread a couple of weeks? ago.

I noticed later you had pulled it and in response to Aslan commenting I couldn't make a difference seeing as I'm Canadian, took credit.
I thought you were big enough to see it was a dumb innuendo laden signature.

Then you "wet your pull-ups" and put it back.

Wether or not you meant self-depracating is now beside the point as you are floundering now and showing how small minded you are.

I said I was willing to settle but here you are, defending yourself again.

Hope you're having a blast.

[Jubelum]

Hope you're having a blast.

I certainly am. Thanks for your support and entertainment. :smokey:

[screener]

I certainly am. Thanks for your support and entertainment. :smokey:

Different strokes and all that.:lol:

[FormerLurker]

Northgate has me interested in running my car on Friedman Units.
We won't know if the technology will work for at least six months.Much funnier than your current sig. Maybe you should give that one a whirl for a while.

[Frank777]

That and they are money-grubbing selfish hypocrites. Hell, if you knew the rapture was coming would you give a crap about the planet?

I really wish ignorant people who don't begin to understand other people's religious beliefs would keep their inane ideas to themselves.

If you actually knew anything about dispensationalist Christianity, you would at least know that Believers are called to "endure to the end" which pretty much precludes the idea of turning the Earth into their personal toilet.

[tonton]

I really wish ignorant people who don't begin to understand other people's religious beliefs would keep their inane ideas to themselves.

If you actually knew anything about dispensationalist Christianity, you would at least know that Believers are called to "endure to the end" which pretty much precludes the idea of turning the Earth into their personal toilet.

Then why are they doing it anyway? Why not supoprt Kyoto and other measures that are trying to make this world a better place, to the bitter end?

[Jubelum]

I really wish ignorant people who don't begin to understand other people's religious beliefs would keep their inane ideas to themselves.

If you actually knew anything about dispensationalist Christianity, you would at least know that Believers are called to "endure to the end" which pretty much precludes the idea of turning the Earth into their personal toilet.

It's those evil Neo-con pre-trib bastards we're worried about.
Conversely, never mind that 12th Imam talk. ;)

[Frank777]

Then why are they doing it anyway? Why not supoprt Kyoto and other measures that are trying to make this world a better place, to the bitter end?

Because Kyoto is a deeply flawed treaty that has done - and will do - nothing for the problem it claims to solve. There are also questions about the scope of the problem and whether it is even possible to "solve" the issue of 'climate change' (formerly called global warming.)

Both sides of this issue are being debated by people of all faiths and personal beliefs.

That, of course, doesn't stop bigots like you from scapegoating a particular religion (which you don't like) for the state of the world's problems.

[tonton]

Because Kyoto is a deeply flawed treaty that has done - and will do - nothing for the problem it claims to solve.

Oh come on. You know as well as I do that the simple reason the US doesn't support Kyoto is that it costs us more.

[Outsider]

I really wish ignorant people who don't begin to understand other people's religious beliefs would keep their inane ideas to themselves.

If you actually knew anything about dispensationalist Christianity, you would at least know that Believers are called to "endure to the end" which pretty much precludes the idea of turning the Earth into their personal toilet.

That is pretty circular reasoning. What constitutes 'the end'? Is it decided by God? What is it waiting for? The reasoning among many fundamentalist Christian, of whom I am surrounded by and are in my family, is that the Earth can be brought to the edge of destruction because 1. God won't let it happen and will restore it, or 2. It's a sign of the end times, so that's good news to them. You make the fatal error in assuming that all Christians are as righteous and noble as you. Most are selfish ignorant morons.

[Jubelum]

Most are selfish ignorant morons.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jubelum_ammo/thumb.jpg

:rolleyes: :no:

[Frank777]

Oh come on. You know as well as I do that the simple reason the US doesn't support Kyoto is that it costs us more.

So then it's not based on Christianity after all? Just economics, and the fact the treaty doesn't treat all economies equally. That's all I'm saying.

Outsider's post blamed Christian eschatology for Kyoto's non-adoption by the U.S.
That is beyond insane.

That is pretty circular reasoning. What constitutes 'the end'? Is it decided by God? What is it waiting for? The reasoning among many fundamentalist Christian, of whom I am surrounded by and are in my family, is that the Earth can be brought to the edge of destruction because 1. God won't let it happen and will restore it, or 2. It's a sign of the end times, so that's good news to them. You make the fatal error in assuming that all Christians are as righteous and noble as you. Most are selfish ignorant morons.

The Earth won't be brought to the edge of destruction, it will actually be destroyed. The Lord creates a new Heaven and a new Earth for humanity to dwell in. The Bible says this occurs 1000 years after Jesus returns and sets up an earthly kingdom that abolishes poverty, disease and war.

I don't think of myself and righteous or particularly noble by comparison to others. I've studied Biblical eschatology for twenty years. I don't see anything in the Bible that would cause me (or other believers) to abandon the idea of doing good because things on the Earth are supposed to eventually get very bad.

[franksargent]

So then it's not based on Christianity after all? Just economics, and the fact the treaty doesn't treat all economies equally. That's all I'm saying.

