Quoting Dougloid (Reply 88): who are intent on doing to dialogue and differences of opinion what they did to Poland in 1939.

Oh look, Dougloid chimes in and delivers a deadly blow to my argument..   and right on topic you are, sir!

Quoting Slider (Reply 89): I'm going to celebrate Algore's victory by buying an SUV this weekend!!

It remains a comfort that in the great scheme of things, your impact, unlike Mr Gore's, won't matter a single bit.   

I normally don't get involved in these kinds of threads, but this one seems to be going in an interesting direction.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):

I'm with you there...middle ground. I see both sides of the debate. One of the best posts in this thread. Overall, this thread has so far been a lively debate, but I'm sure it will turn into a political flame fest and war.

It is obvious that the Earth is warming, its just the matter of how much humans are causing the problem. Even then, what can we do without destroying our society? People can't be pollution-free, it practically isn't possible. But we can be cleaner than we are now. Simple things can make a difference: recycle, turn-off lights when not needed, switch to waste-based fuels*, modify driving habits, etc.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 97): May I remind you that CO2 IS REQUIRED FOR LIFE ON EARTH.

You are correct, but are forgetting something: with an expanding population and urban sprawl, more and more forests (reduce CO₂ naturally) are being cut down (not a month goes by when I see another forest being cut for a new housing development, office spaces, or just cleared to be put on the real estate market and sit for a few years, etc.). Deforestation of the tropical rainforests isn't helping either.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 97): And of course, in the name of saving the environment, corn-derived ethanol is being used. Of course, the fact that a lot of poor people are now having to spend a lot more money for food does not enter into the equation.

Partially true. The US government used to subsidize farmers not to over-plant, in order to artificially set prices higher. Any extra was simply "given away" to the poor and 'nutritionally-deficient' nations. By creating a real demand, farmers can produce more corn, without government subsidies (something you fiscal-conservities should applaud). On the other hand, when demand gets too great, then some poor are left out of the equation as the once excess corn is not being used.

And now I get to the (*). I am a big fan of waste-based biofuels. I admit, I don't like the idea of growing crops strictly for fuel, it is simply pointless. With so much waste grease from fast food restaurants, waste products from farms (ie...the stalks of a corn plant), waste from animals, old candy, etc, imagine using that "waste" instead of letting it be-well, waste. If the USA could go to a biofuel-from-waste nation, we could kill two birds with one stone: lower CO₂ emissions, while reducing, if not eliminating, our BIG oil dependency problem.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 59): By the way my Sophomore wrote a semester composition term paper countering many of the points in a inconvenient "truth". Also her and the key club group organize recycling events for her school.

I respect your daughter greatly. If someone who never recycles, uses up electricity (unnecessarily) like it grows on trees, etc, were to criticize Gore, I'd probably pass them off as an one-sided extremist. To actually be involved in a "green" activity yet criticize Gore makes me give them very much credibility.

As for Gore, I don't know...this thread has some interesting opinions and points. The fact that Ghandi never received an award pokes a huge whole in the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize, as well as various fallacies of Gore's presentation, and simply the fact that the stuff he cites is not his. Then again, I believe a Nobel Prize was handed out to the scientists that discovered how bad CFCs were...

Quoting PacNWJet (Reply 92): This is like Richard Nixon saying that only he could negotiate an end to the Vietnam War and the only way he could guarantee his reelection was to spy on his Democratic opponents so he was justified in authorizing the Watergate break-in so as to be reelected president, end the Vietnam War, and save lives in Southeast Asia.

  Nixon did negotiate an end to the Vietnam War.

Nixon did not authorize the Watergate break-in. He in fact knew nothing about the plan.

Nixon did not need to spy on his Democratic opponents to win the 1972 election. However, these activities were carried out by both parties--LBJ bugged Nixon's and Agnew's campaign planes in 1968, and JFK had Nixon audited by the IRS.

Sorry, there is more misinformation out there about Richard Nixon than just about anyone else in US history.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 88): Quoting Rara (Reply 64): Ridiculous how every Mr Joe Nobody from Nowhere, Mississippi suddenly becomes an expert on global warming. It's not worth arguing with these people anymore, and I admire those who still put up the patience to repeat the same arguments again and again.

Quoting Rara (Reply 100): Oh look, Dougloid chimes in and delivers a deadly blow to my argument.. and right on topic you are, sir!

Here's what you posted. Does that look like an argument? It's just an ill informed smear. You can't argue your way out of your Birkenstocks, fool.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): is it so difficult to see that our own demise is imminent

Sorry, but if a 'Jesus freak' tells you that (per your own words) 'our own demise is imminent', you and I would laugh at him. But if you give me the same identical sentence, I am supposed to take you seriously?

Gives credence to the argument that global warming is the religion of the left side. After all, if we don't correct our 'sins', 'our own demise is imminent'.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99):

Totally irrelevant. Look I don't think anyone is questioning Mr Gores credentials or accomplishments (other than maybe his role in the invention of the Internet). What IS coming under scrutiny is, as many of us-myself included have pointed out-namely his blatant double standards. If he wants to be a leader, he needs to lead by example. Not with rhetoric.

----------------------------------------------------------------
MD-A pig with lipstick is still a pig

Quoting Toast (Reply 87): Let's face it, nobody knows for sure what exactly is happening with the climate.

Exactly - Al Gore has as much chance of being right as you, me, George Bush or fiction novelist Michael Crichton.

There is no doubt man is making changes to the global environment. There is no doubt also the humanity is a natural part of the world and environment.

The question is what is the level of impact and can anything we are doing now be changed to minimize the impact.

Humans cannot have a zero impact on the environment without (1) killing off about 80% of us (2) reverting to a pre-industrial age lifestyle.

No one wants that.

Unfortunately environmental change is already a source of conflict between nations and it will get worse because many of the developing nations of the world see it as a way for the European/ American elite to keep them from developing sustainable economies.

