Well played, Mr. Gore

[rudder]

While you all were arguing about C02... some solar flares were reupting and causing the NE to have a cooler summer.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: rudder
While you all were arguing about C02... some solar flares were reupting and causing the NE to have a cooler summer.

So? The argument has never been that CO2 was the only thing that affected our climate, merely that it was one of them.

Of course you already knew that.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: OCguy
I truly believe he enjoys being an internet meme.

Damn ..... I just blew Pepsi out my nose!! God that was funny!

 

[senseamp]

LOL @ OP for complaining about hyperbole while repeating the a hyperbole about Gore claiming to be inventor of the internet.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL @ OP for complaining about hyperbole while repeating the a hyperbole about Gore claiming to be inventor of the internet.

*whoosh*

 

[DukeN]

I think Gore is right on this one - the public is not as involved as the perception of climate change isn't one of one bearing potentially disastrous results. If Gore is right (arguable/debatable), then it is possible that this may cause as much damage to human civilisation if not more than the Nazis did.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: DukeN
I think Gore is right on this one - the public is not as involved as the perception of climate change isn't one of one bearing potentially disastrous results. If Gore is right (arguable/debatable), then it is possible that this may cause as much damage to human civilisation if not more than the Nazis did.

*If* he's wrong we will damage our economy horribly and we haven't addressed the biggest perpetrators like China and we will put ourselves in a distinct disadvantage manufacturing anything.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Skoorb

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.

Your analogy is also wrong. In many cases we can predict macro level trends but be utterly lost when it comes down to the micro level. We can't predict the average temperature next week very accurately, but we sure as hell can predict the average temperature for a year pretty closely.

As for Al Gore needing to emit less carbon than the average person, that's an incredibly silly thing to say. Whether he is right or not and whether his arguments are credible or not has nothing to do with how much carbon he consumes. Furthermore, the idea that him flying around the world in a private jet trying to fight global warming is somehow a sign of hypocrisy is willful ignorance at best. It's in effect asking "Why is this business spending money on products and labor? Don't these idiots know you're supposed to be in business to MAKE money?!?!"

If fat-boy feels that GW is such an emergency he would have a lot more credibility selling this scheme if he was to walk the walk, not just preaching to others to sacrifice. Take Obama for example he has asked everyone to sacrifice for the sake of our economy and he is a great example of of a man sacrificing.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL @ OP for complaining about hyperbole while repeating the a hyperbole about Gore claiming to be inventor of the internet.

*whoosh*

Just saying your OP is self discrediting.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL @ OP for complaining about hyperbole while repeating the a hyperbole about Gore claiming to be inventor of the internet.

*whoosh*

Just saying your OP is self discrediting.

I think that was the point, that's why I called it internets, too, for fun!

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Craig234
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.

There is a large enough third group of whom I despise - those who abuse the subject of global warming purely for partisan political purposes.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL @ OP for complaining about hyperbole while repeating the a hyperbole about Gore claiming to be inventor of the internet.

*whoosh*

Just saying your OP is self discrediting.

I think that was the point, that's why I called it internets, too, for fun!

I think some people just don't have a sense of humor, expecially when your talking about one of their heros.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp
LOL @ OP for complaining about hyperbole while repeating the a hyperbole about Gore claiming to be inventor of the internet.

*whoosh*

Just saying your OP is self discrediting.

I think that was the point, that's why I called it internets, too, for fun!

I think some people just don't have a sense of humor, expecially when your talking about one of their heros.

Sure, I do respect a man who had the vision to fund the development of the Internet early on. I probably owe him my first 3 tech jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...munication_Act_of_1991

An important result of the Gore Bill was the development of Mosaic in 1993,[5][10] the World Wide Web browser which is credited by most scholars as beginning the Internet boom of the 1990s:

Gore's legislation also helped fund the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, where a team of programmers, including Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, created the Mosaic Web browser, the commercial Internet's technological springboard. 'If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn't have happened,' Andreessen says of Gore's bill, 'at least, not until years later.' [11]

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

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.?

FUCK YOU AL GORE.

Winston Churchill was a monster and he slaughtered millions of civilized people in the name of his horrible, disgusting, and perverted Empire of Death. He was one of the worst monsters of the 20th century and is on the same level, if not worse, than Hitler.

Saved civilization? Maybe British civilization, but he destroyed so many others.

Winston Churchill is burning in hell right now.

Al Gore didn't say "All of Winston Churchill's policy decisions were good ones", he said that specific thing he did was a good thing and that's pretty hard to argue with.

I fail to see how it's hard to argue against his supposed role as savior of civilization.