Outsider's post blamed Christian eschatology for Kyoto's non-adoption by the U.S.
That is beyond insane.



The Earth won't be brought to the edge of destruction, it will actually be destroyed. The Lord creates a new Heaven and a new Earth for humanity to dwell in. The Bible says this occurs 1000 years after Jesus returns and sets up an earthly kingdom that abolishes poverty, disease and war.

I don't think of myself and righteous or particularly noble by comparison to others. I've studied Biblical eschatology for twenty years. I don't see anything in the Bible that would cause me (or other believers) to abandon the idea of doing good because things on the Earth are supposed to eventually get very bad.

The origins of the doctrine of the rapture are hotly debated. The Orthodox, Reformed, and Roman Catholic churches have no tradition of such a teaching and reject the doctrine, in part because they cannot find any reference to it among any of the early Church fathers[1] and because they interpret prophetic scriptures in either an amillennial or postmillenial fashion, as being more symbolic than literal.

And having been born and raised Roman Catholic obviously never believed in this form of "trash talking." :\

And as a confirmed agnostic (for what should be obvious reasons) for the last 40 years, the idea is forever extremely preposterous and absurd! :no:

I learned a long time ago to never trap my mindset into forever extremely preposterous and absurd tiny boxes. :D

[franksargent]

That is pretty circular reasoning. What constitutes 'the end'? Is it decided by God? What is it waiting for? The reasoning among many fundamentalist Christian, of whom I am surrounded by and are in my family, is that the Earth can be brought to the edge of destruction because 1. God won't let it happen and will restore it, or 2. It's a sign of the end times, so that's good news to them. You make the fatal error in assuming that all Christians are as righteous and noble as you. Most are selfish ignorant morons.

http://blog.kir.com/archives/LakewoodInternonalCenter.jpg

http://tellepsen.com/JoelGrandOpening.jpg

Currently the high water mark of Evangelical giving (unto themselves that is)!

Project Details
> Total project cost: $95 million
> Construction cost: $75 million
> Total seating capacity: 16,000
> Total man-hours expended: 1.4 million
> Number of contractors and consultants: 50
> Length of low-voltage cable used: 57 miles
> Amount of air cooled in completed building: More than 1 million cu ft per minute
> Amount of carpet placed: 50,000 sq yd
> New and existing lighting fixtures in facility: 7,000
> Number of doors in facility: 1,000
> Number of new toilets installed: 296

:rolleyes:

[@_@ Artman]

Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig)

Max Blumenthal's latest takes us on a shocking and at times bizarre tour of right-wing Pastor John Hagee's annual Washington-Israel Summit, blowing the cover off the Christian Zionist movement in the process. Starring Joe Lieberman, Tom DeLay, Pastor John Hagee, Ambassador Dore Gold and a host of rapture-ready evangelicals praying for Armaggedon.

Bat. Shit. Crazy.

[Frank777]

I'm not a big fan of Osteen, but I don't see the problem with the price tag of a facility that will be housing over 20,000 attendees, a national ministry office presence as well as church outreach and other ministries. It is, after all, a converted basketball arena.

It probably shares a comparable footprint to Al Gore's houses. ;)

And once again, secular ignorance rears its head. $95 million is a literal drop in the bucket compared to Evangelical spending on overseas missions, including ministry to HIV/AIDS suffering in Africa, famine relief in parts of Asia and the provision of sometimes full hospital services in remote parts of the globe.

[franksargent]

I'm not a big fan of Osteen, but I don't see the problem with the price tag of a facility that will be housing over 20,000 attendees, a national ministry office presence as well as church outreach and other ministries. It is, after all, a converted basketball arena.

It probably shares a comparable footprint to Al Gore's houses. ;)

And once again, secular ignorance rears its head. $95 million is a literal drop in the bucket compared to Evangelical spending on overseas missions, including ministry to HIV/AIDS suffering in Africa, famine relief in parts of Asia and the provision of sometimes full hospital services in remote parts of the globe.

What EXACTLY does that mean, think about it for at least a FEW seconds.

Onward christian soldiers (with strings firmly attached to themselves and those they must "convert" and their "self anointed and approved" methodologies).

And I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say, it should be blatantly obvious where I'm coming from, regardless of your reply. :no:

[Jubelum]

What EXACTLY does that mean, think about it for at least a FEW seconds.

Onward christian soldiers (with strings firmly attached to themselves and those they must "convert" and their "self anointed and approved" methodologies).

And I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say, it should be blatantly obvious where I'm coming from, regardless of your reply. :no:

Wow. Such incredible ignorance of what missionaries actually do. :no:
How many do you know? Do you have any grounding on this issue?

[franksargent]

Wow. Such incredible ignorance of what missionaries actually do. :no:
How many do you know? Do you have any grounding on this issue?

A missionary is a member of a religion who works to convert those who do not share the missionary's faith; someone who proselytizes. Judaism, Mandaeism, Hinduism, Parsees, Shinto and faiths focused on ancestor cult or local spirits make little or no effort to convert those who do not share their beliefs, but many religious groups engage in missionary activities.

