al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

[jarble187]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

^^^Thanks for catching my point The Prius starts at $20,000- by the time you add dealer mark-up and tax, youre at $25,000. Thats not the most affordable car for the average Joe and who wants to drive the ugly thing? Although, tax credit and future fuel savings help make up for the initial cost, which is some incentive.

[rubyraks]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

so jarble, first you attack Gore for not having an environmentally friendly home and then when facts are shown that he does, you attack the cost of the environmentally friendly methods he uses...weak, imo

What next?...

[jarble187]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

so jarble, first you attack Gore for not having an environmentally friendly home and then when facts are shown that he does, you attack the cost of the environmentally friendly methods he uses...weak, imo

What next?...

I think you misread or misunderstood my posts, Ruby. And Im definetly not psycho, one-sided, or weak as you make me out to be. I am simply trying to state an objective opinion. For one, I never attacked Gore for not having an environmentally friendly house. Not sure where you even came up with that. Two post ago, I praised Al because he was at least making an effort. I also agree whole heartidly with every step he has taken to make his house a less burden on the evironment- ie, net zero carbon emmission, eco friendly lights, buying green power, etc. That makes good and perfect sense. As far as attacking the cost of the environmentally friendly methods he uses, there is some validity to that. This is where I am coming from- I am looking at Al as a single consumer. Each and every one of us share this same role. Coming from an environmental standpoint, everything we do (individuals united as an entire whole) has a direct impact on the global warming issue. Things like how much embodied energy are instilled into the products we buy, how large are homes are, how much gas we use to get to work, how much waste we produce, etc, all effect global warming. Gettin back to Al, inherently, the rich have larger houses, larger vehicles, and a larger "thirst" to consume. The fact is that it takes more fossil fuels to heat/cool larger volumes, which depletes out natural resources and inturn produces more greenhouse gases. I am merely getting at the consumption amount that varies from person to person an Al happens to take the spotlight. Cost plays in because green power and products that contain recycled material cost more to purchase at a way higher premium (which is a whole other debate). As much as I would like to, I simply cannot afford to buy a hybrid, pay for green power from my local power supplier, install energy harvesting equipment on my house- all at the same time. Futhermore, I would want to reduce my load by as much as possible to help reduce these costs, to make it more practical. I dont know what more to say, and quite frankly, this topic has distracted me too much today. I think that I am getting at a simple concept and wish you all could see it.

[rubyraks]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

jarble, I humbly apologize...I misread a name and just realized it wasn't you.

[shan]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

On Channel Four last night there was a documenty called The Great Global Warming Swindle. I missed it myself but Im downloading it now off torrentspy. It was an hour and half long and by all accounts an amazing documentry. you guys should go and download it.

[checarsner]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

Its not about how much energy you use, its about what kind of energy you use. If Al Gore is using 20 times the energy of another person, but its all green and not adding to global warming.. its all good. Don't let twisted maths fool you!

As far as hybrids go. If you search for them, you can find hybrid kits for many MANY cars. They cost a couple grand generally, but work!

C

[shan]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP
10 March 2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?
I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.
I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
Sincerely,
Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[BSully828]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

^^^ Now that is energy conservation at work!

By using a darker font, my monitor is using less power than it would to illuminate a brighter color.

Well done shan!

[shan]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

:d

[thesightless]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

1. if you think global warming is fake, you are a moron.
2. i started this thread to point out that actions speak louder than words and gore should be acting on the "new cause of my life"
3. internet fighting is funny
4. the toyota prius is indeed a shit car. ugly as that girl from welcome to the dollhouse, and like her, has to put out better milege to keep the user around.
5. rubyraks is not human. but really a computer program used to fight ppl and show skillz on the net. the person we have all met and hung out with is actually David Boyle, Esq. a nice chap from grammercy park here in NYC.
6. shan, post in color.

[runningman]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

screw global warming anyways...

Hey shan I posted the video you are looking for in the politics section I think.. its on google video

[DIDI]

Re: al gore, hypocrtical bastard.

This thread was at the bottom of the last thing I went to . Would be really interesting what people have to say now. I am quite comfortable with my stance in the thread.

A couple of people there I miss, KinkyJ was always good value