or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Should Al Gore Run again ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should Al Gore Run again ? - Page 3

post #81 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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

Clearly your a guy who likes to lead by example.

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

Cheers


Aquafire
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #82 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

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.
post #83 of 255
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.
post #84 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

In the meantime, there are active and violent conflicts going on in Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq and Sudan, just to name a few.

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!

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!

You would need to talk to the Nobel Foundation 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).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #85 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

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 (as opposed to a dim), or to take it down to your level ...

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #86 of 255
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 can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #87 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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. Thread over.
post #88 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Wow. Thread over.

I second that. Good summary.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #89 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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

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!

You would need to talk to the Nobel Foundation 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.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #90 of 255
What of the prevention of future likely conflicts?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #91 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #92 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #93 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #94 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #95 of 255
How many people in the US (or anyone on the planet) live on a coastline, at or below an altitude of 16-55ft .....

[sarcasm]Just some more anti-business propaganda, courtesy of those damned leftist treehugger potsmoking ecoterrorist hippy scientists with an agenda, and an attitude. [/sarcasm]
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #96 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 255
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.
post #98 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #99 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #100 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


Frankly....

I prefer to hob nob with younger intellectuals...







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...
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #101 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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

I think you meant "Catholics".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #102 of 255

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #103 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

Frankly....

I prefer to hob nob with younger intellectuals...


Aquafire...




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

Your NO match for me, sonny boy!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #104 of 255
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your NO match for me, sonny boy!

Oh God...

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

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

It's embarrassing and pitiful.

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

But in the meantime...

Do us all a a really BIG favour...

Get back on subject OK ?

There's the good lad.

Cheers

Aquafire
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #105 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I second that. Good summary.

Thanks guys.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

Oh God...

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

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

It's embarrassing and pitiful.

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

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;

Quote:
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..

Cheers

Aquafire

I'd suggest you get back on your Ritalin LA!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #107 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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 particularly the first two;

The Nobel Peace Prize, 1901-2000 and
Controversies and Criticisms

See also wikipedia's Nobel Prize controversies

Finally, go back to the Nobel site of All Nobel Peace Prize 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!

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!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #108 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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/carniv...es_inconv.html
post #109 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherman Homan View Post

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/carniv...es_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).

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!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #110 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #111 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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? \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #112 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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
. 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.
post #113 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Listen *ad hom removed*, 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.

Not sure what you're talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually, *ad hom removed*, 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.

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 worlds future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind.


It makes sense, doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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.

Al Gore does not argue that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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?

Again, Al Gore does not argue that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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?

What are you talking about?
post #114 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
What are you talking about?

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

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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!

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 or place full page adds in the NYT, with a long list of wingnuts attached.

Perhaps they already have, stay tuned ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #116 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

There are some interesting articles at the Nobel Peace Prize site Nobel Peace Prize Articles particularly the first two;

The Nobel Peace Prize, 1901-2000 and
Controversies and Criticisms

See also wikipedia's Nobel Prize controversies

Finally, go back to the Nobel site of All Nobel Peace Prize 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!

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!


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
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #117 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

.. 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 ...

At least TRY to add some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism! \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #118 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #119 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

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.

[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #120 of 255
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?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Should Al Gore Run again ?