Well played, Mr. Gore

[StageLeft]

Link

Al Gore likens fight against climate change to battle with Nazis

Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment , sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: ?Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.?

He added: ?We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource.?

Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat from Nazi Germany.

?The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change.

?The only way politicians will act is if awareness raises to a level to make them feel that it?s a necessity.?

I like hyperbole as much as the next guy but do you think he's getting desperate? Politically it is still a fight he's doing well with (see cap & trade), but a lot of people remain unconvinced.

 

[SAWYER]

Once he stops flying the world in private jets, stops the suvs himself, reduces the size of his mansion/multiple homes then he will have some credibility.

 

[Genx87]

Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

 

[OCGuy]

I truly believe he enjoys being an internet meme.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

The war against CO2? The fatter Al gets, the more BS spews from his maw.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Once he stops flying the world in private jets, stops the suvs himself, reduces the size of his mansion/multiple homes then he will have some credibility.

yup...he is just as credible as having the Marlboro Man trying to teach kids not to smoke

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

If your religious faith decreed that most the life on the planet was in imminent danger of dying then you too would easily compare Co2 to Nazis. In fact, Nazis would be pants by comparison.

 

[Beattie]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

If your religious faith decreed that most the life on the planet was in imminent danger of dying then you too would easily compare Co2 to Nazis. In fact, Nazis would be pants by comparison.

I dont get it.

Nothing is in imminent danger... the theory of global warming hasn't even been proven yet.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Beattie

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

If your religious faith decreed that most the life on the planet was in imminent danger of dying then you too would easily compare Co2 to Nazis. In fact, Nazis would be pants by comparison.

I dont get it.

Nothing is in imminent danger... the theory of global warming hasn't even been proven yet.

Hence why the previous poster described it as a religious faith.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

If your religious faith decreed that most the life on the planet was in imminent danger of dying then you too would easily compare Co2 to Nazis. In fact, Nazis would be pants by comparison.

The trouble is, right-wing true-believers won't ever acknowledge a cause-and-effect relationship between high CO2 levels (or specifically, mankind's contributions to high CO2 levels) and climate change, regardless of the weight of scientific evidence.

For right-wing ideologues, the damage caused by Hitler and the Nazis is easy to grasp, but throw anything of a statistical nature their way and watch their eyes glaze over. It's an IQ problem - they just don't have the brainpower to understand anything with more than one moving part.

A classic right-wing, anti-global-warming argument: "If you can't even predict tomorrow's weather, how can you possibly have confidence in complex algorithms that model weather patterns decades into the future?" To which a liberal with even a high-school education would respond: "If you can't predict what specific smokers will get lung cancer and/or heart disease - and when, how can you possibly say that smoking is bad for your health?

Right-wingers just don't get it. Pity them.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

If your religious faith decreed that most the life on the planet was in imminent danger of dying then you too would easily compare Co2 to Nazis. In fact, Nazis would be pants by comparison.

The trouble is, right-wing true-believers won't ever acknowledge a cause-and-effect relationship between high CO2 levels (or specifically, mankind's contributions to high CO2 levels) and climate change, regardless of the weight of scientific evidence.

For right-wing ideologues, the damage caused by Hitler and the Nazis is easy to grasp, but throw anything of a statistical nature their way and watch their eyes glaze over. It's an IQ problem - they just don't have the brainpower to understand anything with more than one moving part.

A classic right-wing, anti-global-warming argument: "If you can't even predict tomorrow's weather, how can you possibly have confidence in complex algorithms that model weather patterns decades into the future?" To which a liberal with even a high-school education would respond: "If you can't predict what specific smokers will get lung cancer and/or heart disease - and when, how can you possibly say that smoking is bad for your health?

Right-wingers just don't get it. Pity them.

The problem is that your ideologically bigoted head is so far up your ass that everything in the world is the result of the right wing boogeyman.

 

[StageLeft]

If you can't even predict tomorrow's weather, how can you possibly have confidence in complex algorithms that model weather patterns decades into the future?

It is a fair question. Your counter-point to it is not fair. A fair analogy would be: You can't predict tomorrow's lottery number, but I'm expected to believe that you can predict what the combination of today's, tomorrow's, and the next day's number would be if added up?