Gore's message that the European/ American elite need to make serious changes does help keep the coming conflict a littler farther away.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 104): Sorry, but if a 'Jesus freak' tells you that (per your own words) 'our own demise is imminent', you and I would laugh at him. But if you give me the same identical sentence, I am supposed to take you seriously? Gives credence to the argument that global warming is the religion of the left side. After all, if we don't correct our 'sins', 'our own demise is imminent'.

Look I understand the whole deal with production and how important it is for corporations to continue with the way they operate. Al Gore and many "environmentalistts" merely wish to bring into attention a subject that deals with everyone, the right, the left, the center, everyone.

If this is the religion of the left, I understand that the only religion of the right is to continue producing for max profits and lower costs, even if it means that we are to continue polluting our earth, so much so that we would be unable to live on it (it seems a bit harsh to think that the State of Florida would no longer exist, but that is the truth, the "inconvenient truth"). I understand, I was a conservative once too you know? but we need to be humans first, because that's the way we were born before we became polluters.

I just think that Corporations should consider a bit more increasing their costs even if it is for the sake of all humanity. We are not asking them to stop operating. That would be disastrous. Reduce emissions considerably and you would give perhaps more room for life in the long run, and good health for us in the short run.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 98): A different perspective :

OK, but that article is an Inconvenient load of spin for Gore!!!

What the Gore family has done to fight global warning pales in comparison to the [Evil] Bush family!   


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/1/74130.shtml

Thursday, March 1, 2007 7:38 a.m. EST
Bush's House More Eco-Friendly Than Gore's


"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."

"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."

In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the of electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."

Gore's an F-ing hypocrite!

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): Son of a great senator.

Whoopee.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): Harvard graduate, with honors.

And, if you believe him, a major character in a book turned movie at the same time.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): Vietnam veteran.

In the rear with the gear.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): Award-winning investigative journalist.

Don't say that in Nashville, especially anywhere around the Tennesseans offices.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): Congressman. Senator

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): Winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.

Who couldn't carry his own home state. But then to be true, DC isn't a state.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): Best-selling author. Environmental activist. Academy Award winner. And, now, Nobel Peace Prize winner--

By spreading dubious information as a reality. I agree, this was a hollywood award. Something for the Nobel board to issued to keep them in the news.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 109): In the rear with the gear.

Well at least he didn't make a lame excuse so that he could avoid the service as GWB/Cheney did.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 109):

You need not fear, he won't run for President, and if he does (which I doubt), you will have plenty to bash about I am sure!

Edited for spelling.

[Edited 2007-10-12 19:33:52]

Quoting Banco (Reply 52): Well, (and I guess this ties into some stuff further down your post) the example of flaws in the Gore film have been highlighted, yet you defend it. Why?

Because it is a much-needed advocacy piece especially in the USA, with minor and peripheral flaws in some of the illustrations of a problem which to the broad consensus of the experts in the field doesn't just exist but is increasingly pressing but still vehemently denied by the current US government and closely associated lobby groups.

Raising public awareness of the problem like nobody else on the planet is what earned him the Nobel Prize together with the IPCC who collected and condensed the state of scientific research to the level of breadth and depth required for political decisions.

Have you actually watched the film, by the way?

Quoting Banco (Reply 52): Quoting Klaus,reply=51: Have you ever tried to make a presentation of a highly abstract topic for popular consumption? That's a dreadful justification. What I hope you're not saying is that the people are too dim to appreciate the facts, therefore it must be dressed up with gross inaccuracies to make the point. But that's the implication of what you say. On the contrary, what it does is to diminish the point being made, because it is a polemic, and one you simply can't trust.

Come on. That is a silly and patently false accusation.

I have explicitly referred to the actual factor in real life which makes such presentations difficult: An audience which does not have the same immersion into the context in which the often highly abstract and specific research is being done and understood.

A "civilian" audience isn't stupid - but most of them will just have other things on their minds most of the time than the advanced math and the mountains of scientific axioms, theories, evidence and conclusions derived from those which actually are the foundation of the condensed conclusions one is trying to get across.

In the absence of detailed insight into all these resources (which can be a stretch even for people working in the respective (sub)fields, some minimal confidence in the integrity of the scientists needs to be afforded by the audience - and of course justified by the researchers in the first place.

Despite massive industry-funded campaigns this confidence in the scientific process and through the peer-review process in the verified results of the research could only be shaken in the USA to the extent that we've had to observe. The same campaign failed miserably when attempted over here in Europe (leaked memos corroborate the attempt).

Coming back to presentations: I have given numerous presentations of highly abstract topics, some of them involving higher math which I myself would not have been able to fully understand without substantial preparation and background knowledge. And often to an audience which needed to gain an understanding of the fundamental issues but could not be asked to take a few (additional) university courses or other specialized training just for that.

Quoting Banco (Reply 52): Quoting Klaus,reply=51: Add to that that Gore himself is an activist amateur, not a scientist himself. So large parts of the movie have had to be translated at least twice - once from science to the filmmakers, then again for the audience Another poor excuse. Balanced scientific documentaries are made without resorting to cheap tactics all the time. Given the scale of the budget, there's simply no excuse for advancing an argument using flawed data - if you want to be taken seriously.

An inconvenient Truth has never been claimed to be a "balanced scientific documentary" - it is an unapologetic advocacy piece and it is quite effective at that, apparently.

Quoting Banco (Reply 52): Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): As to "flat out lies": Care to substantiate? You've seen the list above. Given that some of them are pretty basic, it is inconceivable that with the number of scientists involved in advising Gore, that it could be an "error".

Accusing him of telling "flat out lies" requires a concrete substatiation - of both the claim being outright false and Gore knowing about it - or a retraction.

In fact the "inaccuracies" are mostly mild cases of statements from the movie today no longer being viewed as correct (like the gulf stream issue or coral bleaching); Or not rising to the level of high confidence yet (like the melting glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro or the Hurricane season which included Katrina); Or indeed a case where correct information was put into the context of global warming where it probably didn't belong (lake Chad).

The court was rather adventurous in its ruling overall - which would require a substantially higher standard than illustrations in an advocacy piece. You can expect to see at least some of those rulings being found premature and overreaching in light of future and even current research.

The essential thing, however, which is being missed by most of the people latching on to the recent ruling by the british court is that many of the illustrations criticized by the court were actually never claimed to be the 1:1 consequences of climate change - they were presented to illustrate the kind of events and consequences to be expected in the context of continued climate change.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 54): In case you have forgotten, humans are carbon-based lifeforms. Plants use CO2 to make oxygen for LIFE. Carbon is the ocean is used by many organisms to create their shells, etc., etc., etc.

You were already wrong before your first "etc.".

What you were probably thinking of is calcium, which actually is the primary component of the hard shells of many species (and of our own bones and teeth). And the formation of exactly those shells is likely to be impacted negatively by the increasingly acidic water as a result of CO2 pollution.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 54): In all this s**t about how 'bad' all these levels of CO2 are, CO2 is made to seem as a pollutant, when it is NOTHING of the sort. It is a NECESSITY for life.

Oversimplifications can ruin everything. As with everything else, it's the dosage that makes the poison. And the massive man-made increase of its atmospheric concentration will have substantial consequences. Which our still relatively fragile civilization (and especially our even more fragile economies) may or may not be fit to survive without major damage.

Quoting Toast (Reply 61): Gandhi was doubtless the most glaring of all Nobel peace prize omissions.

Of course. Especially in hindsight.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 70): He's been doing the same basic points and slides/ narration since at least 1988. The film came about because someone saw his PowerPoint slide show and decided to put up the money to film it and bring up the production values.

Well, it's actually an Apple Keynote presentation:

Apple - Hot News - Key to "An Inconvenient Truth"

And in case you're wondering about the tribute to him on Apple's main page: Al Gore sits on the Board of Directors of Apple, Inc. as well.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 70): Quoting Klaus,reply=14: "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development" The film may have done a lot to bring him to world attention.

I had actually been quoting the laudatio of Jimmy Carter above...!

Quoting Queso (Reply 71): This just lowers the prestige and credibility of the Nobel prize another couple of notches.

You'll find that the Nobel Prize still is the most prestigious award on the planet. Bar none.

Sorry.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 72): Quoting Klaus,reply=1: UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Well-deserving of the award for their dedication to the study of this issue using hard science. Gore's peace credentials however, are questionable--ask any Iraqi that lived through the 1990s (or more telling yet, those who didn't). In my opinion, he is undeserving of this honor.

That's a bit of a bizarre detour, don't you think?

Quoting Slider (Reply 80): Quoting Klaus,reply=27: Says who? The scientists actually working in the field agree that it's the most probable explanation of the observations they are making. Without the same level of insight, what gives you the apparent certainty that they are wrong after all? Klaus, I’m not going to get into this again with you. You can find a bunch of scientists, I can find a bunch of scientists who say something else

Since "my bunch" actually consists of the majority of the peer-reviewed climatologists (with the rest only sitting on the fence, not on the other side) and yours apparently doesn't, it's the classic shootout with an unarmed man on the other side.

Quoting Slider (Reply 80): Many of Gore’s claims have been factually repudiated, it’s classic Hollywood embellishment packaged for emotional reaction.

Absolutely it has been made to provoke a reaction. But no, the actual claims have all been substantiated. A few of the illustrations have been criticized (in some cases deservedly, in others less so), but the central statement is closely consistent with the state of research as aggregated and presented by the IPCC.

Quoting T773ER (Reply 85): Quoting Klaus,reply=20: "The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans. Who are a tiny minority in a global context which has been veering wide off the course of the rest of the planet recently. So yes, almost the entire rest of the planet is "under control of the political left" when looking from the far right fringe. And that's why the US is the only remaining superpower in the world. Not to mention, the economic powerhouse that is the US economy. So for the US citizen, yeah it is a good thing that the rest of the planet is "under control of the political left".

I see. So the entire history of the USA has ben determined exclusively by the whacko neoconservative right wing of the Republican Party - the same bunch which have pretty much run the US influence in the world into the ground in those past 6/7 years?   

Looks like you need to readjust the dosage of your medication.   

Quoting Toast (Reply 87): If the ocean's level is indeed rising inexorably and is threatening coastal cities, that sort of situation certainly won't happen overnight. It's not like people won't know what hit them. It won't be a sudden, massive catastrophe complete with looting and people drowning in their basements.

Actually, that conclusion relies on some assumptions which may look likely now but are all but certain. Such as the antarctic ice shields remaining stable, for instance. If those should collapse, sea levels would indeed rise rather rapidly as has happened in (much) earlier times before. And such increases will by all experience be punctuated by floodings which would have been relatively defensible before.

The court relied at least as much on conjecture and likelihoods as the authors of the movie, I'm afraid.

Quoting Slider (Reply 89): I'm going to celebrate Algore's victory by buying an SUV this weekend!!

Knock yourself out. Shoot your own foot off just to spite us.

Goes to show that anyone can serve as an example - and be it as a negative one!   

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 97): May I remind you that CO2 IS REQUIRED FOR LIFE ON EARTH.

So is chlorine. Care to take a deep breath of it?   

Quoting OU812 (Reply 108):

For once, I can say thanks for posting that...very interesting and neutral...and I'll give Bush some respect for that. I do agree with this guy though:

Quote: Nevertheless, Roberts conceded that the energy efficiency of the president's home in Crawford is "fantastic." "I wish that George Bush would back public policy that is in line with what he does on his ranch," he said.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 91): Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility. Many scientists, of which body I am just a humble one, would beg to differ. For non-technical reference, I suggest "The Winds of Change" by Eugene Linden.

