0
   

Congrats Gore

 
 
EmilyGreen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:44 pm
Cycloptichorn, you're one heck of an antagonist.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 04:56 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thousands of individual data points, hundreds of factual assertions, and a few which a judge found to be 'in question'; this equates to 'laden with errors?'

Ridiculousness

Cycloptichorn


That is truly a ridiculous argument. There are thousands of individual data points; and hundreds of factual assertions contained within theories of Intelligent Design, Racial Superiority, Aliens Visiting Earth. What is the magic number of errors that tips you over the edge of finding credibility in a given vehicle for the theory? 78? 325? 5,842?

The Judge did not review all of the thousands of data points and hundreds of assertions and find 11 simple errors.

Any vehicle for a theory about which a sitting judge considers it materially relevant to itemize 11 misrepresentations is laden with errors.


Who can know what is in a judge's mind?

I don't rely upon British judges for my opinions about the accuracy of science. And neither do you, until it's convenient for your position.

My guess is that if the very same judge had given a glowing endorsement of the movie - though, for the most part, he did, I suppose, though that goes unmentioned by the right-wingers like yourself - you wouldn't be so quick to post his opinions as if they meant something.

Cycloptichorn


Who can know what is in George Bush's mind? So often you and your confreres think you can. But that's beside the point.

No, I don't rely upon UK judges to tell me what is scientically proven and what is not, but when one takes the time to tell me and the world that a vehicle for a theory is riddled with errors, I take notice. I especially take notice when that vehicle is responsible for Al Gore winning prestigious awards.

You're stupendously wrong that the judge gave a glowing endorsement of the movie (Is that the new Liberal "Big Lie?"), but you are not wrong that if he had, I would not have aggressively referenced his ruling. So what? If the roles were reversed, you would have? Please don't insult the collective A2K intelligence.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 05:00 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thousands of individual data points, hundreds of factual assertions, and a few which a judge found to be 'in question'; this equates to 'laden with errors?'

Ridiculousness

Cycloptichorn


That is truly a ridiculous argument. There are thousands of individual data points; and hundreds of factual assertions contained within theories of Intelligent Design, Racial Superiority, Aliens Visiting Earth. What is the magic number of errors that tips you over the edge of finding credibility in a given vehicle for the theory? 78? 325? 5,842?

The Judge did not review all of the thousands of data points and hundreds of assertions and find 11 simple errors.

Any vehicle for a theory about which a sitting judge considers it materially relevant to itemize 11 misrepresentations is laden with errors.


Who can know what is in a judge's mind?

I don't rely upon British judges for my opinions about the accuracy of science. And neither do you, until it's convenient for your position.

My guess is that if the very same judge had given a glowing endorsement of the movie - though, for the most part, he did, I suppose, though that goes unmentioned by the right-wingers like yourself - you wouldn't be so quick to post his opinions as if they meant something.

Cycloptichorn


Who can know what is in George Bush's mind? So often you and your confreres think you can. But that's beside the point.

No, I don't rely upon UK judges to tell me what is scientically proven and what is not, but when one takes the time to tell me and the world that a vehicle for a theory is riddled with errors, I take notice. I especially take notice when that vehicle is responsible for Al Gore winning prestigious awards.

You're stupendously wrong that the judge gave a glowing endorsement of the movie (Is that the new Liberal "Big Lie?"), but you are not wrong that if he had, I would not have aggressively referenced his ruling. So what? If the roles were reversed, you would have? Please don't insult the collective A2K intelligence.
reagan, stetson
http://www.scripophily.com/webcart/vigs/reagancountry.jpg
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 07:04 pm
The Ig Nobel prize for Global Warming would go to Darth War_dodger and the former chairman of Exxon-Mobil corporation for sowing doubt about Global Warming. Darth War_dodger should also be awarded the Coward of the Century Award for dodging a war yet commandeering an illegal war in Iraq and installing the war-crime ridden Blackwater, a private security firm.