In any case, ideologues exist on both sides. Go ahead and ask a big proponent of global warming to list off some of the key benefits of it and watch their eyes glaze. Question does not compute.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

If your religious faith decreed that most the life on the planet was in imminent danger of dying then you too would easily compare Co2 to Nazis. In fact, Nazis would be pants by comparison.

The trouble is, right-wing true-believers won't ever acknowledge a cause-and-effect relationship between high CO2 levels (or specifically, mankind's contributions to high CO2 levels) and climate change, regardless of the weight of scientific evidence.

For right-wing ideologues, the damage caused by Hitler and the Nazis is easy to grasp, but throw anything of a statistical nature their way and watch their eyes glaze over. It's an IQ problem - they just don't have the brainpower to understand anything with more than one moving part.

A classic right-wing, anti-global-warming argument: "If you can't even predict tomorrow's weather, how can you possibly have confidence in complex algorithms that model weather patterns decades into the future?" To which a liberal with even a high-school education would respond: "If you can't predict what specific smokers will get lung cancer and/or heart disease - and when, how can you possibly say that smoking is bad for your health?

Right-wingers just don't get it. Pity them.

They acknowledge cause and effect. They just don't agree that CO2 is the cause, but rather the effect.

 

[Beattie]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Beattie

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, reducing Co2 is the same as stopping the National Socialists.

What a douchebag.

If your religious faith decreed that most the life on the planet was in imminent danger of dying then you too would easily compare Co2 to Nazis. In fact, Nazis would be pants by comparison.

I dont get it.

Nothing is in imminent danger... the theory of global warming hasn't even been proven yet.

Hence why the previous poster described it as a religious faith.

Ahh, I read that wrong. I get it now.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: shira

The trouble is, right-wing true-believers won't ever acknowledge a cause-and-effect relationship between high CO2 levels (or specifically, mankind's contributions to high CO2 levels) and climate change, regardless of the weight of scientific evidence.

For right-wing ideologues, the damage caused by Hitler and the Nazis is easy to grasp, but throw anything of a statistical nature their way and watch their eyes glaze over. It's an IQ problem - they just don't have the brainpower to understand anything with more than one moving part.

A classic right-wing, anti-global-warming argument: "If you can't even predict tomorrow's weather, how can you possibly have confidence in complex algorithms that model weather patterns decades into the future?" To which a liberal with even a high-school education would respond: "If you can't predict what specific smokers will get lung cancer and/or heart disease - and when, how can you possibly say that smoking is bad for your health?

Right-wingers just don't get it. Pity them.

Wait, it is Al Gore who is using the Nazi analogy, and you are saying that the right cant grasp anything above "ZOMG NAZI HITLER THIRD REICH"?


Oh man.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: shira

The trouble is, right-wing true-believers won't ever acknowledge a cause-and-effect relationship between high CO2 levels (or specifically, mankind's contributions to high CO2 levels) and climate change, regardless of the weight of scientific evidence.

For right-wing ideologues, the damage caused by Hitler and the Nazis is easy to grasp, but throw anything of a statistical nature their way and watch their eyes glaze over. It's an IQ problem - they just don't have the brainpower to understand anything with more than one moving part.

A classic right-wing, anti-global-warming argument: "If you can't even predict tomorrow's weather, how can you possibly have confidence in complex algorithms that model weather patterns decades into the future?" To which a liberal with even a high-school education would respond: "If you can't predict what specific smokers will get lung cancer and/or heart disease - and when, how can you possibly say that smoking is bad for your health?

Right-wingers just don't get it. Pity them.

Wait, it is Al Gore who is using the Nazi analogy, and you are saying that the right cant grasp anything above "ZOMG NAZI HITLER THIRD REICH"?

Oh man.

Just accept his gracious pity on move on...it's quite clear that his vastly superior intellect is a gift to mankind and a bane to all those who might dare to disagree with him. His intelligence is only exceeded by his humility.

 

[Kirby]

Manbearpig vs CO2! Who is the greater threat?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: shira

The trouble is, right-wing true-believers won't ever acknowledge a cause-and-effect relationship between high CO2 levels (or specifically, mankind's contributions to high CO2 levels) and climate change, regardless of the weight of scientific evidence.

