Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 110
  1. #1
    Who are the brain police?
    Reputation: Locoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,993

    Al Gore gets an Oscar !!!

    Al Gore gets an Oscar !!!


    LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Sure, the White House slipped from former Vice President Al Gore's grasp, but how many politicians end up on stage at Oscar night?

    "An Inconvenient Truth," which turned Gore's lectures on the threat of global warming into a highly touted theatrical release, won the Academy Award for best documentary feature Sunday night.

    Singer Melissa Etheridge also received the Oscar for best original song, "I Need to Wake Up," which was written for the movie.

    Gore used the award as another opportunity to plug the environmental cause, telling the Hollywood audience and an estimated 1 billion television viewers that resolving the threat posed by a warming climate is "not a political issue, it's a moral issue." (Watch Gore talk about his cause and his movieVideo)

    "We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act," he said. "That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."

    Gore shared the stage with the film's director and executive producer, Davis Guggenheim, who said the producers "were inspired by [Gore's] fight for 30 years to tell this truth to all of us."

    After eight years as vice president, Gore's bid for the presidency ended in 2000 in court battles over recounting votes in Florida. Though Gore led George W. Bush in the popular vote, Florida's electoral votes ultimately decided the race for Bush.

    Since leaving office, Gore has advised a Los Angeles,California-based investment firm on biotechnology and computer issues and lectured at Middle Tennessee State University, his father's alma mater. His continuing efforts to raise public concern about the environment led to the presentations that formed the core of "An Inconvenient Truth."

    A U.N. report released in January predicted global temperatures increases of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius) by 2100. Human activity -- specifically, carbon emissions from fossil fuels -- are "very likely" the culprit, the report found.

    Gore's environmental advocacy and his early opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq have raised questions about whether he'll run for president again. He has said he has no plans to mount a new campaign but spoofed the speculation during an earlier appearance at the Oscars.

    When actor Leonardo DiCaprio asked him if he planned "any other kind of major, major announcement" Sunday night, he said he hadn't planned on one.

    But as he started to read from a piece of paper that he would "formally announce my intention ... " the orchestra started playing -- the signal that an award recipient's time for his acceptance speech is up.
    The Who - Glittering Girl
    Ween - The Grobe
    Yellowman - Strong Me Strong
    all your base are belong to us

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: Wasatch Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,178
    Yeah,

    But George Bush is a better leader.

    He is strong and resolute.

    Sticks to his principles.

    For example, signing on to Kyoto would be bad for business. So he flip flopped on that (was for it before he was against it). So now in the years since it was an issue (1999-2001), GW has been shown to be true. But that reality hasn't stopped Bush, because he is strong and resolute.

    I sure am glad George Bush is President!

  3. #3
    .
    Reputation: THX 1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Locoman
    Al Gore gets an Oscar !!!
    It's just too bad they put it in the wrong category. It belongs in SciFi.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inconvenient Truths
    Novel science fiction on global warming.


    By Patrick J. Michaels

    This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.

    The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

    Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.


    Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.”

    Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,” according to the IPCC, “but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”

    According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

    “Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.

    Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose “the right balance between being effective and honest” about global warming — and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.

    These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to “do” something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years!

    It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various “solutions” for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.

    The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto — i.e., less than nothing — for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).

    Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it’s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.

    And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels — resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.

    And there’s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can’t even do Kyoto?

    When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it’s not just Gore’s movie that’s fiction. It’s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.
    “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models” - Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,113
    The show was fairly lame and predictable.

    The only surprise is my old-lady crush on Helen Mirren.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation: Wasatch Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,178
    Silly lives in such a distorted world.

  6. #6
    .
    Reputation: THX 1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    Silly lives in such a distorted world.
    I'm not sure what world Al Gore live in. It's not this world.
    “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models” - Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation: Wasatch Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,178
    Quote Originally Posted by THX 1138
    I'm not sure what world Al Gore live in. It's not this world.
    Are you going to make me Google "Patrick Michaels" so your C&V is discredited?

    Why do you think you're more correct than a few thousand peer reviewed scientists and their pubs?

  8. #8
    .
    Reputation: THX 1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    Are you going to make me Google "Patrick Michaels" so your C&V is discredited?

    Why do you think you're more correct than a few thousand peer reviewed scientists and their pubs?
    Don't be such a DipStick! Michaels was using IPCC data to discredit Al Gore. Do you really want to go down that path?
    “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models” - Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation: Drewdane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,074
    Hmmm... Lessee now...

    Predicted effects observed and measured ... check.

    Overwhelming majority of scientific community agrees ... check.

    Even many skeptics agree with the concept, if not the specifics ... check.

    Al Gore advocates the cause... Yep, must be a lie.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    Yeah,

    But George Bush is a better leader.

