Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Genx87
Gore ran a horrible campaign that was as bitter as the current crop of democrats are. This is why he lost and why the democrats continue to lose.
Gore coming off a great economy under Clinton should have been a shoe in, but the guy sucked and I dont think he would have done any better than Bush under the circumstances.
Originally posted by: Pabster
<gore on> THIS IS A POLICE STATE! </gore off>
Agree 100% with Genx87's comments and I'll only add that Hollywood and Gore fit well together. They're both living in a bubble and so far out of touch with mainstream America it isn't even funny.
In the first place Gor won the 2001 election. That was established by a consortium of newspapers that did a complete recount and discovered that of all legal ballots cast in the entire state of Florida, Gor won. And nobody could have been a bigger disaster than Bush.
And as far as Gor being out of touch with mainstream America why not just say out of touch with the backward ignorant masses that populate the moron red states. He was very out of touch indeed, and because of that all America will foot the bill the disaster President hands us. Eat your sh!t like the deserving fools you are. You elected yourselves to office.
Gore lost, get over it.
He won the popular vote (yes I know Kerry lost the popular vote so stfu). The electoral college is dumb as hell imo and no president should be able to be elected by a minority of the votes.
Originally posted by: jrenz
The electoral college is stupid because it didn't work in your favor. Too bad it's worked for every election prior to this one. Boo Hoo.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Gore ran a horrible campaign that was as bitter as the current crop of democrats are. This is why he lost and why the democrats continue to lose.
Gore coming off a great economy under Clinton should have been a shoe in, but the guy sucked and I dont think he would have done any better than Bush under the circumstances.
True, although Gore essentially lost to a Mondale, not the other way around. Gore was VP under a President who was arguably the most popular in recent history save for perhaps Reagan...the economy was in good standing...we were a nation at peace...Gore should have won by a landslide.Yeah, he ran such a horrible campaign that it was one of the closest and perhaps <b>the</b> closest presidential elections in history. Come on. His loss wasn't like Mondale vs Reagan in 84.
What a load of revisionist crap...do a google search for "2000 election independent audit, and read the links that come up. The independent audits on the 2000 election, including those done by Judicial Watch, the NY Times and other credible sources.In the first place Gor won the 2001 election. That was established by a consortium of newspapers that did a complete recount and discovered that of all legal ballots cast in the entire state of Florida, Gor won. And nobody could have been a bigger disaster than Bush.
Originally posted by: BDawg
Children, children... Bush won and we all lost. Let's just try to start repairing the mistake in November.
Back on topic, I'd love to see Dubya make a movie.
"This is Barney. He is my dog. Barney helps me clear brush. Barney loves to fish. I love you, Barney."
But all this is small change compared to the potential profiteering at the top of the globe, where the icecap is melting. Millions of acres of ice may soon become suitable for nautical traffic and oil exploration. An estimated quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas resources are in the Arctic. The first winner may be the Denver investor Pat Broe, who paid roughly $7 in 1997 for the port of Churchill on Hudson Bay in Canada. Currently billed on Web sites as ''the polar-bear capital of the world,'' Churchill stands poised to be at the receiving end of a vast increase in sea traffic as shipping from Russia to North America becomes easier through the melt. That's good news for Broe, whose purchase may be the best deal since Peter Minuit bought Manhattan.
GROUP: New Video Exposes Behind-the-Scenes Story of Gore?s Own Energy Use
Wed May 24 2006 17:59:00 ET
As former Vice President Al Gore?s documentary on global warming fears debuts today, a new video from the Competitive Enterprise Institute tracks Gore?s own ?carbon footprint.? CEI?s 70-second video points out that Gore himself is a big user of the hydrocarbon fuels that produce carbon dioxide when combusted.
Gore?s ?An Inconvenient Truth? asks, "Are you willing to change the way you live?" The Gore documentary and new book of the same name go on to suggest ways that people can reduce their carbon footprint, yet Mr. Gore has clearly not taken his own message to heart. He even says in the documentary that he has given his global warming Power Point slide show more than 1,000 times all around the world.
The CEI video, which may be viewed at: http://streams.cei.org/, includes footage of Gore and his constant air travel with two CO2 meters running at the bottom of the page that compare Gore?s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with those of an average person.
"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,? said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.
Developing...
That's such bullshit. Of course he uses more energy. I bet his head burns more oxygen than an average person's too.Originally posted by: michaels
GROUP: New Video Exposes Behind-the-Scenes Story of Gore?s Own Energy Use
Wed May 24 2006 17:59:00 ET
As former Vice President Al Gore?s documentary on global warming fears debuts today, a new video from the Competitive Enterprise Institute tracks Gore?s own ?carbon footprint.? CEI?s 70-second video points out that Gore himself is a big user of the hydrocarbon fuels that produce carbon dioxide when combusted.
Gore?s ?An Inconvenient Truth? asks, "Are you willing to change the way you live?" The Gore documentary and new book of the same name go on to suggest ways that people can reduce their carbon footprint, yet Mr. Gore has clearly not taken his own message to heart. He even says in the documentary that he has given his global warming Power Point slide show more than 1,000 times all around the world.
The CEI video, which may be viewed at: http://streams.cei.org/, includes footage of Gore and his constant air travel with two CO2 meters running at the bottom of the page that compare Gore?s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with those of an average person.
"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,? said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.
Developing...
Well there is no such thing as "saving the planet". The planet was here and it'll be here regardless of what we do. Even if 99% of all species somehow die off, it'll still recover, just as it had before.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This whole global warming thing strikes me as a evolution vs. creationism style debate. You have the scientists on one side and the "fervent believers" on the other that swear up and down CO2 is not a pollutant and that global warming is all a fairy tale. Hmmm, scientists vs some guys who have a hunch. Hmmm, tough decision. Let's see scientists and others who have no fiscal interest in saving the planet vs. a bunch of big industries and the GOP who view environmentalism as an unnecessary barrier to profiting off the public lands of this nation.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This whole global warming thing strikes me as a evolution vs. creationism style debate. You have the scientists on one side and the "fervent believers" on the other that swear up and down CO2 is not a pollutant and that global warming is all a fairy tale. Hmmm, scientists vs some guys who have a hunch. Hmmm, tough decision. Let's see scientists and others who have no fiscal interest in saving the planet vs. a bunch of big industries and the GOP who view environmentalism as an unnecessary barrier to profiting off the public lands of this nation.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This whole global warming thing strikes me as a evolution vs. creationism style debate. You have the scientists on one side and the "fervent believers" on the other that swear up and down CO2 is not a pollutant and that global warming is all a fairy tale. Hmmm, scientists vs some guys who have a hunch. Hmmm, tough decision. Let's see scientists and others who have no fiscal interest in saving the planet vs. a bunch of big industries and the GOP who view environmentalism as an unnecessary barrier to profiting off the public lands of this nation.
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This whole global warming thing strikes me as a evolution vs. creationism style debate. You have the scientists on one side and the "fervent believers" on the other that swear up and down CO2 is not a pollutant and that global warming is all a fairy tale. Hmmm, scientists vs some guys who have a hunch. Hmmm, tough decision. Let's see scientists and others who have no fiscal interest in saving the planet vs. a bunch of big industries and the GOP who view environmentalism as an unnecessary barrier to profiting off the public lands of this nation.
Science has NEVER been wrong......
Draining blood used to be considered good medical treatment
Radiation was harmless - and actually helpful
Eugenenics
The earth IS the center of solar system
arteries carry air through the body
We need to be sure about before passing laws that hamstring us or cause disastrous side affects (DDT anyone?).