The British government tried to argue your point, and could not convince the court that this belief has any basis in reality.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 91): Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration. If you do the arithmetic, based on the Greenland ice sheet, 7m or so is a decent 1st-order approximation.

The British government tried to argue your point, and could not convince the court that this belief has any basis in reality.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 93): What has Al Gore done to you personally, that generates so much hate towards him?

Hate? No. Disdain is a better word. His film is propaganda because it pushes questionable theories as fact, it exaggurates, and it depends heavily on imagery and style to reach people emotionally and cause them to act a certain way. That fits my definition of propaganda, not a documentary.

If you've read my posts on the subject, I am in favor of very drastic measures which would reduce pollution and achieve the same things that Al Gore says he wants to achieve. In fact I would be far more drastic than Al Gore himself. But my motivations differ from his, and my disdain for him stems from his using lies and falsehoods to promote something that should not need such BS. He's like a Tour de France cyclist who wins the race, but is found to have used steroids. He's a cheater, and he knows it, but refuses to admit it. The court decided that.

And of course there is the matter of his investments that show what a scoundrel he is - he talks about getting away from oil and urges people to stop funding the oil companies, but he has millions upon millions of dollars of his own money invsted in oil stocks. One of his own companies sells certificates claiming to be carbon offsets, but nobody has figured out where the money goes - certainly not many trees that anyone has been able to find, and as the company is privately owned, and Gore has friends in high places, there has been and will be no investigation for fraud.

I support the cause, but not his methods, and I feel that such propaganda is an insult to my intelligence.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 54): In all this s**t about how 'bad' all these levels of CO2 are, CO2 is made to seem as a pollutant, when it is NOTHING of the sort. It is a NECESSITY for life. Just try to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere and wait for the results.

No one is looking to remove all of the CO2 from the atmosphere. The idea is to REDUCE the amount of CO2 to a reasonable level. No one is denying that it's a necessity for life.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40): You couldn't have made your bizarrely distorted view of the issue clearer than that. For you the USA and the Republicans in their current incarnation are one and the same apparently. Fortunately most people (including most americans) don't share that horrid misconception

Horrid misconception.....hmm....so you make blanket statements concerning the US being the far right fringe and then accuse me of misconceptions? Your

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40): Where is a connection to me in the above quote?

Are you that immune to ironic humor? I'll guess so.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): I've patiently explained many, many times over the years how the process of scientific discovery works and where specifically certain claims are inconsistent with well-supported scientific theories and the evidence they are based on (and what the actual nature of scientific theories even is).

Wow....you really do believe that you are the smartest man on A.net. Go back and re-read that statement and ask yourself if your own displayed arrogance has perhaps limited your ability to hear other people's points.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 115): Horrid misconception.....hmm....so you make blanket statements concerning the US being the far right fringe and then accuse me of misconceptions? Your

I have twice already made a statement about the american republicans and twice you have apparently been unable to detect the clearly present reference to only the republicans:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 20): "The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40): Quoting Klaus,reply=20: "The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans.

You're aware that at the third blatant denial of the obvious you'll turn into a toad, aren't you?   

But I guess it's par for the course - exactly that same mind set has been tainting those past six years at the very least: Completely blocking out even the possibility that anything outside the far-right neocon fringe could ever be called "american" with any legitimacy, so totally identifying the entire nation with some of the most extreme points of view that even hinting at dissent from that partisan position was smeared as treasonous.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 115): Are you that immune to ironic humor? I'll guess so.

Humour. Ah. I see. Hilarious.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 115): Wow....you really do believe that you are the smartest man on A.net. Go back and re-read that statement and ask yourself if your own displayed arrogance has perhaps limited your ability to hear other people's points.

Right. Unable to present an argument? Try personal attacks. How original.  

in my opinion.. gore=amazing

I visited the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo two years ago when it had just opened. It was a very interesting experience and made me appreciate and respect the Nobel Peace Prize even more.

I'm very happy that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. I think he deserves it.

I'd like Jimmy Carter to win it one day.

Quoting Continental (Reply 114): No one is looking to remove all of the CO2 from the atmosphere. The idea is to REDUCE the amount of CO2 to a reasonable level. No one is denying that it's a necessity for life.

I believe we are all in agreement regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions, even Gore. Yet, Gore is doing far, far more harm to the Earth than the rest of us a-netters.

Gore won the The Nobel Peace Prize simply because it was a way for some liberal Norwegian Square Heads to stick it to Bush. I can say that because I'm half Norwegian!!!   

I like Gore's message, but he's still an F-ing Hypocrite!!!

Quoting BA (Reply 118): I'd like Jimmy Carter to win it one day.

He did.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/e...rope/10/11/carter.nobel/index.html

Quoting BA (Reply 118): I'd like Jimmy Carter to win it one day.

Weren't paying much attention at the museum, were you?  

Carter won it in 2002.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 119): I like Gore's message, but he's still an F-ing Hypocrite!!!

That doesn't make any sense. You like the message yet, you think he is a "F-ing Hypocrite".

A bit of Logic 101 for you old chap.

Damn. I'm disappointed Rush Limbaugh didn't win it.   

Quoting Toast (Reply 121): Weren't paying much attention at the museum, were you? Wink Carter won it in 2002.

Wow...why on Earth did that slip my mind! 

Now that you mention it, I remember glancing at his picture for a while...

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 107): If this is the religion of the left, I understand that the only religion of the right is to continue producing for max profits and lower costs, even if it means that we are to continue polluting our earth

Please, that phrase is so overused. And pray tell us, has the US continue to reduce its pollution, or made it worse? (May I remind you that no one is currently speaking about the ozone hole, for example, or the many other environmental threats that have been paraded thru the years I have been alive)

Again, you will NOT find it in this thread ANYONE who advocates poisoning the planet.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 116):

Klaus, you have become, whether you like it or not, a religious nut over this subject. There is no questioning your dogma, even one bit.

You have the same arrogance shown by many scientists over the centuries. The same scientists that slowed progress by being so adamant about their correctness. The gall to believe, as you so expressed to me before, that science about GW is correct now, when science has so often been wrong, is beyond the pale and completely against scientific principle.

Do you have any belief, that 100 years from now, our current knowledge would still be considered valid? I don't think so. Currently, we still laugh at some of the scientific beliefs of 10 years ago, and I have no doubt that 100 years from now our descendants will laugh at our follies as well.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 122): That doesn't make any sense. You like the message yet, you think he is a "F-ing Hypocrite". A bit of Logic 101 for you old chap.

Preaching about CO2 emissions from things like SUV's and Private Jets while parading around the country in, well, SUV's and Private Jets pretty much makes one a hypocrite.

But we already had a long discussion on this recently.

[Edited 2007-10-12 23:21:21]

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become.

Very silly, but not unsurprising, a lot of formerly prestigous awards are now jokes of what they once where.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 22): When the Nobel Committee awarded Carter the Prize not for his wide accomplishments for human rights or his groundbreaking efforts in the Middle East (for which he should have received a 1/3 of the award for in 1978), it made it fairly clear that they have a political bone to pick with the US. That's their prerogative, but IMO it reduces its credibility.

Agreed, Carter should have gotten it in 78, not 2002.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32): Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 25): The Nobel Peace Prize should have been awarded to the Burmese monks and shared with Aung San Suu Kyii. That would mean totally short-term-politicizing it right now

Maybe they should put in a rule you can't be awarded the prize until you have been dead for 20 years or so.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 39): Quoting Toast (Reply 30): Yes, but at least he declined the prize. It doesn't matter that he declined it, it's that they awarded it to him in the first place. Don't change the premise after you get called out

All him declining it proves is that he had more scruples then the prize commitee.

Quoting Toast (Reply 61): Gandhi was doubtless the most glaring of all Nobel peace prize omissions.

Agreed

Quoting Toast (Reply 69): But it's a great way to keep the bastards busy when you need to catch your breath or when you have a sore throat.

HA!!!!  

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 81): 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.

So they are giving awards for what may happen, not what did happen.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 102): LBJ bugged Nixon's and Agnew's campaign planes in 1968

I suppose this is the same LBJ that announced in 2/68 that he would not run for re-election.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 108): OK, but that article is an Inconvenient load of spin for Gore!!!

As yours wasn't an anti-Gore article from some right wing media source.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 109): Who couldn't carry his own home state.

Funny, Bush didn't carry Maine in either 2000 or 2004. Do you really think that Bush is going to return to Crawford in 2009 to live there?

Bottom line the Noble organization is a private group and they can give the award to anyone these choose!

Then again McCain really looked like a fool today, saying Gore shouldn't have got the award, but the monks in Burma should have. Shows again that McCain doesn't have a clue. Gore was rewarded for his activities in 2006 and Burma situation is a recent 2007 incident.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 110): Well at least he didn't make a lame excuse so that he could avoid the service as GWB/Cheney did.

The President did not avoid service. That is unless you are now ready to impune the hundreds of thousands of NG folks who have and are serving their country by saying they really aren't.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 128): Funny, Bush didn't carry Maine in either 2000 or 2004. Do you really think that Bush is going to return to Crawford in 2009 to live there?

Yes, he's made that quite clear. His mother and father live here in Houston. The Kenebunkport estate is a summer home.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 128): Bottom line the Noble organization is a private group and they can give the award to anyone these choose!

That's true, but that they would choose Mr. Gore when there were probably far more deserving people on the list goes to show that they actually do crave publicity over substance. This award is quickly becoming as unauthentic as Time Maganzines "Person of the Year" award is.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 128): Gore was rewarded for his activities in 2006 and Burma situation is a recent 2007 incident.

And what "peace" did Mr. Gore help bring about in 2006? Some have suggested there could be a war. Lots of things could happen, but to win an award for what might happen, well lets give the Cubs the World Series rings they might win someday.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 122): That doesn't make any sense. You like the message yet, you think he is a "F-ing Hypocrite". A bit of Logic 101 for you old chap.

It makes perfect sense my friend! Gore preaches to the world for you & me to do what we can to help fight Global warming. I agree with that, sure you do as well. What I take issue with is the fact Mr Gore has done very little on his part. Even though he has millions to go Green like GWB & Daryl Hannah, he has not!!! His arrogance, poltical bias & hypocrisy is obvious! That's 101 Practise what your Preach my friend!!! Gore does no such thing!

http://www.off-grid.net/2005/03/04/daryl-hannah-on-being-off-grid/

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 123): Damn. I'm disappointed Rush Limbaugh didn't win it.

Well, you know what Limbaugh says about Liberals winning The Nobel Peace Prize? One must be a failure to win!!! Those who are intellectually honest with one self will agree with that statement. Those that don't, are drinking the Kool Aid!!!

While Carter was being completely indecisive. The REDS marched right into Afghanistan because Carter's weakness was obvious. The REDS killed a million + [mostly women & children] in the process!!! Yet, he won The Nobel Peace Prize.

But, Conservatives Reagen & Thatcher won the Cold War. However, were never considered for The Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, The Nobel Peace Prize has now become politicized & phonier by the day! For heaven sakes, Stalin was nominated twice!

What a joke!

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 125): Klaus, you have become, whether you like it or not, a religious nut over this subject. There is no questioning your dogma, even one bit.

You can check back to the respective threads and see for yourself that that's incorrect. I have gone to great lengths to examine and comment on actual arguments on this topic for years.

However, when the fundamentals of how scientific research actually works are not just not understood but consistently misrepresented (despite being clearly defined and being rather unambiguous) in a last-ditch effort to rescue claims which have no basis in verifiable evidence and if that is repeated over and over again, it gets quite difficult to actually have an argument.