Unfortunately, way, Way, WAY too many. :\ But then, the term I'd prefer to use is accosted.

As to your second question; What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I seek to build a common bridge for ALL of humankind, that ALL of humanity can cross together and of their OWN free will.

[giant]

Wow. Such incredible ignorance of what missionaries actually do. :no:
How many do you know? Do you have any grounding on this issue?
Personally, I also know a few, but what I have significant experience with and know a lot more people from are christian aid organizations working in war zones. It's no secret that compared to actual aid workers in those environments, evangelical missionaries are in the way and completely useless.

[Outsider]

My next door neighbor's sister is going to Norway to do missionary work. They are Southern baptist. Now, I'm no expert on modern Scandinavia, but I don't think she is going there to 'help' anyone physically, but to proselytize them. It could have something to do with the 'atheistic epidemic' up there.

[@_@ Artman]

My next door neighbor's sister is going to Norway to do missionary work. They are Southern baptist. Now, I'm no expert on modern Scandinavia, but I don't think she is going there to 'help' anyone physically, but to proselytize them. It could have something to do with the 'atheistic epidemic' up there.

Sweden just booted the Creationists out of their schools (http://www.thelocal.se/8790//20071015/). That "epidemic" is spreading. :D :smokey:

[Jubelum]

I think it is interesting that a bunch of people who are constantly making emotional pleas to "do more" and "love" and "help each other" find fault when people do exactly that, but not in the specific, government-run way they personally approve of.

It shows the real story behind all of that feel-good, pseudo-consciousness-raising. It's not about supporting (or at least leaving alone) people who want to give of themselves to help others- it's about doing it the PC liberal way. Either you care like they say you should care (like tonton said, by paying high taxes and letting the government do it) or you are "in the way" or "just there to evangelize."

I feel sorry for those of you that have such a low opinion of people... people who mostly could be making a hell of a lot more money and have a better quality of life by just staying home and not taking the call to help personally. One guy from my church left a job making six digits as an RN to take his teacher wife and go to Brazil... to do healthcare in villages and teach math. The village elders are hostile to Christianity and they do not evangelize actively... but guess what... they have been there for over three years, helping better lives in that community. I guess they are "in the way" of the government "aid" workers who never show up. No reports of that yet. :rolleyes:

There are those, believe it or not, who feel there is a higher calling than just paying taxes and "letting someone else do it." You should be lauding their efforts to make things better, instead, we have this perverse snarkfest.

I love watching the knees jerk in chorus like the Rockettes around here when ANYONE dares to say that those fscking Christians are doing good in the world.

[giant]

I guess they are "in the way" of the government "aid" workers who never show up. No reports of that yet.
When were the words you quoted discussed in the context of government? If you can't understand what you read without injecting your fantasies into it, ask an adult to explain it to you. Not to mention that this quote of yours suggests gross misunderstanding of humanitarian work, the organizations involved or the roles they play.

And, really, "one guy from my church"? What have you done? I've worked with christian aid organizations for almost a decade. These are the people who were bringing in food and supplies to villagers on the northern alliance front lines while B52s are dropping bombs within hundreds of yards. These are the people providing water to people in Iraqi villages that were destroyed by the war. Get off your soapbox and recognize that you don't speak for the christians risking their lives to help people. These are the christians doing far more with their lives than some guy who sits at home polishing his gun to ron paul on youtube.

[Jubelum]

When were the words you quoted discussed in the context of government? If you can't understand what you read without injecting your fantasies into it, ask an adult to explain it to you. Not to mention that this quote of yours suggests gross misunderstanding of humanitarian work, the organizations involved or the roles they play.

And, really, "one guy from my church"? What have you done? I've worked with christian aid organizations for almost a decade. Get off your soapbox and recognize that you don't speak for the christians risking their lives to help people. These are the christians doing far more with their lives than some guy who sits at home polishing his gun to ron paul on youtube.

You don't know me, giant. You do not know who I contribute to, what I have done in the Christian relief world, and if I might just be one of those "aid workers". As usual, more farcical assumptions of "authority" where you could not possibly be one- on the topic of "ME."

So, as before, Joose Sticka To Whatcha Know, Jes?

[Jubelum]

Anyway.. back on topic...

Gore says that healthcare is a "right."
(http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20071016123925.aspx)

I'm very interested in what other "rights" we can invent. Maybe a right to own a car? A right to free college education? This ought to be FUN!
<goes looking for Constitution>

[@_@ Artman]

Anyway.. back on topic...

Gore says that healthcare is a "right."
(http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20071016123925.aspx)

I'm very interested in what other "rights" we can invent. Maybe a right to own a car? A right to free college education? This ought to be FUN!
<goes looking for Constitution>

Well, when the lowest trust in the Federal government now rivals Watergate era levels (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28795&pg=1)...somethings got to give. Where is the tipping point? Will the Patriot Act successfully prevent an impending outbreak of democracy?


This is a public service announcement! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPeWSpB_7w4)

With guitar
Know your rights all three of them

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a crime!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights

And number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation

Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang

Know these rights

Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.

Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................

Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to...

Finally then I will read you your rights

You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you

Listen to this

Run

[Jubelum]

Jube, Al Gore says universal health care should be a right-- not that it is.

And now that we've finished picking fly shit out of the pepper shaker...

OK, Gore thinks that this "should" be a right... it does not change the discussion. What is the damn difference when it comes to application? There is none.

As usual for the left, Gore is attempting to use the concept of "rights" interchangeably with "entitlement." They are not interchangeable. A RIGHT is something on a totally different channel than a government-bestowed entitlement.

[Jubelum]

Well, when the lowest trust in the Federal government now rivals Watergate era levels (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28795&pg=1)...somethings got to give. Where is the tipping point? Will the Patriot Act successfully prevent an impending outbreak of democracy?



You know, I still have not forgotten how you and I are going to single-handedly (maybe with the help of Spammy and Sego) free the planet from Fascism. Keep your powder dry, friend!

I'm not interested in having "new rights"- I'd be happy to have back the rights I've already lost.

[@_@ Artman]

You know, I still have not forgotten how you and I are going to single-handedly (maybe with the help of Spammy and Sego) free the planet from Fascism. Keep your powder dry, friend!

I'm not interested in having "new rights"- I'd be happy to have back the rights I've already lost.


WHITE RIOT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9eLeZS9OeY) :D

[Jubelum]

And he's saying health care should be a right, which means it is not one currently.

There is a big difference between rights we have and rights we do not have.

That's a pretty bright line distinction, Jube.

:err:

I think that either way, if Gore and their ilk could have it their way, it would quickly BE a "right." And once their new entitlement is a "right" then it will never go away. They know what they are doing when they choose that word. New entitlements, now given the linguistic cover of "rights," are just the next phase of the Long March.

[giant]

New entitlements, now given the linguistic cover of "rights,"
An entitlement already implies or is itself a right. Maybe you mean "entitlement program" when you write "entitlement", which wouldn't make any sense either since an entitlement program is by definition a program based on a kind of right. The only explanation for what you've posted is that you are confused about the distinction between legal and natural rights, and for that I'd recommend an education.

Still, I think Gore is actually advocating that health care be considered a natural right, which is a more interesting philosophical question. If we assume that there are natural rights, and this country was founded on the implication that there are and that a right to life is one of them, then we get into the whole right to life discussion, which is an interesting one that examines the whats and whys of natural rights, a topic of discussion very popular with real libertarians.

[Jubelum]

I'd recommend an education...
very popular with real libertarians.

You just cant help yourself, can you? :lol:

[SDW2001]

SDW, you make NO substitutive contributions to these threads, how many times, and how many people, does it take before it even begins to sink into your ... :\

Go back to watching Faux Noise or whatever, since you seem unable to add any constructive criticism to this current discussion. :\

That is just an incredibly cheap and ridiculous thing to say. In this thread alone I posted two substantive arguments about Gore and why he SHOULD run. The other was about the peace prize and how I didn't feel it had anything to do with "peace" in this year. You're the one that went flying off the handle. So go away.

Here's my challenge to the Republicans or others opposing Gore:

1. Prove that he has a Maserati (don't just say it). Bush has a freebasing lab in his basement. Avideo of him getting in a Maserati is just proof that he rode in one. Owned by his sister. Does he make buying decisions for his sister?
2. Prove that he supports the common carbon trading principle.
3. Prove that he consumes more energy than anyone else of his level of fame, in or near his income bracket, who is required to travel frequently. Just name one person.

If you can do those things, then you have a pretty good case and I'll give you my full attention, and so will a lot of other liberals. If all these things are true, with the strength of the Conservative smear machine, why hasn't this gotten more attention?

I frankly don't care if he owns a Maserati. I don't know whether or not he supports carbon trading, but you must admit it seems likely. Your third question is a strawman. He consumes far more energy than an average person, yet he consistently lectures average people about their energy use. I don't see what his income level has to do with it. Also, his travel is his choice. He's not "required" to do anything. And when he does travel, it's not in the most efficient way.

Therein lies the rub. He's running around, taking private jets, then telling a soccer mom not to drive her Suburban anymore. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

None of that changes what I think though: He'd be a good candidate at this stage. I think he has a good shot at winning if he ran, for the reasons I listed earlier.

If he's qualified, and there's no one better, then he should win. Obviously the Nobel Committee thought there was "no one better". What's wrong with that?

So... you can point out an alternative... or you can argue your opinion that he wasn't qualified. Of course your opinion doesn't really matter here, does it?

First, the Nobel committee has become an unmitigated joke. This is demonstrated in their selection of the terrorist Yasser Arafat for the prize. The Peace Prize does not mean what it once did. And their justification for Gore's prize just sounds absurd...no matter if you're a Nobel expert or not. He hasn't promoted World Peace through his actions on this topic at all.

Secondly, I really think that question is about as dumb as can be. There are probably hundreds of people, if not thousands, that can be said to have done more for the cause of peace than Al Gore. What about the diplomats that convinced NK to give up it's nuke program? Hell, what about Cindy Sheehan, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn. Even they are bigger peace advocates. It's just a question of his cause fitting with World Peace™. I'm saying it doesn't.