The Whole Truth behind Al Gore's Latest Campaign; Climate Experts Expose the Facts Missing from 'An Inconvenient Truth'
WASHINGTON, May 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "An Inconvenient Truth," the
Al Gore documentary on climate change, enters theaters this week and is sure to fan the debate over the causes of global warming. Expert climatologists who are members of the TCS Daily Science Roundtable recently screened the film and conclude that many of the points made by Gore are based on exaggerated facts and scientific results that lack consensus or have been refuted.
Dr. Robert Balling, professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, and Joseph D'Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorology Society's committee on weather analysis and forecasting, have screened the film and found that many of the facts contradicting Gore's message hit the cutting room floor.
"Through alarmist rhetoric and dire predictions, the film attempts to portray man as the culprit behind global climate change," said Balling. "But in typical Gore fashion, many of his facts are drawn from hand-picked science that overstates what is happening in climate change."
According to Balling, the most notable omission in the film comes from misrepresenting the position of Gore's self-described mentor and inspiration, Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that CO2 levels were rising and contributing to higher temperatures, yet there was no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28 to 33.)
The movie discusses glacial retreats of Kilimanjaro -- implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to atmospheric moisture, not global warming.
Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" -- a reconstructed temperature record that has been summarily discredited in the scientific community. Nevertheless, Gore maintains that we are on the verge of a tipping point with only 10 years to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid spiraling towards catastrophic heat waves, tornadoes and hurricanes.
"Looking at 10,000 years of climate history, there is nothing unusual about the warming of the 20th century," said Balling.
Gore blames most of the extreme and unusual weather and other changes solely on carbon dioxide and states that this fact is 'settled' (indisputable).
"Though man is playing some role in the world climate through urbanization," D'Aleo admits, "the truth is that you can explain most of the climate changes and extreme weather, and even changes in the glaciers and icecaps, with natural cycles in the oceans and on the sun."
D'Aleo cautions that, "Focusing on greenhouse gases alone, we may be blindsided by a sudden climate shift due to the natural cyclical changes in one or more of the factors. The recent decadal shift that doubled hurricane frequency is a prime example."
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Just saw the trailer - I don't like how they made it all flashy and scary-like, but I guess they have to do that nowadays to hold anyone's attention.
I agree, this would be my response exactly. In a phrase, "Better safe than sorry". And we would be really, really sorry.Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Science has NEVER been wrong......
Draining blood used to be considered good medical treatment
Radiation was harmless - and actually helpful
Eugenenics
The earth IS the center of solar system
arteries carry air through the body
We need to be sure about before passing laws that hamstring us or cause disastrous side affects (DDT anyone?).
And so you're willing to bet against the status quo, just so you can maybe have a few more dollars in your pocket?
What if Global Warming is real, and we are the cause? Gonna look pretty stupid if you're wrong. Actually, you're going to look pretty drowned most likely. At least if the Global Warming people are wrong, humanity survives.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It seems that some scientists are providing objections to Gore's film.
The Whole Truth behind Al Gore's Latest Campaign; Climate Experts Expose the Facts Missing from 'An Inconvenient Truth'
WASHINGTON, May 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "An Inconvenient Truth," the
Al Gore documentary on climate change, enters theaters this week and is sure to fan the debate over the causes of global warming. Expert climatologists who are members of the TCS Daily Science Roundtable recently screened the film and conclude that many of the points made by Gore are based on exaggerated facts and scientific results that lack consensus or have been refuted.
Dr. Robert Balling, professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, and Joseph D'Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorology Society's committee on weather analysis and forecasting, have screened the film and found that many of the facts contradicting Gore's message hit the cutting room floor.
"Through alarmist rhetoric and dire predictions, the film attempts to portray man as the culprit behind global climate change," said Balling. "But in typical Gore fashion, many of his facts are drawn from hand-picked science that overstates what is happening in climate change."
According to Balling, the most notable omission in the film comes from misrepresenting the position of Gore's self-described mentor and inspiration, Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that CO2 levels were rising and contributing to higher temperatures, yet there was no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28 to 33.)
The movie discusses glacial retreats of Kilimanjaro -- implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to atmospheric moisture, not global warming.
Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" -- a reconstructed temperature record that has been summarily discredited in the scientific community. Nevertheless, Gore maintains that we are on the verge of a tipping point with only 10 years to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid spiraling towards catastrophic heat waves, tornadoes and hurricanes.
"Looking at 10,000 years of climate history, there is nothing unusual about the warming of the 20th century," said Balling.
Gore blames most of the extreme and unusual weather and other changes solely on carbon dioxide and states that this fact is 'settled' (indisputable).
"Though man is playing some role in the world climate through urbanization," D'Aleo admits, "the truth is that you can explain most of the climate changes and extreme weather, and even changes in the glaciers and icecaps, with natural cycles in the oceans and on the sun."
D'Aleo cautions that, "Focusing on greenhouse gases alone, we may be blindsided by a sudden climate shift due to the natural cyclical changes in one or more of the factors. The recent decadal shift that doubled hurricane frequency is a prime example."
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It seems that some scientists are providing objections to Gore's film.
The Whole Truth behind Al Gore's Latest Campaign; Climate Experts Expose the Facts Missing from 'An Inconvenient Truth'
WASHINGTON, May 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "An Inconvenient Truth," the
Al Gore documentary on climate change, enters theaters this week and is sure to fan the debate over the causes of global warming. Expert climatologists who are members of the TCS Daily Science Roundtable recently screened the film and conclude that many of the points made by Gore are based on exaggerated facts and scientific results that lack consensus or have been refuted.
Dr. Robert Balling, professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, and Joseph D'Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorology Society's committee on weather analysis and forecasting, have screened the film and found that many of the facts contradicting Gore's message hit the cutting room floor.
"Through alarmist rhetoric and dire predictions, the film attempts to portray man as the culprit behind global climate change," said Balling. "But in typical Gore fashion, many of his facts are drawn from hand-picked science that overstates what is happening in climate change."
According to Balling, the most notable omission in the film comes from misrepresenting the position of Gore's self-described mentor and inspiration, Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that CO2 levels were rising and contributing to higher temperatures, yet there was no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28 to 33.)
The movie discusses glacial retreats of Kilimanjaro -- implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to atmospheric moisture, not global warming.
Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" -- a reconstructed temperature record that has been summarily discredited in the scientific community. Nevertheless, Gore maintains that we are on the verge of a tipping point with only 10 years to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid spiraling towards catastrophic heat waves, tornadoes and hurricanes.
"Looking at 10,000 years of climate history, there is nothing unusual about the warming of the 20th century," said Balling.
Gore blames most of the extreme and unusual weather and other changes solely on carbon dioxide and states that this fact is 'settled' (indisputable).
"Though man is playing some role in the world climate through urbanization," D'Aleo admits, "the truth is that you can explain most of the climate changes and extreme weather, and even changes in the glaciers and icecaps, with natural cycles in the oceans and on the sun."
D'Aleo cautions that, "Focusing on greenhouse gases alone, we may be blindsided by a sudden climate shift due to the natural cyclical changes in one or more of the factors. The recent decadal shift that doubled hurricane frequency is a prime example."
A little bit about Dr. Balling...
The case of Dr. Robert Balling is equally intriguing. A geographer by training, much of Balling's research focused on hydrology, precipitation, water runoff and other Southwestern water and soil-related issues until he was solicited by Western Fuels. Balling has since emerged as one of the most visible and prolific of the climate-change skeptics.
Since 1991, Balling has received, either alone or with colleagues, nearly $300,000 from coal and oil interests in research funding, which he also disclosed for the first time at the Minnesota hearing. In his collaborations with Sherwood Idso, Balling has received about $50,000 from Cyprus, $80,000 from German Coal and $75,000 from British Coal Corp. Two Kuwaiti government foundations have given him a $48,000 grant and unspecified consulting fees and have published his 1992 book, "The Heated Debate," in Arabic. The book was originally published by a conservative think tank, the Pacific Research Institute, one of whose goals is the repeal of environmental regulations.