    He is strong and resolute.

    Sticks to his principles.

    For example, signing on to Kyoto would be bad for business. So he flip flopped on that (was for it before he was against it). So now in the years since it was an issue (1999-2001), GW has been shown to be true. But that reality hasn't stopped Bush, because he is strong and resolute.

    I sure am glad George Bush is President!
    While the ignoramus faction would like people to believe America's non-involvement in the economic hari-kari boondoggle known as the Kyoto accord is the fault of George W. Bush, it was the doing of the US Senate during the Clinton years that wisely kept us out.

    Honestly, was there even a point worth making there?

    As for Gore, I really shudder to think that you people think this is some feather in Gore's cap. So Hollywood is stroking Gore for his green crusade. I wonder if more of them saw his movie on the flip down screens of their limos and SUV's, or in the private theatres of their Malibu and Hollywood Hills estates? Is there honestly a worse possible image of hypocrisy you can think of besides Hollywood stars jumping on a bandwagon to call attention to an issue caused by conspicuous consumption of human creature comforts?

    One comes to mind. Al Gore globetrotting in his private corporate jet to promote the movie about it. And at the time it was released his 2 (or is it 3?) sprawling mansions were spinning their meters on non-renewable power sources, despite the availability of green-source power in both utility districts. Apparantly he didn't want to pay the higher rate.

    Because of cries of hypocrisy, spokesmen have reported they have made the switch to green power. Don't know about that private jet though.

    Al Gore. Haha. I remember his red-faced bellowing on the floor of congress in the 2004 campaign about the war being started on "lies" and that we were "misled". Joke.

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



    Haha. Al Gore. Such a leader. He obstructed a report from being published back in 1996 which called for the strengthening of cockpit crew doors on airliners to protect against terrorist attacks. That year the airline industry was one of the biggest contributers to the Democratic national commitee.
    All bikes weigh 50 lbs. a 50lb. bike doesn't need a lock. a 40lb bike needs a 10lb. lock. a 30 lb. bike needs a 20lb. lock.

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation: Wasatch Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,178
    I am of the opinion, that Bush & Cheney are the two worst leaders, perhaps ever, the US has had.

    I am of the opinion, that Al Gore would of been middlin, to good.

    Regarding Bush & Cheney, I think we can now say that history speaks for itself.

  12. #12
    .
    Reputation: THX 1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    I am of the opinion, that Bush & Cheney are the two worst leaders, perhaps ever, the US has had.

    I am of the opinion, that Al Gore would of been middlin, to good.

    Regarding Bush & Cheney, I think we can now say that history speaks for itself.
    With your opinion and a quarter, you will have a quarter.
    “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models” - Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

  13. #13
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Reposado Man
    The only surprise is my old-lady crush on Helen Mirren.
    I didn't watch the show, but I hear that.

  14. #14
    Art is Resistance
    Reputation: djcrb9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by THX 1138
    With your opinion and a quarter, you will have a quarter.
    Does that mean you think Bush has been a good president?

  15. #15
    .
    Reputation: THX 1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by djcrb9
    Does that mean you think Bush has been a good president?
    It means DipStick's opinion is worthless.
    “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models” - Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

  16. #16
    The devil is an angel too
    Reputation: FrozenK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasatch Walt
    Are you going to make me Google "Patrick Michaels" so your C&V is discredited?

    Why do you think you're more correct than a few thousand peer reviewed scientists and their pubs?
    CATO Institute.
    Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known.

    Oscar Wilde

  17. #17
    Art is Resistance
    Reputation: djcrb9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by THX 1138
    It means DipStick's opinion is worthless.

    So you won't say if you think Bush has been a good president or not?

  18. #18
    .
    Reputation: THX 1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by djcrb9
    So you won't say if you think Bush has been a good president or not?
    Sure I will, in a thread on that topic.

    The topic of this thread is Al Gore's movie. Do you think it was an accurate documentary?
    “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models” - Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

  19. #19
    Art is Resistance
    Reputation: djcrb9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by THX 1138
    Sure I will, in a thread on that topic.

    The topic of this thread is Al Gore's movie. Do you think it was an accurate documentary?

    Yes, i think it was a fairly accurate documentary.

    But nice dodge. I appreciate how spin is more important that honesty these days.

  20. #20
    .
    Reputation: THX 1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by djcrb9
    Yes, i think it was a fairly accurate documentary.
    Fairly accurate you say? He exaggerates the rise of sea levels by 2,000% and is considered "fairly accurate"? Of course that's if you are willing to take the word of the IPCC.

    At what point would you consider something to be grossly exaggerated?

    I guess using your standards of being "fairly accurate" I can easily state that Bush is the greatest political leader of all time.