[tonton]

And when he does travel, it's not in the most efficient way.

So what's the most "efficient" way he could travel? Obviously, unless you're being obtuse, you'll admit the fact that the most efficient way he could travel, without seriously threatening his safety or that of others, is by the most fuel-efficient private jet he can find. Name a better way. Just one.

The soccer mom doesn't need a Suburban. She does not. He needs a private Jet. Period. I'd love to see you claim otherwise. And not resort to changing the topic by saying "it doesn't matter if she needs it or not" because it does matter if she needs it.

Gore is trying to convince people who don't NEED an SUV not to drive one, and to drive something more efficient instead. He drives a Prius. I'm sure he chooses the most efficient private jet he can find under each individual situation.

Meanwhile, you call him a hypocrite for not following his suggestions for an "average" American. News flash: He's not an average American. And yes, that has everything to do with the reality of the situation.

I ask you again. If he is more energy conscious, in his action, than anyone else in his income bracket, then how is he being a hypocrite? And yes, this is a serious and important question you cannot dodge.

[tonton]

Secondly, I really think that question is about as dumb as can be. There are probably hundreds of people, if not thousands, that can be said to have done more for the cause of peace than Al Gore. What about the diplomats that convinced NK to give up it's nuke program? Hell, what about Cindy Sheehan, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn. Even they are bigger peace advocates. It's just a question of his cause fitting with World Peace™. I'm saying it doesn't.

Then you didn't read the Committee's conclusions on the matter. It was explained. You just don't accept the explanation.

Obviously, if you don't believe global warning is an addressable problem, you don't believe that slowing GW would help avoid the potential conflict caused by the economic problems associated with an environmental disaster. The Nobel Committe DOES believe GW is addressable (as do the vast majority of scientists), and that if it is not addressed, conflict will occur.

[tonton]

First, the Nobel committee has become an unmitigated joke. This is demonstrated in their selection of the terrorist Yasser Arafat for the prize. The Peace Prize does not mean what it once did. And their justification for Gore's prize just sounds absurd...no matter if you're a Nobel expert or not. He hasn't promoted World Peace through his actions on this topic at all.

It is a fact that Arafat worked with Peres and Rabin to end the conflict, and together they saw many gains toward that end.

Just because a few fascist assholes came in and reversed all that progress, then refused to work with Arafat at all, doesn't mean that progress wasn't made at the time.

[Jubelum]

Gore is trying to convince people who don't NEED an SUV not to drive one, and to drive something more efficient instead.

Convince... or legislate? Pardon me, tonton, but there are people in power who DO want to make the choice on behalf of individuals. The anti-SUV brigades are vocal and organized... it never takes long for a "request" to become a legislative "demand". We'll raise your consciousness, and if you don't do what we are suggesting, we'll just make it law so you have no choice.

Gore's free to suggest all day. Go for it Al!

The problem comes when legislators follow Gore to the next logical step in their minds- making decisions about who "needs" what, based on their made-up criteria... as is so often the case with any earthly commodity with these people. Exxon doesn't "need" those profits. You don't "need" a gun that holds more than five rounds. Soccer moms don't "need" SUVs with three kids and all their gear. We have choice and free will, at least in theory. It will remain until the guilt does not accomplish the goal, and the purveyors lunge for the law to make their will a reality.

And this is not just an SUV issue. People should be very careful about what they ask for... what happens if the government decides that we don't "need" this much privacy, etc. That's how we end up with PATRIOT. How much freedom is enough? How much do we deserve? How much "choice" are we entitled to?

[tonton]

Convince... or legislate?

Convince. When you see any push to legislate, go ahead and scream bloody murder. Until then, don't piss your pants for paranoia.

[tonton]

From: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9072304

"He told lawmakers if they don't act soon, they should expect their grandchildren to ask angry questions."

"He asked Congress to set an immediate freeze on emissions of carbon dioxide — that's the main pollutant responsible for trapping heat in the atmosphere. He said they should come up with a plan to slash those emissions 90 percent by 2050. He also called on Congress to ban incandescent light bulbs and require better gas mileage for cars."

"This was hardly the first time Gore tried to motivate Congress to respond to global warming. He first held a hearing on the topic more than 25 years ago, not long after he started in the House of Representatives."

Emissions control legislation does not equal choosing the kind of car you can drive.

[Outsider]

I haven't done the calculations but I wonder what is more fuel efficient for a cross country trip (from DC to LA); the 2,700 miles in a 25mpg car/SUV or 2,600 miles in a Gulfstream V.

Roughly,

The V has a 35,200lb fuel tank that can do about 5,800 miles. 1 gallon of fuel is 8.66 lbs so the tank is about 4,065 gallons. A 2,600 mile trip would use up about 1,821 gallons of fuel. Maximum capacity in a V is 18 plus 3 crew. Lets say 10 people per trip. That's 182 gallons per person.