Which is why I've rsponded with increasing sarcasm to those who never even tried to take a closer look at how the scientific community arrived at the point the'ye at right now. And I ultimately abandoned the unreflected snippet-storm in that other thread.

Proper scientific research is built on observation, analysis, theory and verification. Political decisions deal with risks and chances of taking or eschewing a certain course of action.

What we have right now is a relatively high level of confidence from climate research that continued CO2 emissions at or even above today's levels will have severe consequences for the world's ecosystems and for our own civilization.

And since the proposed response is to become more efficient and less dependent on what we know to be politically problematic anyway (imported fossil fuels), the worldwide political consensus has been moving rapidly towards starting to make ourselves more efficient and less dependent. Notably without the US federal government under Bush, but including a progressively growing number of american states, cities and corporations.

Al Gore's merits are primarily in questioning that morose "can't do!" attitude promoted by the Bush administration and motivating pople to create a better future than the one that has already begun to unfold.

Watch his movie and you'll realize that that is what it is: A motivational piece and an introduction into the topic - and despite its imprecisions and other faults, if it helps people starting to examine and verify the information by themselves that can be had with little effort nowadays, then it deserves the awards it achieved.

The political consequences are what makes people passionate about the issue, but it is increasingly difficult to see why people actually want to remain inefficient and dependent when the alternative is politically sound actually even if science should one day discover that climate change was somehow stopping itself after all, in spite of our massive interference. Which looks increasingly unlikely, but hey, we might actually win the lottery on top of stopping our own wasteful lifestyle!

But would I bet the safety and wellbeing of future generations all on that unlikely win without ever planning viable contingency strategies?

I wouldn't. But maybe that's just me.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 130): But, Conservatives Reagen & Thatcher won the Cold War. However, were never considered for The Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, The Nobel Peace Prize has now become politicized & phonier by the day! For heaven sakes, Stalin was nominated twice!

Everybody can be nominated for the prize - and nearly everybody has been, but the list is not publicized for 50 years. You're mistaking this for the Oscar nominations, apparently:

Frequently Asked Questions:

Quote: Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize, or where do I find a list of Nobel Prize nominees? According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize. Nomination information older than fifty years is public. At this web site the Nomination Databases for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1901-1951 and for the Nobel Peace Prize, 1901-1955 are now available. Nomination Databases for the other prize categories will follow.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 130): What a joke!

Indeed. Even the simplest Google search would have given you the information you had needed, but that would actually presume an interest in how things really are, even if they should deviate from your preconceived notions and prejudices.   

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 125): Please, that phrase is so overused. And pray tell us, has the US continue to reduce its pollution, or made it worse? (May I remind you that no one is currently speaking about the ozone hole, for example, or the many other environmental threats that have been paraded thru the years I have been alive) Again, you will NOT find it in this thread ANYONE who advocates poisoning the planet.

Oh come on, having the corporate structure, added to the corporate lawyers (Washington's lobby), added the corporate media and all of them together united against a worldwide cause. We haven't even ratified the Kyoto Protocol, do you think there is any intent in changing this when the US is the number one polluter in the world?

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 126): Preaching about CO2 emissions from things like SUV's and Private Jets while parading around the country in, well, SUV's and Private Jets pretty much makes one a hypocrite.

I suppose he must use a bicycle to get around, and use a powerless sailboat to cross the pacific and the Atlantic. Talk to me about preaching something and not doing it ask the daughters of our President to go to war and defend the country their father wishes to "defend against evildoers".

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 129): The President did not avoid service. That is unless you are now ready to impune the hundreds of thousands of NG folks who have and are serving their country by saying they really aren't.

There is ample proof that both of them, "avoided" the service. Even a 3 year old knows that. Prove that he served in Vietnam at least a day.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 128): Quoting OU812 (Reply 108): OK, but that article is an Inconvenient load of spin for Gore!!! As yours wasn't an anti-Gore article from some right wing media source.

Aircop, is Gore a Hypocrite?

The article from newsmax brought to light Gore's Hypocrisy. Newsmax was also intellectualy honest enough & fair to share someone who spoke on Gore's behalf . Your article, on the other hand did nothing but try to cover up Gore's Hypocrisy, which is what the liberal biased media does far too often.

Oh wow! The Gore family uses fluorescent light bulbs!   

Quoting Rara (Reply 64): Congratulations Al Gore to his Nobel Price! A worthy person to win it. Disgusting to see how some people's political partisanship is so extreme that they begrudge a man of his Nobel Price just because it doesn't fit their personal agenda. Ridiculous how every Mr Joe Nobody from Nowhere, Mississippi suddenly becomes an expert on global warming. It's not worth arguing with these people anymore, and I admire those who still put up the patience to repeat the same arguments again and again.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 99): B752fanatic

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 106): RFields5421

Well said Rara and Connies reply 91, B752 and RF as well as all the others with the generosity of spirit to wish him well in what is undoubtedly a great honour.

I hope that a psychologist does not study some of the more negative posts, the men in white coats might have to work overtime. Where are Homeland Security when we need it?

Quoting Banco (Reply 52): Quoting Klaus (Reply 51): "Out of hand"? Hardly. I've patiently explained many, many times over the years how the process of scientific discovery works and where specifically certain claims are inconsistent with well-supported scientific theories and the evidence they are based on (and what the actual nature of scientific theories even is). Do I get sarcastic at a certain point? You bet. Does that make your claim above correct? No, it doesn't if you're actually looking at my posts. Well, (and I guess this ties into some stuff further down your post) the example of flaws in the Gore film have been highlighted, yet you defend it. Why?

Why defend the film against a ruling by a UK judge? Quite a few reasons. First, the ruling is about requiring qualification of some - and by no means all - of the points made. Second, I have not seen the extent of technical advice available to the judge. The persons I knew who became judges certainly did not know enough science to have made a science based judgement, so I suspect the emphasis was on the extent to which a qualification should have been placed on the various points before they were presented to a SCHOOL audience.

