Thread: Do You Think GWB Hates Al Gore?

I was thinking along the same lines. Barry would be a shoe-in but ol' Al ain't gonna be happy being #2. On the other hand, Al is an admirer of LBJ...

Wow Kelbro, your comment is even more confusing than Tim's. It seems to me that receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental efforts is not a "self aggrandizing joke". Additionally Al Gore has said he has no intention nor desire to run for president.

I am not certain what the absolute state of our natural resources are but I think it is sound logic to follow the advice of those that most want to help preserve and repair our planet's ecosystem and get off the addiction to fossil fuels. I coiuld be completely wrong but if I am I'd still like to minimize my carbon based fuel reliance.

Originally Posted by icedog

Wow Kelbro, your comment is even more confusing than Tim's. It seems to me that receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental efforts is not a "self aggrandizing joke". Additionally Al Gore has said he has no intention nor desire to run for president.

I am not certain what the absolute state of our natural resources are but I think it is sound logic to follow the advice of those that most want to help preserve and repair our planet's ecosystem and get off the addiction to fossil fuels. I coiuld be completely wrong but if I am I'd still like to minimize my carbon based fuel reliance.

Yeah, good luck with that.

I'm all for conservation but smoke and mirrors coupled with bogus science seems to have bamboozled a lot of folks. I don't happen to be one of them. I do provide financial support to several conservation groups. I believe in Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. I try to implement this concept in factories around the world. I lead the 'Green Initiative' for our electronics company. I'm not just talking off the top of my head here.

I spend a lot of time in third-world countries, excuse me, developing nations. Believe me, there are many cities that are causing much larger air and water pollution problems than our entire country. They (China/India) have no intention of playing along so thinking that we (The USofA) can make a drastic impact is foolish. Every little bit helps but like they say, 'One oh shi* wipes out ten attaboys. We are no longer in a position to impose meaningful sanctions against those that don't choose to follow our agenda.

Al Gore could give a spit about the environment. Look at his home. Review his voting record. He is a politician that has found a big white horse to ride. and people love to rally 'round a 'good cause'. He probably doesn't even own a pair of Birkenstocks

Originally Posted by kelbro

Al Gore could give a spit about the environment. Look at his home. Review his voting record. He is a politician that has found a big white horse to ride. and people love to rally 'round a 'good cause'. He probably doesn't even own a pair of Birkenstocks

Are you suggesting this politician might be a hypocrite? Damn that would just shatter all my beliefs, right down to the tooth fairy. Well, be that as it may, I will still cling to a few beliefs:

• We have damaged our environment through excessive and careless use of fossil fuels and are too heavily dependant on these non-renewable fuels.
• You are either a part of the problem or part of the solution so we each should decide which and apply pressure to our government to move in the direction of cleaner, renewable sources of energy.
• The commitee that selects the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize are much smarter than I (and maybe even smarter than you) so I will accept their judgement of Al Gore and believe he is doing good work, (regardless of his secret motivational agenda).

Originally Posted by icedog

• The commitee that selects the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize are much smarter than I (and maybe even smarter than you) so I will accept their judgement of Al Gore and believe he is doing good work, (regardless of his secret motivational agenda).

Don't be so sure about that first part. It is a political organization first, scientific is down the list somewhere else.
Otherwise, stewardship and conservation has always been a good idea, not just recently. Al's movie has already been shot full of holes and even stole footage from "The Day After Tomorrow" to be included in his documentary style movie. More likely the award was given because the politicos at the UN found new ways to tax people, and decided in favor of this theory, and OBTW Al's movie seemed to support their decisions.
Honestly such things cheapen the work of real conservationists who struggle to get the right things done.
Just my opinion.

John P.

John, you never fail to put into words what I have trouble expressing!

Thanks....although I can't take all the credit, Mom was an English teacher....

Personally, I'm in awe of the many folks on here who can say with a single sentence what seems to take me a page and a half to say...that's where the real skill is.

John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Thanks....although I can't take all the credit, Mom was an English teacher....

Personally, I'm in awe of the many folks on here who can say with a single sentence what seems to take me a page and a half to say...that's where the real skill is.

John P.

English author -- sticks in my mind it was William Makepeace Thackery -- wrote to a friend, and prefaced his letter by saying, "I'm sorry to write you such a long letter. Didn't have time to write a shorter one."

You're in good company.