Gore should be lauded for the sterling effort in highlighting Global Warming even though there are errors - those of a non-scientist.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 10:21 pm
What I really think to be an advantage is that no-one can take the it away from Gore this time ...
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 10:48 pm
I happen to like Gore as the peace prize winner. Definately better than Yassar Arafat in 1994, anyway.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 11:43 pm
I am going to make a pretty good guess of what's in gwb's mind. I present it below.....






























there ya go....
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 11:56 pm
hmmm. i don't mind al gore, but i really did not like the fact he got the peace prize. his writing is one thing. but he does not live according to what he preaches. actually, nowhere near. And his statement that "the climate crisis is not a political issue" is at this point laughable. It shouldn't be, but that's an entirely different subject.
I believe this award was mostly an anti-bush sentiment, and while i have nothing against anti-bush sentiment in principle, i firmly believe it has no place in an award of this sort.
than again, there have been far worse crooks awarded the peace prize...but that is no justification of anything (it being along the lines of 'if my neighbor murders his wife it's ok for me to murder mine, too'...)
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 12:01 am
as long as you agree that bush sucks dag, you're golden with me. well hell you are anyway.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 12:04 am
bush does suck. but gore is no golden boy. he's ultimately somewhate of a hypocrite if you ask me.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 12:10 am
I think the USA would be one hell of a lot better off if gore was president, but I'm no adoring devotee or anything.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 12:44 am
he has not a snowball's chance in hell now. nobody would elect a nobel peace prize winner in this country. people would rather pick anyone else randomly from a phonebook. them awardees for noble things are suspicious to common folk.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 12:45 am
agreed and agreed.
0 Replies
 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 01:56 am
If he was President, Gore's intelligence and logic, would do much to win back American's standing in the world.
Bush and his cohorts should be made accountable for all the death and destruction they have created since the beginning of the Bush presidency.
0 Replies
 
Precious Globe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 09:51 am
Well Done Gore!
Hi
It's great that the environment and climate change have been recognised so highly as to award Al Gore et al the Nobel Prize.

The good news here in the UK is that a copy of his film 'An Inconvenient Truth', is being sent to 3,500 secondary schools (High Schools). However, a court case was brought by a parent who thought the documentary contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush" - and a judge agreed to a certain extent!

Whether Global Warming is man-made or not, I would rather scare-monger and possibly save the planet than bury my head in the sand and hope! It's like the story of the frog in a pan of water - heat it up gently and poor old froggy gets boiled to death - he does not react to the tiny changes... he could have jumped out and saved himself but left it too late.
__________________
Precious
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 01:13 pm
It's great that the environment and climate change have been recognised so highly as to award Al Gore et al the Nobel Prize. "--Precious Globe.
I fully agree with you.
As the first text of this thread reveals it is an indirect answer to BUSH's Environmental policies.
I hope Gore keep himself aloof from contesting .
He should concentrate his attention to mobilize the people in environmental matters.

"Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg called the award "well-deserved," and said he hoped it would be "an inspiration for everyone who works with climate challenges."

Stoltenberg said the UN's climate panel has provided important knowledge about climate change, based on comprehensive scientific facts. Al Gore, he said, has, "more than anyone else," created popular interest and engagement in climate questions.

"I have met both Al Gore and Dr (Rajendra) Pachauri (head of the UN's climate panel) several times, and am impressed and grateful for the work they've done," Stoltenberg said.

Norwegian politicians Børge Brende from the Conservatives and Heidi Sørensen from the Socialist Left nominated Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize, and were thrilled that he was named a winner.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2045061.ece
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 06:08 pm
Bush not to defer climate policy,despite Gore's Nobel

Washington,PTI :



The Bush administration has applauded former US vice president Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in creating awareness about global warming, but said it would not change the government's policy on climate issue.



"Of course, he's (President George Bush) happy for (former) vice president Gore, happy for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists, who also shared the Peace Prize. Obviously it's an important recognition and we're sure the vice president is thrilled," White House Spokesman Tony Fratto said, adding he was not aware of any plans by Bush to place a congratulatory call to his former presidential rival."
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Oct132007/foreign2007101330365.asp?section=updatenews
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 07:10 pm
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2007 10:15 am
Al Gore's Nobel Peace Price has sparked a massive debate in the United States. In addition to the acclaim, conservatives and people who deny man's role in climate change are mounting venomous protests -- showing that, even today, environmental protection is still a hot-button issue in America.

Steve Doocy has a question for his viewers. "What do Al Gore, Yassir Arafat and that crazy Jimmy Carter all have in common?" crows the morning host of the American cable channel Fox News. His co-hosts look at him eagerly, half-emptied coffee cups in reach. Doocy waits a beat before answering his own question with a smug yet nauseated smile. "The Nobel Peace Prize."

Then Doocy produces a chart to illustrate that "this award" is nothing else but an "anti-Bush" trophy -- a deliberate, political affront to United States President George W. Bush. The chart he shows is a list of previous Peace Nobel laureates. Kofi Annan: Bush's nemesis as United Nations Secretary General. Jimmy Carter: left-wing kook. Mohamed ElBaradei: Bush's adversary at the nuclear UN watchdog agency IAEA. Doocy sighs
Take Marlo Lewis, the "global warming expert" of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who likes to write commentaries in defense of the oil industry. Gore is a "scaremonger," Lewis charged on CNN, calling Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," among other things, "exaggerated in many cases," "manipulative," and "misleading." All this talk about climate change only diverted "the public attention, the political will and potentially trillions of dollars" from more important problems, such as AIDS.

All this just goes to show that, in the US, climate change and man's role in it is still a hot-button issue, far from the common sense that it is in Europe

Meanwhile, the pendulum of public opinion has long swung to Gore and the climate warriors. When CNN asked in a poll today if Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Price, 68 percent of the participants said yes. Meanwhile, a recent Stanford University poll found that only 20 percent of those surveyed agreed with Bush's environmental policies
Thanks to Al Gore, polar bears will no longer be drowning, therefore free to continue to kill and maim any humans that come into contact with them, therefore contributing to world peace," wrote blogger Cassy Fiano, calling Gore the "Indiana Jones of the Climate Change Movement." "Fausta's Blog" suggested that Gore next put on a one-man Broadway show so he could add a Tony Award to his Oscar and Emmy. And "Redstate" reminded its readers that Hitler and Stalin once had also been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Seems that not much has changed in these realms since George H.W. Bush lampooned Gore, then a vice presidential candidate, as the "Ozone Man," back in 1992. "This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme we'll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American," Bush crooned during the election campaign that year (which he lost). His son George W. Bush sounded just the same before the elections of 2000

"The Country Needs a Good President"

Even today, Bush still wobbles around the climate question all the while acting as Earth's savior with public displays of environmentalism. Two weeks ago he held his own climate conference, as if to rebuke the big UN climate summit in New York City that same week. Experts weren't much impressed by that show. "I would really be hard-pressed to give this administration credit for anything but words," Peter Goldmark, director of the climate and air program for Environmental Defense, said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Even in areas where they promised change -- such as the 'technological revolution' that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighted again in her speech at the United Nations this week -- the words far exceed the action."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,511328,00.html
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Oct, 2007 01:54 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
he has not a snowball's chance in hell now. nobody would elect a nobel peace prize winner in this country. people would rather pick anyone else randomly from a phonebook. them awardees for noble things are suspicious to common folk.


I'm not sure how you Liberals sustain your heroic struggle with the forces of evil; on behalf of the common folk --- especially when you seem to have such contempt for the common folk. If they were just stupid sheep to be protected and led to green pastures by their Liberal shepherds, it would be less taxing on your spirits, but no, they are ignorant, mean-spirited little rodents that have to be saved in spite of themselves and despite your personal repugnance for them.

America doesn't deserve Al Gore.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Congrats Gore
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 07:46:41