If you pack them in (20 people on the trip) it's about 61 gallons per person. (Based on the G550 specs)


A car would need 108 gallons of fuel. For 4 people per car, that is 27 gallons per person. (Based on a 25mpg figure)

An SUV would need 168 gallons of fuel. For 4 people per SUV, that is 42 gallons per person. (Based on a 16mpg figure)


Edit: The reason for the 2600 / 2700 mile discrepancy between the jet and automobile is because a jet would have a straighter course than a car on the road.

[@_@ Artman]

Not directly and not yet. Remember, this is a moral issue on the level of defeating Nazism and Communism so, if we ultimately need to tell people what cars they can or can't drive, then so be it.

http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/images/vw/vw5.jpg

Godwin for the win! :smokey:

[Jubelum]

Emissions control legislation does not equal choosing the kind of car you can drive.

Do you not see some of the CAFE proposals as de facto banning of SUVs? This collection of fools in DC learned long ago that you do not usually have to go directly at something to ban it, you need only make it impossible, through other rules, for it to exist or be profitable.

A law saying "SUVs are illegal to manufacture" would never work. Why bother with that PR nightmare? Just push through a law that mandates a minimum 30mpg for any vehicle over 5000 pounds, for example, and PRESTO! Goal achieved.

So in a sense, it will take a long shot for an outright "ban." But a legislative ban is not necessary to manipulate the behaviour and restrict the choices available to the sheeple.

[franksargent]

Do you not see some of the CAFE proposals as de facto banning of SUVs? This collection of fools in DC learned long ago that you do not usually have to go directly at something to ban it, you need only make it impossible, through other rules, for it to exist or be profitable.

A law saying "SUVs are illegal to manufacture" would never work. Why bother with that PR nightmare? Just push through a law that mandates a minimum 30mpg for any vehicle over 5000 pounds, for example, and PRESTO! Goal achieved.

So in a sense, it will take a long shot for an outright "ban." But a legislative ban is not necessary to manipulate the behaviour and restrict the choices available to the sheeple.

The new LDT CAFE standards are a sham for the American automotive industry, since SUV's are their real (and perhaps only) moneymaker. CAFE should have been based on a MPG fleet average, rather than the recent move to a footprint standard (anyone who looks at the two types of statistical analyses OBJECTIVELY would tell you that vehicle weight alone produces the lowest residual (1-R(i)^2 is lowest for vehicle weight versus all other variable residuals (including Cd and vehicle footprint)) in a multivariate analysis. America trails much of the rest of the world in fleet average MPG requirements.

And we have already been down this road :rolleyes: in a previous GW thread. If I recall correctly, CAFE MPG fleet average hasn't risen significantly in something like 20 years for passenger vehicles! And LDT (which is the class where SUV's and minivans (blame Lee Iacocca for that brilliant end around)) weren't even into the "supposed" LDT CAFE standard until very recently.

You will forever be making sweeping over generalizations about the US goobermint, on that standard we all could bank on! :wow:

[franksargent]

I haven't done the calculations but I wonder what is more fuel efficient for a cross country trip (from DC to LA); the 2,700 miles in a 25mpg car/SUV or 2,600 miles in a Gulfstream V.

Roughly,

The V has a 35,200lb fuel tank that can do about 5,800 miles. 1 gallon of fuel is 8.66 lbs so the tank is about 4,065 gallons. A 2,600 mile trip would use up about 1,821 gallons of fuel. Maximum capacity in a V is 18 plus 3 crew. Lets say 10 people per trip. That's 182 gallons per person.

If you pack them in (20 people on the trip) it's about 61 gallons per person. (Based on the G550 specs)


A car would need 108 gallons of fuel. For 4 people per car, that is 27 gallons per person. (Based on a 25mpg figure)

An SUV would need 168 gallons of fuel. For 4 people per SUV, that is 42 gallons per person. (Based on a 16mpg figure)


Edit: The reason for the 2600 / 2700 mile discrepancy between the jet and automobile is because a jet would have a straighter course than a car on the road.

... the longer trip time involved in a cross country land vehicle (food and shelter).

Here is an interesting wikipedia link for relative efficiencies for PASSENGERS traveling by different methods (lower down are cargo freight costs (although I would disagree on waterborne as this is usually the cheapest when including ocean carriers (ships) into the waterborne component));

Fuel efficiency in transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation)

[Jubelum]

You will forever be making sweeping over generalizations about the US goobermint, on that standard we all could bank on! :wow:

:???: What exactly are you referring to as a "sweeping over generalization" ?

[Jubelum]

Not directly and not yet. Remember, this is a moral issue on the level of defeating Nazism and Communism so, if we ultimately need to tell people what cars they can or can't drive, then so be it.

:\

http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/img/graphics/1571_l.jpg

[Outsider]

... the longer trip time involved in a cross country land vehicle (food and shelter).

Here is an interesting wikipedia link for relative efficiencies for PASSENGERS traveling by different methods (lower down are cargo freight costs (although I would disagree on waterborne as this is usually the cheapest when including ocean carriers (ships) into the waterborne component));

Fuel efficiency in transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation)

I know, if you factor in time involved, private jet, in this circumstance is more than reasonable. It's not the absurd amount people make it out to be. For someone who travels cross country as much as Al does, and for security reasons needs to make it as secure as possible, there is no choice but to use a small jet.