    The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

    Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.
    “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models” - Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

  21. #21
    Art is Resistance
    Reputation: djcrb9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by THX 1138
    Fairly accurate you say? He exaggerates the rise of sea levels by 2,000% and is considered "fairly accurate"? Of course that's if you are willing to take the word of the IPCC.

    Show me. Otherwise i'm just gonna assume this is another of your tinfoil hat conspiracy docs.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,537
    Quote Originally Posted by djcrb9
    Does that mean you think Bush has been a good president?
    Do you think the policies implemented are the brainchild of W.?

    This is a very big problem. Critics find it all too easy to first belittle the man personally, his speech mannerisms, they say he looks like a monkey, any avenue to ridicule him. Then they attach this facade of a cartoon to American policy with rhetoric like "George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq!" and go on to say how stupid it was to do so. An easy claim to make when you have this vision of a stuttering chimp in your mind, writing the policy- not the reality that it comes from hundreds if not thousands of people with degrees in their various fields.
    Basically your question could never be answered honestly, IMO, because an organized effort by his critics here has removed any chance for the administration's policies to succeed.
    I often see it put as "this administration will go down as the most disasterous period in American history" which, in the hindsight posterity offers us, we may someday find to be truthful.
    However I'm not such a dimwit to place 8 years of foreign policy missteps that emboldened and enabled Osama BIn Laden to carry out 9/11 on the shoulders of W. Neither will I pretend that the world sentiment to Bush and US policy wasn't by and large tainted by Americans themselves, whose hatred was music to the ears of European critics.
    In essence, these years may very well have been very damaging to the fortunes of all Americans. Is it the doing of Bush, or those whose hatred has gone way past all logic and obsess with destroying everything he does, and pretend that his predecessor was the next coming of Jesus Christ?
    All bikes weigh 50 lbs. a 50lb. bike doesn't need a lock. a 40lb bike needs a 10lb. lock. a 30 lb. bike needs a 20lb. lock.

  23. #23
    Art is Resistance
    Reputation: djcrb9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,399
    Quote Originally Posted by batvette
    Do you think the policies implemented are the brainchild of W.?

    This is a very big problem. Critics find it all too easy to first belittle the man personally, his speech mannerisms, they say he looks like a monkey, any avenue to ridicule him. Then they attach this facade of a cartoon to American policy with rhetoric like "George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq!" and go on to say how stupid it was to do so. An easy claim to make when you have this vision of a stuttering chimp in your mind, writing the policy- not the reality that it comes from hundreds if not thousands of people with degrees in their various fields.
    Basically your question could never be answered honestly, IMO, because an organized effort by his critics here has removed any chance for the administration's policies to succeed.
    I often see it put as "this administration will go down as the most disasterous period in American history" which, in the hindsight posterity offers us, we may someday find to be truthful.
    However I'm not such a dimwit to place 8 years of foreign policy missteps that emboldened and enabled Osama BIn Laden to carry out 9/11 on the shoulders of W. Neither will I pretend that the world sentiment to Bush and US policy wasn't by and large tainted by Americans themselves, whose hatred was music to the ears of European critics.
    In essence, these years may very well have been very damaging to the fortunes of all Americans. Is it the doing of Bush, or those whose hatred has gone way past all logic and obsess with destroying everything he does, and pretend that his predecessor was the next coming of Jesus Christ?
    I never felt that Clinton was that truly astounding... but in comparison to Bush, i might see where people would.
    And no, i don't think bush has written of of the policy implemented, but is that really the only defense you can come up for this person you so feverishly support? That's a pretty lame defense.

    And i agree, in hindsight, we will likely look back on this administration as the worst in this country's history. Again, that's not a great defense.

  24. #24
    Another festivus MIRACLE!
    Reputation: bullit71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,207

    No Way!!

    You mean the guy that opposed Bush in the 2000 presidential election got an oscar for an environmental film by a bunch of liberal leftist from Hollywood?

    NO WAY!!! I can't believe it! Who would have guessed?

    What a fvcking joke.

    Kinda like the the anti-Bush liberal Ditsy Twits winning all of the music awards. And they hardly sold any albums. What an absolute joke.

    Here's to hoping the American people will see through this nonsense and stop watching this BS.
    "If an illegal alien is an undocumented immigrant, than a drug dealer is an unlicensed pharmicist."

  25. #25
    .
    Reputation: THX 1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,979
    Quote Originally Posted by djcrb9
    Show me. Otherwise i'm just gonna assume this is another of your tinfoil hat conspiracy docs.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
    I'm not going to try to format the table here, but look at the bottom of page 13, table SPM-3.

    Gore is off his rocker!
    “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models” - Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •