Yes Bodo, you’re totally uncontrollable. And I tell you, I’m so so glad chou thinks I’m getting a grip. If he didn’t approve of me I’d just curl up in bed and cry for days. Be still, my heart.[/quote]
I was under the alcofluence of infahol at the time. What the heck we fighting about again? Oh Al Gore…never heard of him.
Chou
Yes Bodo, you’re totally uncontrollable. And I tell you, I’m so so glad chou thinks I’m getting a grip. If he didn’t approve of me I’d just curl up in bed and cry for days. Be still, my heart.[/quote]
Lucky you, I can’t tell you how many times in the past couple of days I’ve had to redo my eyeliner, and mascara because of the uncontrollabe crying jags I’ve had over Chou’s post. 
And then, you, you throw salt in the wound! 
Bodo
Speaking of Al Gore…here’s a quiz about him I found a while back…kinda interesting. 
Your score is 42%
Well, Al Gore has shaved his beard and is opening his big mouth and lying about global warming again…yawn… Getting ready for a possible run in 2008 challenging Hillary from the left? Why doesn’t he spend his time concentrating on more important issues such as third-world poverty and disease?
I’ve always been curious about Gore and the environment. After all, Gore and his family caused some terrible pollution by maintaining their own toxic waste dump on their farm in Carthage, Tennessee. In 1992, Nashville’s CBS network affiliate WTVF broadcast video of the Gore dump including aerial shots of the debris, and included close-ups of dripping oil filters, toxic aerosol spray cans, unrecycled aluminum pesticide containers, used tires and all manner of environmentally unfriendly refuse. It was an ugly, dangerous dump.
[quote=“Spectator”]
His current movie tour strategy employs a tactic from his last campaign that seems to work for him: lying. However, when you call it “over-representation” it doesn’t sound so bad, especially when applied to global warming, or maybe even the pursuit of the presidency:
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” [/quote]
[quote=“NASA’s former head Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer”]
Dear Mr. Gore:
I have just seen your new movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.
As a climate scientist myself – you might remember me…I’m the one you mistook for your “good friend,” UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back – I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.
Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?
Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted…I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists’ predictions now?
Why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.
Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?
When you recounted your 6-year-old son’s tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I’m confused…do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?
There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven’t there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?
Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.
At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy… you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I’m sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration’s view?
Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can’t understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.
I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a “moral issue,” and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.
Your “Good Friend,”
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
(aka ‘Phil Jones’)
tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506C[/quote]
And the sad thing is…the same people are believing him all over again…
Surely that Dr Spencer article is a put on? No self-respecting intellectual would write in such a Fox news manner.
Bullshit. You’re telling me a man with an elite education and the distinction of holding a top position in one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world wrote that? Bullshit. And if he did, it’s no wonder the space shuttle crashes on occasion.
As for Gore’s dump, well, no man is perfect Chewy, or without some contradictions as you must be well aware.
BTW, welcome back.
Let’s see, what website is TC quoting from ? TCSdaily?
According to the Washington Post, in an article entitled “How a Global Warming Satirist Breaks the Ice”, Roy W. Spencer “now earns a small amount of money writing for TCS Daily, a Web site funded in part by ExxonMobil”.
Thanks as usual, 
TC, for the “information”. Post article here.
How the heck do you guys find all those photos (Stalin’s one of the Jeddah hiway)(The older anti-immigration posters and photos). You guys must have huge hard drives just downloading stuff.
Did Benjamin Franklin really say those things about jews?
you guys are all nutbars.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]Let’s see, what website is TC quoting from ? TCSdaily?
According to the Washington Post, in an article entitled “How a Global Warming Satirist Breaks the Ice”, Roy W. Spencer “now earns a small amount of money writing for TCS Daily, a Web site funded in part by ExxonMobil”.
Thanks as usual, TC, for the “information”. Post article here.[/quote]
This is a bit ad hominem, but I can’t help it, so here goes:
Chewycorns, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy. So why do you allow yourself to fall into far right partisan nincompoopery so much? I mean, you just got owned big time. Seriously and humiliatingly owned. I don’t know that I’ve seen such a devastating takedown on this board before.
You know that saying about how if it looks too good to be true, it probably is? The same thing goes for political debates, as well. Okay, yeah, who’s kidding who, we’re all anonymous types pushing buttons here, so it doesn’t matter a whit, but having said that, I really get the feeling that there’s an intelligent and thoughtful commentator lurking underneath your gruff rightwing attack bot exterior.
Know what I mean? Or am I just way off base?
[quote]This is a bit ad hominem, but I can’t help it, so here goes:
Chewycorns, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy. So why do you allow yourself to fall into far right partisan nincompoopery so much? I mean, you just got owned big time. Seriously and humiliatingly owned. I don’t know that I’ve seen such a devastating takedown on this board before. [/quote]
Owned? I am not sure exactly how? By quoting from a reporter who works for a site that is “receives financial support in part from Exxon?” Now, there are two things that come to mind…
Just how much has Exxon given the site? and if it supports the site does that mean that the facts? information? point of view are wrong?
[quote]You know that saying about how if it looks too good to be true, it probably is? The same thing goes for political debates, as well. Okay, yeah, who’s kidding who, we’re all anonymous types pushing buttons here, so it doesn’t matter a whit, but having said that, I really get the feeling that there’s an intelligent and thoughtful commentator lurking underneath your gruff rightwing attack bot exterior.
Know what I mean? Or am I just way off base?[/quote]
I am sensing here that it is possible that someone may be assuming that if a company donates money to lobbying efforts on its own behalf that this is always wrong, but let’s say Al Gore were to receive money “in part” from some liberal fringe group, that would not be worth mentioning because we all know that his positions are the “right” ones to hold, right?
Or did I misconstrue this debate here?
:loco: Takedown? The guy receives some financial support from Exxon. So what?
In Gore’s case, it’s easy being green, especially when you can parlay it into even more green. He is as a senior advisor to Google, a founder of Generation Investment Management, and a board member of Apple Computers. I am sure he receives a lot more moolah from corporations than an ex-Nasa scientist
:loco: Takedown? The guy receives some financial support from Exxon. So what?[/quote]
I think you need to audition for the Colbert Report.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]Let’s see, what website is TC quoting from ? TCSdaily?
According to the Washington Post, in an article entitled “How a Global Warming Satirist Breaks the Ice”, Roy W. Spencer “now earns a small amount of money writing for TCS Daily, a Web site funded in part by ExxonMobil”.
Thanks as usual, TC, for the “information”. Post article here.[/quote]DB -
Could you perhaps be a bit more specific as to who the heck you are referring to here?
Are you referring to something I posted?
That “I” would be me - TainanCowboy, Got that? Is that clear?
I know, we all look alike right?
algore - The Eco Warrior
…lined with tin foil…of course.