For right-wing ideologues, the damage caused by Hitler and the Nazis is easy to grasp, but throw anything of a statistical nature their way and watch their eyes glaze over. It's an IQ problem - they just don't have the brainpower to understand anything with more than one moving part.

A classic right-wing, anti-global-warming argument: "If you can't even predict tomorrow's weather, how can you possibly have confidence in complex algorithms that model weather patterns decades into the future?" To which a liberal with even a high-school education would respond: "If you can't predict what specific smokers will get lung cancer and/or heart disease - and when, how can you possibly say that smoking is bad for your health?

Right-wingers just don't get it. Pity them.

Wait, it is Al Gore who is using the Nazi analogy, and you are saying that the right cant grasp anything above "ZOMG NAZI HITLER THIRD REICH"?

Oh man.

Just accept his gracious pity on move on...it's quite clear that his vastly superior intellect is a gift to mankind and a bane to all those who might dare to disagree with him. His intelligence is only exceeded by his humility.

I thought that was Craig?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Beattie
I dont get it.

Nothing is in imminent danger... the theory of global warming hasn't even been proven yet.

They don't keep repeating "the science is in" for nothing. They not only claim it is proven but that it is certifiable fact. That is where we tend to disagree and when the alarm bells start ringing we begin to roll our eyes.

 

[ElFenix]

excelsior!

 

[marincounty]

Most of you laughed at Al Gore when he was talking about a Social Security lockbox.
Are you still laughing? Oh yeah, Bush wants to go to mars.

 

[Craig234]

There's no Godwin's Law by Gore.

There are two groups of people: those who agree with climate change being a massive threat man can take steps to mitigate, and those who disagree.

For the former, like Gore, his point is spot on. Godwin's law is the *inappropriate* use of an analogy to the Nazis; Gore's is a highly appropriate analogy to the Nazis for this group.

For the second group, this is Godwin's law only because the threat of climate change is either not real or there's nothing that can be done to mitigate it.

But that's an issue about the science, not about Godwin's law.

Godwin's law is intended to prevetn every argument on the internet from concluding with "Obama's a tyrant, wasting tax dollars on a date to New York, he's like Hitler!"

It's intended to prevent the misuse of 'Nazis are bad, so I'll say you are like Nazis' as a substitute for argument.

It's not intended to have one side of an issue - group 2 above - use it to pretend they've made the argument to prove they're right on the science.

Instead, group 2 needs to stick to the eissue.

I'll coin a corollary to Godwin's Law that says that the inappropriate involking of Godwin's Law over a *legitimate* reference to Nazis makes you lsoe the argument.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Most of you laughed at Al Gore when he was talking about a Social Security lockbox.
Are you still laughing? Oh yeah, Bush wants to go to mars.

Hot damn, we've got democratic control of two of three branches...social security lock...err...

Obama plans to go to mars on a stack of freshly printed dollar bills.

Yah, I'm still laughing that your partisan clock is stuck in 2006.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Most of you laughed at Al Gore when he was talking about a Social Security lockbox.
Are you still laughing? Oh yeah, Bush wants to go to mars.

And we don't need the government spending money developing some 'internet'. If it would really be useful, the private sector will invent it. Get rid of big government!

Only in the insanity of our right wing does it make sense for the title 'olitical father of the internet' to be a negative.

It's as if Thomas Jefferson had been ridiculed while a politician for phony claims he said "I invented Democracy!", or Washington for claiming "I defeated the Btis single-handed!"

Such attacks are seen as too idiotic to seem possible as having any serious impact on these men for their work to help the nation, but there you have it on Gore.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: marincounty
Most of you laughed at Al Gore when he was talking about a Social Security lockbox.
Are you still laughing? Oh yeah, Bush wants to go to mars.

Hot damn, we've got democratic control of two of three branches...social security lock...err...

Obama plans to go to mars on a stack of freshly printed dollar bills.

Yah, I'm still laughing that your partisan clock is stuck in 2006.

Protecting the Social Security trust fund was relevant when we had a surplus (Clinton), not when the Republicans have brought our economy to the edge of collapse needing deficits.