[@_@ Artman]

Get Over It: Gore's Not Running (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15358994)

And why should he? The guy who was ridiculed by the Republicans as the "Ozone Man" (George H.W. Bush in '92) and "Captain Ozone" (John McCain in '96), and who, let's face it, elicited disdainful groans from many Democrats during his 2000 presidential bid, has gotten the last laugh. The fellow he lost to that year and the war he opposed two years later are extremely unpopular. Gore's speaking fees have gone through the roof and his net worth is estimated to be more than $100 million. Basking in this spotlight, he may be better off staying above the fray than in the ring where he becomes just one of the pack. Just ask President Fred Thompson.

[screener]

Top Ten Reasons Al Gore WON'T Run For President:

10. It's more fun being an "Enviro Rock Star"
9. He'd actually be expected to DO something rather than talk about doing something
8. He's afraid that having yet another residence might make him seem hypocritical
7. They haven't figured out how to make a completely hybrid Presidential limousine
6. He'd have to spend too much time switching all of the light bulbs in the White House to compact fluorescents
5. Leonardo DiCaprio isn't old enough to be his Vice-President yet
4. He might actually have to do something to further peace in the world
3. Once you've spent a night at the Oscars a state dinner is pretty lame
2. His preaching about "climate change" might suddenly appear to be partisan

And the number one reason Al Gore WON'T run for President:

1. He's holding out for "King of the World"

:)

Pretty funny. Nah.

I'm no Gore supporter per say, but you guys kill me.

After all the grief the right and some on the left have given him, he still garners more respect in the US and around the world than any right winger you'all can come up with.

This obviously pisses you off to no end.

[Jubelum]

And the number one reason Al Gore WON'T run for President:

:)

Ooo, Ooo, let me try!

11. Why settle for some little presidency when you are already the enviroMessiah?
12. They don't serve Chilean Sea Bass at state dinners. *
13. Still upset that wife and the PMRC actually got more done for their cause than he has.
14. Naomi Wolfe could not find earthtone dress shoes large enough for his carbon footprint.
15. Afraid of revisiting that whole "Al Gore's Macarena" thing
16. Couldn't get penciled into Tommy Lee Jones' campaign schedule.
17. Realized how ironic a book by Al Gore called " The Assault on Reason" really is...

Al Gore: Putting the MENTAL in environMental. I hope he never goes away.
And I hope that he can change the world without resorting to legislating it. :)

[screener]

Nah. Not really. Just having a little fun with his holiness. ;) Just a little levity. It would be hard for me to care less about Mr. Gore...until he starts turning his little crusade into laws and mandates.

His Holiness, EnviroMessiah, I don't have a problem with, I've been known to "Nickname" my favorite punching bag from time to time but, for good reason.

All he's doing is pointing out potential problems.

If his "little crusade" means better mileage for cars, trucks, what's wrong with that?

If his "little crusade" draws attention to humankind's effect on the world environment, what's wrong with that?

I remember the controversy about acid rain.
Nay-sayers, denials etc. was the norm, and yet I'm glad saner people prevailed, the 1990 Clean Air Act, signed by Bush 1.

It created a controversy about the cost, but,
http://www.treepower.org/news/bostonglobeacidrainpoliticsofpollution.html
Under the act, one of the most ambitious environmental initiatives ever passed, Congress ordered that sulfur emissions be cut to 50 percent of 1980 levels. But Congress didn't simply mandate pollution reductions. Instead, it set an overall cap and then allowed the power companies to make deals among themselves to reduce emissions. The result is a market of ``pollution credits'' that are traded on Wall Street, a program that has created so many efficiencies that it has cost about one-10th as much as expected. The market system works so well, in fact, that President Clinton touts it as the way to tackle global warming.

If the anti-acid rain people just gave up, where would we be today, not in a very good place.

Pointing out problems doesn't make you an "environMental".

Thinking faceless corporations have your best interest at heart is Mental.

[tonton]

Do you not see some of the CAFE proposals as de facto banning of SUVs? This collection of fools in DC learned long ago that you do not usually have to go directly at something to ban it, you need only make it impossible, through other rules, for it to exist or be profitable.

A law saying "SUVs are illegal to manufacture" would never work. Why bother with that PR nightmare? Just push through a law that mandates a minimum 30mpg for any vehicle over 5000 pounds, for example, and PRESTO! Goal achieved.

So in a sense, it will take a long shot for an outright "ban." But a legislative ban is not necessary to manipulate the behaviour and restrict the choices available to the sheeple.

So you honestly think that a law like this wouldn't pressure the auto industry to come up with more fuel efficient designs? Hint... that's its PURPOSE! ;) Not to restrict people's choices. :rolleyes:

[SDW2001]

So what's the most "efficient" way he could travel? Obviously, unless you're being obtuse, you'll admit the fact that the most efficient way he could travel, without seriously threatening his safety or that of others, is by the most fuel-efficient private jet he can find. Name a better way. Just one.