Just out of curiosity, what holes have been shot in Albie's movie? Anything that would discredit the basic theory, or just side issues?

j

PS: Research shows the quote attributed to Twain, Churchill, Lincoln, Hemingway, Wilde, and Chesterton (among others). I'm pretty sure, though, that it's either Thackery or Trollope.

j

I remember what Armand Hammer(Occidental Petroleum) said about Albert Gore SR. " I've got Al Gore in my pocket." I wonder whose pocket jr. is in. Just for fun another quote, this one from JD Rockeller
" I love competition, especially when I control both ends of it."

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

English author -- sticks in my mind it was William Makepeace Thackery -- wrote to a friend, and prefaced his letter by saying, "I'm sorry to write you such a long letter. Didn't have time to write a shorter one."

You're in good company.

Just out of curiosity, what holes have been shot in Albie's movie? Anything that would discredit the basic theory, or just side issues?

j

PS: Research shows the quote attributed to Twain, Churchill, Lincoln, Hemingway, Wilde, and Chesterton (among others). I'm pretty sure, though, that it's either Thackery or Trollope.

j

To be honest it's possible the quote could have been from any of those but I don't know it off top of my head either. I've not read them all but could easily see the quote being attributed to more than one of them and sounding "right".

As for the holes in Mr. Gore's movie, most of them relate to either bad science or simply putting words into the mouths of others.

It makes a lot of assumptions, for instance claiming there is a general consensus among scientists [that his version of the theory] is correct, when in fact there was none. Thousands of scientists may have looked at individual pieces of data, and said "this piece could fit" but not the whole. Now, the global warming theory [as in Gore's version of it, anyway] has become something of a pop-sci dogma. There are others with better scientific credentials than I have which have commented on it, here's one for example. One gentleman even took this to court in the UK, here's one article about that instance

FWIW, I'm not saying the climate is not changing or will not, but the movie takes individual events and tries using them as evidence of overall climate change, then furthermore tries saying we are the primary cause, when such has not been proven, and considering one city in China puts out more pollutants than the entire United States (the above post is true, btw...) with no apologies, blaming the US does not solve any problems at all, regardless of what contributions may or may not be made by the U.S. It is IMHO a political ego stroke to the UN and a jab at the administration over the Kyoto accords, which for other reasons than Mr. Gore would like one to believe, I'll wager, the US is not a part of. It is easy for a nation to ban lumber harvesting, if it has no trees, so to speak, but I'm sure it's even deeper than that.

Again I'm not a scientist, but there's a great article on the movie in Science Daily that sums up some of my concerns.

I absolutely believe in stewardship and taking care of what we have. On the other hand, Mr. Gore is using a movie that is based not so much on science and a lot on assumptions, to try to scare people into coming to his side.

He has a huge political engine behind him now, and the UN even supported his ideas before the science was out, (and this is only my opinion) because it allows them to tax someone at will based on their own measure of pollution created.

Al Gore made an end of the world "scare" movie, then created a corporation that makes money based on people it figures to be polluters, (carbon credits anyone?) jets around in his private, well, jet, all the while riding his popularity higher and higher, and no doubt has his eyes set on a political post (possibly at the UN) that he sees as even more desirable than the US presidency. Meanwhile his home uses over 12 times the average energy used by a typical household-in a month. That one's even on Snopes. Seems even GW Bush's "ranch house" is a better example-being "green"er than most regular homes even. Talk about irony. The man is a classic hypocrite and is more capitalist than just about any of the "oil men" he's helped make into modern day Pariahs...

Anyway, hope I've not bored you with the links, but every time I hear one thing or another is an "end of the world" alarm, and some politician is making loads of money from it-I do a lot of reading.
The climate has changed before, for instance, thousands of years before Chloroflourocarbon scares, so there is also an astrophysical aspect to it as well that we do not quite understand, other than it seems to run in cycles. Are we contributing to warming? Probably. I just do not believe it is nearly as much as Mr. Gore would want us to believe, and at any rate he uses bad "science" to try to scare us into this belief.
Just a note, the movie depicts an ice shelf falling into the ocean-which was taken from the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", a fiction movie that has nothing to do with *actual* events although it was made somewhat believable. Movies are good at that. Otherwise it is interesting that the Antarctic ice cap is apparently getting larger not smaller, but that isn't going to make him any money or fame, and the UN can't tax it...so don't count on it getting a lot of news.

Just my opinions here. I'm pretty skeptical of a lot of things, understandably, as it seems in these topsy-turvy days much of what pop-culture believes as fact is nothing of the sort, but rather simply someone or other's suspicions, aired in a way so as to be believable at first glance. Then the tax man comes and supports the one that helps him gain the most control over the people or tax them the most.
Spare me a dime for a carbon credit?

John P.