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. :\