First, it's his choice to travel so much, and you know it. He doesn't have to travel like that. He wants to. Secondly, he could take commercial flights. He could fly first class with a security team. Tell me, why could he not do that?


The soccer mom doesn't need a Suburban. She does not.

How the hell would you know? What if she has 6 kids?

He needs a private Jet. Period. I'd love to see you claim otherwise. And not resort to changing the topic by saying "it doesn't matter if she needs it or not" because it does matter if she needs it.

He does not need a private jet. And his jet is an older, inefficient one..at least the one he was taped getting out of, that is.



Gore is trying to convince people who don't NEED an SUV not to drive one, and to drive something more efficient instead. He drives a Prius. I'm sure he chooses the most efficient private jet he can find under each individual situation.

Cough. See above. You're either ignorant or lying.



Meanwhile, you call him a hypocrite for not following his suggestions for an "average" American. News flash: He's not an average American. And yes, that has everything to do with the reality of the situation.

Who cares? He's no better than any one of us. He's just got more money, which would be fine with me if he'd shut the fuck up and stop telling me how to live as he burn 1,000x more carbon than I do.



I ask you again. If he is more energy conscious, in his action, than anyone else in his income bracket, then how is he being a hypocrite? And yes, this is a serious and important question you cannot dodge.

I don't see what income has to do with it. Income does not require someone to use fossil fuels. He chooses to. And he chooses to lecture literally the entire planet at the same time.

Then you didn't read the Committee's conclusions on the matter. It was explained. You just don't accept the explanation.

Obviously, if you don't believe global warning is an addressable problem, you don't believe that slowing GW would help avoid the potential conflict caused by the economic problems associated with an environmental disaster. The Nobel Committe DOES believe GW is addressable (as do the vast majority of scientists), and that if it is not addressed, conflict will occur.

It's a stretch even if you believe GW is fact and would cause those things.

It is a fact that Arafat worked with Peres and Rabin to end the conflict, and together they saw many gains toward that end.

Just because a few fascist assholes came in and reversed all that progress, then refused to work with Arafat at all, doesn't mean that progress wasn't made at the time.

:lol::lol::lol: Arafat was an ardent supporter of terrorism. And he won a Nobel Peace Prize. That's really all we need to know, regardless of what kind of phony photo-op meetings and summits he attended.

[tonton]

So you're actually suggesting that Gore fly commercial. Wow. Just wow. Don't you realize the security implications of such an arrangement, not to mention convenience? What -- if he were ever elected President, do you think he should take United?

You're in complete denial that he needs to fly in a private jet.

[tonton]

Arafat was an ardent supporter of terrorism.

Is that a fact? :rolleyes:

Please don't post opinions as facts! Thx.

[@_@ Artman]

Ok. This thread is never going to end. :rolleyes:

[franksargent]

10. He's not a cretin
9. "George W. Bush here. Congratulations on your Latin Grammy"
7. He's not an idiot
6. He's not retarded
5. He's not stupid
4. "Ann Coulter here. Any way we can blame global warming on the Jews?"
3. He's not an asshat
2. He's not a halfwit

And the number one reason Al Gore Wouldn't Run For President Next Year ...

1. "It's Cheney. Watch your back, Jack"

Top Ten Messages On Al Gore's Answering Machine (http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/index/php/20071015.phtml)

:lol:

[franksargent]

Yadda, Bu-u-u-u-rp, Yadda, Fr-a-a-a-ap, Yadda, apologists ...

... you know this. :???:

[Northgate]

So you're actually suggesting that Gore fly commercial. Wow. Just wow. Don't you realize the security implications of such an arrangement, not to mention convenience? What -- if he were ever elected President, do you think he should take United?

You're in complete denial that he needs to fly in a private jet.

Exactly. And the minute a commercial flight is delayed by Gore's secret service apparatus, and some passengers bitch and moan about the delays, and the so-called liberal media puts a front-page article on the cover of the New York Times about how Gore is stalling flights...guess who will be the first to start a thread shaking their head and tsk tsk'ing... I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

[Northgate]

You gotta love a country that will not allow a potential president to run because...he's fat. That's the number one issue with almost everyone's comments, every comedian, and every yapping dog on the news circuits..."Al Gore's gotta lose weight."

Because we all know his weight affects how he thinks. Fucking idiots.

[Jubelum]

Because we all know his weight affects how he thinks. Fucking idiots.

Actually, it's sometimes how we think that affects our weight. ;)

[Frank777]

At least not until Al runs. ;)

This thread has never really been about whether Gore should run for President. ;)

Because we all know his weight affects how he thinks.

Image has become everything in a society based largely on television and the movies.

[Outsider]

You gotta love a country that will not allow a potential president to run because...he's fat. That's the number one issue with almost everyone's comments, every comedian, and every yapping dog on the news circuits..."Al Gore's gotta lose weight."

Because we all know his weight affects how he thinks. Fucking idiots.

The sad thing is he's not even fat! Certainly not any fatter that that sack of lard, Cheney.