You'll have to explain your position than. It didn't say he did great things for other cultures in the years prior to WWII. I think any rational person would say that civilization would have been a fair bit worse off had Hitler won WWII, and Churchill played an instrumental part in his defeat.

Sorry, but I think any rational person who studies the history would see Churchill on equal footing with Hitler. They were both bigots who killed millions of people with their policies.

Gore claims that Churchill saved civilization during WW2. How is that possible when he was responsible for a genocide during WW2 as well as afterwards?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Sure, I do respect a man who had the vision to fund the development of the Internet early on. I probably owe him my first 3 tech jobs.

[/quote]


You'll have that opportunity to pay him back.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Craig234
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.

There is a large enough third group of whom I despise - those who abuse the subject of global warming purely for partisan political purposes.

Ultimately, what does it matter - the two groups I mentioned are the relevant groups.

If you have someone who gives $1 million to cure cancer out of altruism, and another who does so to get good press, they're both in one group versus the guy who promotes cancer.

(For example, the protagonist in 'Thank You for Smoking').

Either they are supporting policies to combat global climate change, or they're not. I guess their could be a group who support bad fixes, but haven't seen that as a big issue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

If fat-boy

You lose the argument already. This has nothing to do with his policy and you saying it suggests how little you have of any validity.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You'll have to explain your position than. It didn't say he did great things for other cultures in the years prior to WWII. I think any rational person would say that civilization would have been a fair bit worse off had Hitler won WWII, and Churchill played an instrumental part in his defeat.

Sorry, but I think any rational person who studies the history would see Churchill on equal footing with Hitler. They were both bigots who killed millions of people with their policies.

Gore claims that Churchill saved civilization during WW2. How is that possible when he was responsible for a genocide during WW2 as well as afterwards?

I imagine you are talking about the famine in India. No, Churchill and Hitler are not on equal footing.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You'll have to explain your position than. It didn't say he did great things for other cultures in the years prior to WWII. I think any rational person would say that civilization would have been a fair bit worse off had Hitler won WWII, and Churchill played an instrumental part in his defeat.

Sorry, but I think any rational person who studies the history would see Churchill on equal footing with Hitler. They were both bigots who killed millions of people with their policies.

Gore claims that Churchill saved civilization during WW2. How is that possible when he was responsible for a genocide during WW2 as well as afterwards?

I imagine you are talking about the famine in India. No, Churchill and Hitler are not on equal footing.

I guess brown people don't count.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You'll have to explain your position than. It didn't say he did great things for other cultures in the years prior to WWII. I think any rational person would say that civilization would have been a fair bit worse off had Hitler won WWII, and Churchill played an instrumental part in his defeat.

Sorry, but I think any rational person who studies the history would see Churchill on equal footing with Hitler. They were both bigots who killed millions of people with their policies.

Gore claims that Churchill saved civilization during WW2. How is that possible when he was responsible for a genocide during WW2 as well as afterwards?

I imagine you are talking about the famine in India. No, Churchill and Hitler are not on equal footing.

I guess brown people don't count.

And everyone knows that Churchill wanted all those Bengalis to die, just as Hitler did the Jews. :roll:

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You'll have to explain your position than. It didn't say he did great things for other cultures in the years prior to WWII. I think any rational person would say that civilization would have been a fair bit worse off had Hitler won WWII, and Churchill played an instrumental part in his defeat.

Sorry, but I think any rational person who studies the history would see Churchill on equal footing with Hitler. They were both bigots who killed millions of people with their policies.

Gore claims that Churchill saved civilization during WW2. How is that possible when he was responsible for a genocide during WW2 as well as afterwards?

I imagine you are talking about the famine in India. No, Churchill and Hitler are not on equal footing.

I guess brown people don't count.

And everyone knows that Churchill wanted all those Bengalis to die, just as Hitler did the Jews. :roll:

Of course he wanted them to die - he orchestrated the genocide, but not everyone knows this. There is a lot of historical revisionism when it comes to Churchill and the British Empire.

 

[Craig234]

Many people want to put Churchill on a pedestal for being the 'strong, eloquent' leader who helped defeat Hitler. As a symbol for those who like to oppose anything they can force under the label 'appeasment', they want no stains on their symbol. But his history is indeed whitewashed. There is much ro praise and much to condemn, but most only do the praise part.

Being one of the three leaders to win the largest war in history buys you some white paint.

But we do better to get the picture more accurately.


Funny enough, he thought that Eisenhower was too unwilling to make peace with the USSR, and was greatly frustrated with the US worsening the cold war. He was pretty right.