Thirdly, turning the question around, I also suspect that the judge would have been much more savage if he had been assessing a presentation that stated the opposite of the points in dispute. So the nay-sayers should not take any joy in the court decision.

Quoting Toast (Reply 68): I'm a moron, then. Or maybe I'm just thinking of this detail (from wiki): Quote: 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".

It is a bit of an assumption that given half a chance, Nobel himself would not have wanted, after all these years, to alter a few details of his will, if he were given the chance to take note of the different world environment from that which obtained when he framed his will.

I cannot think that Nobel as a person who worked with explosives would have been anything other than flexible in his thought processes. We know what happened all too often with explosives if you were careless before Nobel came along.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 111): So is chlorine. Care to take a deep breath of it?

Smilies seem to be missing - still - so "wicked grin"! Ooops no they are back.      

Quoting Baroque (Reply 135): Smilies seem to be missing

Hmyeah... don't dry your dog in the microwave either...!   

Quoting Klaus (Reply 132): Everybody can be nominated for the prize - and nearly everybody has been, but the list is not publicized for 50 years. You're mistaking this for the Oscar nominations, apparently:

What on earth you you talking about Klaus?

Klaus, is Gore a Hypocrite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

When the past nominations were released it was discovered that Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939 by Erik Brandt, a member of the Swedish Parliament. Brandt retracted the nomination after a few days.[5] Other infamous nominees included Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini. However, since nomination requires only support from one qualified person (e.g., a history professor), these unusual nominations do not represent the opinions of the Nobel committee itself.

It appears the Committee that decides on nominees, going way back, have had a thing for murderous dictators. Odd!

Quoting OU812 (Reply 137): What on earth you you talking about Klaus?

About how the nomination process works about which you had been complaining so bitterly, but apparently without ever thinking of checking if your assumptions were actually justified.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 137): Klaus, is Gore a Hypocrite?

Possible, but a globally active motivational speaker can't ride his bicycle to his next presentation, even if I can get most of my own groceries that way without using my car.

And if he actually manages to get the USA in gear at last (and it seems he's had quite a bit of success with that), he could use a Gulfstream for shopping and still come out net-positive. Of course I'd like to see him not to, but I haven't dug into his life thus far.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 137): It appears the Committee that decides on nominees, going way back, have had a thing for murderous dictators. Odd!

How does a proposal by a swedish MP reflect badly on the committe which would never have considered actually awarding them?

From your own quote, by the way:

Quoting OU812 (Reply 137): However, since nomination requires only support from one qualified person (e.g., a history professor), these unusual nominations do not represent the opinions of the Nobel committee itself.

Did you actually read what you've quoted there?   

Quoting DL021 (Reply 115): Wow....you really do believe that you are the smartest man on A.net.

Hate to say it but Klaus probably is.


     

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 139): Hate to say it but Klaus probably is.

I wish. I'm blundering with the worst of them all the time. I just try to be consistent when arguing publically and when the issue has some weight.

Nice compliment, nevertheless...! I do appreciate the sentiment.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 139): Hate to say it but Klaus probably is.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 140): Nice compliment, nevertheless...! I do appreciate the sentiment

Oh get a room, you two !   

Klaus, you are disappointing me! Since you are acting in such a callow manner, you force me state the obvious. You are acting reminiscent to Mr Gore, arrogant & ignorant!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 138): Quoting OU812 (Reply 137): Klaus, is Gore a Hypocrite? Possible, but a globally active motivational speaker can't ride his bicycle to his next presentation, even if I can get most of my own groceries that way without using my car. And if he actually manages to get the USA in gear at last (and it seems he's had quite a bit of success with that), he could use a Gulfstream for shopping and still come out net-positive. Of course I'd like to see him not to, but I haven't dug into his life thus far.

It appears you can not comprehend what was mentioned prior in this thread regarding Gore's inability to make significant steps to fight global warning on his part. He is a neophyte greenie, who talks a big game but has done very little on his part, even though he has more than enough money to go Green big time.

You even admit Gore's a hypocrite. Yet, choose to over look that most striking point, then make feeble & childish insults to others who disagree with you because you can't logically defend yourself.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 138): Quoting OU812 (Reply 137): It appears the Committee that decides on nominees, going way back, have had a thing for murderous dictators. Odd! How does a proposal by a swedish MP reflect badly on the committe which would never have considered actually awarding them? From your own quote, by the way: Quoting OU812 (Reply 137): However, since nomination requires only support from one qualified person (e.g., a history professor), these unusual nominations do not represent the opinions of the Nobel committee itself. Did you actually read what you've quoted there?

For heaven sakes Klaus, why were such dictators even mentioned!!!

Please, get with the program my friend!!!

Quoting AirCop (Reply 128): I suppose this is the same LBJ that announced in 2/68 that he would not run for re-election.

March 31, 1968 to be exact. You don't think he had a vested interest in the outcome of the '68 election? Who do you think was the nominee for the Dems in '68? LBJ and Nixon went way back, and that's how LBJ operated.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 133): I suppose he must use a bicycle to get around, and use a powerless sailboat to cross the pacific and the Atlantic. Talk to me about preaching something and not doing it ask the daughters of our President to go to war and defend the country their father wishes to "defend against evildoers".

Sometimes I wonder if people like you really think before you actually post such knee-jerk BS.   

There are fuel efficient cars he can use (which he does use sometimes) and commercial jets, which are far more efficient than other private jets, but I guess Mr. Gore is just to good for. A 737, 757, or even a 767 hauling 150 people across the US is far more efficient per person than a private jet hauling 5.

In case you don't believe me:
I flew in a Boeing 767-200 from ATL to PDX in April 2005. Before takeoff, the Captain came on and was like "just FYI, we'll be burning about 8,000 gallons of jet-fuel on our way to Portland tonight".
Now let's say a private jet hauling 5 people burns 1200 gallons.
1200/5 = 240 gallons per person
8000/150 = 53.33 gallons per person.

So for a cross country trip, by flying commerically instead of on a private jet, he could reduce his carbon footprint by nearly 200 gallons. Let's say he even had to connect, and bumped it up to 70 or 80 gallons. Still far less than his 240.

But good try.
   .

Quoting Toast (Reply 68): Quoting Rara (Reply 64): "What does global warming have to do with world peace" - this must the most moronic statement I've read in a while. I'm a moron, then. Or maybe I'm just thinking of this detail (from wiki):

Quoting Toast (Reply 68): Quote: 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". The global warming debate and its chief activist Al Gore have IMO done nothing to disarm anybody, or to improve international relations. Or am I missing something? Al Gore may have well deserved a major prize for his work (I'm no specialist, and to be honest I didn't see his movie and I'm not interested in climate patterns, so I'll let others judge), but the peace prize seams nonsensical to me. Al Gore has at best given people food for thought - and for comedy, because of his well-known "do what I say, don't do what I do" philosophy - but I honestly can't see a single thing he did in his life to make this world a more peaceful place. Do you?

You know, I don't often agree with you, but you're spot on here. How the hell did he get a Nobel Peace Prize?

The Nobel Prize Categories are:
Physics
Chemsitry
Physiology/Medicine
Literature
Peace
Economics


So which category would Global Warming fall under here?

[Edited 2007-10-13 10:35:20]

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 133): We haven't even ratified the Kyoto Protocol

And of course, this goes back to when Gore was VP that this was not ratified.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 138): And if he actually manages to get the USA in gear at last

The US HAS been 'in gear' for a very long time. Is only people like you, who don't realize it, or perhaps are unwilling to.

I work in the design side of construction, both commercial and residential, for 18 years. The efficiencies that have occurred in the industry have been nothing short of amazing. Not long ago, a typical office light used 115 watts. Now the same light uses 87 watts. And all this applies to the entire range of construction. Google 'Title 24' for example.

So don't come around here assuming that the US needs Gore to get us in gear, when we are already well on the way there from way before he got on the scene.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 141): Oh get a room, you two !

The envious green tint doesn't really become you, you know...?   

Besides there's no reason for it.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 142): Klaus, you are disappointing me!

  

Quoting OU812 (Reply 142): It appears you can not comprehend what was mentioned prior in this thread regarding Gore's inability to make significant steps to fight global warning on his part.

a) The validity of the scientific conclusions about climate change doesn't depend the least bit on the level of energy use by the Gores.

b) When trying to find out more about the issue, I found that the origin of the "information" which you're so helpfully pushing whenever you've got a chance is a rather dubious organisation which has ties to Exxon Mobile ("Umwelt-Heuchler": Streit um Al Gores Energieverbrauch - Wissenschaft - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten). Now that is surely a source to blindly believe just about anything, right?

c) On a closer look Gore doesn't appear to be the hypocrite he's claimed to be after all:

The Anonymous Liberal: Gore's Energy Use

Quote: The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself. Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house. That's awfully weak. Gore's a former Senator and Vice President of the United States. Does he have to move into a studio apartment before he has the right to talk about climate change? And more importantly, as Think Progress reports, even this watered-down hypocrisy charge entirely misses the point. What Al Gore wants people to do is reduce the carbon footprint of their residence as much as possible and then purchase carbon offsets to reduce the remaining footprint to zero. Gore has installed solar panels in his home, he uses fluorescent light bulbs and other energy saving technology, and he purchases his energy from Green Power Switch, a provider which utilizes solar and wind power. He then purchases carbon offsets to reduce his remaining carbon footprint to zero. Could Gore use less overall energy if he and Tipper moved into a one-bedroom apartment? Of course. But he's not asking people to move into smaller homes. He's asking them to reduce their carbon footprints, which is exactly what he has done. He practices what he preaches.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 142): For heaven sakes Klaus, why were such dictators even mentioned!!!

They were never introduced by the Nobel organisation. Nominations can be supplied by anybody who belongs to certain groups depending on the respective prize.

In the case you quoted, a swedish member of parliament proposed (and soon after retracted again) Hitler's nomination. You still owe me an explanation of what the Nobel organisation had to do with that?   

They never solicited, promoted or especially not welcomed that nomination to my knowledge.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 145): The US HAS been 'in gear' for a very long time. Is only people like you, who don't realize it, or perhaps are unwilling to.

No. But you're still way, way behind with regard to energy efficiency. About double the CO2 emissions for a comparable lifestyle is not a model of efficiency by any means.

We still have our own work cut out for us, and it's not a picnic either. But having started much earlier and with much more consistency has given us a head start which would not have had to be there.

Gore hasn't invented the topic. But he has popularized the awareness of the issues involved in the USA. Which is no small feat in the leaden environment of the past 6-7 years.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 147):

Klaus, it is of no use, their hatred of Gore comes from way back before he became an environmental activist. And their neglect for the environmental cause goes against their political and economical views.

It is a waste of time to try and persuade them to think about this, they only have contempt for this issue, remember they call it the "religion" of the "left".

Quoting Klaus (Reply 147): No. But you're still way, way behind with regard to energy efficiency

Bullshit, plain and simple unadultered bullshit. You have no idea what you are talking about. There is almost NO WAY of obtaining non-energy efficient stuff here in the US. It is a HUGE deal in construction. Just because the lay people don't hear about DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT HAPPENING. I have seen it, and I live it every single day I go to work.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 148): And their neglect for the environmental cause goes against their political and economical views.

BS call again. I can guarantee that I lead a far higher energy efficient lifestyle than most of you out there. And I do it by choice. And I have spent thousands of dollars to do so. But I don't pull a Gore and tell you to do one thing while I do the other.