Al Gore is a hypocritical asshole

[Facial_King]

Okay, unless someone writes something really uniquely stupid, this will be my last point on the subject.

I think this Al Gore-is-a-hypocrite stuff is primarily a distraction from the issue of global warming itself (which Gore is right about) and what to do about it. It is a product of the right-wing spin & noise machine, and because of that, it also serves to distract people from talking about the current clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that are not making us any safer, that are making America more hated (not just by Muslims, either), and are pointlessly killing American soldiers and foreign civilians. That's a problem.

Of course Gore is a hypocrite, at least to some extent. We all are, in one way or another. It is still commendable that Gore cares about this issue and wants to do something about the problem. The science is on his side.

Perhaps Gore SHOULD try to put his money where his mouth is more than he does. Regardless of his electricity usage at his one home that is at issue in the orig. starting post, it does strike me as pretty excessive that the man has at least THREE homes (as it does when ANYONE has multiple homes). The USA has a serious homelessness problem that is bad by an Western standard. It bothers me that while some people sleep (and die) in cardboard boxes on the street, other people have empty homes waiting on them, for their next vacation or trip to the other coast or what have you.

But anyway, Gore seems likeable and he's doing a good thing trying to inspire humanity to take on this very serious global issue.

 

[Torre82]

Half the topic is moaning over new cars every 5 years. You'd think that people actually followed that suggestion and they're pissed because they actually spent some money.

Gore isnt asking for the first 10% of your paychecks. He doesnt want government office. He's just pointing out the obvious.

As to someone mentioning how could we accept warming over terrorists? That's easy. Two big reasons.

One. You dont see terrorists anywhere except the news and whatever damage they cause is miniscule compared to global disruption. But funky weather all over the U.S.? Increasing hurricanes, droughts and flooding? These are much more visible. And terrorists are.. quite frankly.. an inconvenience. TSA at the frickin' airports. Gotta jump thru hoops to update my drivers license.(20 pieces of I.D., please!) Oh, and I do suppose the president droning on and on and on and on about terrorists really sorta dumbs down the sense of urgency. Like rubbing your dick over and over 'til its numb. Our minds just dont give a damn about these terrorists that *might have* done something back in 2001 but havent done a damn thing since, unless you count the angry people bombing foreign infidels out of their motherland. :shrug:

Two. We as a people know the environment is headed downhill because we all pollute. We barely recycle, our cars eat up gas and it's not rare to get behind or be the owner of the car huffing out noxious fumes. Pretty much all the things we eat, use or see in everyday life happen to be ate up with toxins, preservatives and other oddities of the cancer-causing variety. So the point is just that: We know the environment is screwy cuz we all f!ck with it on a daily basis. Our toilets use more water than we as a people drink each day. People leave their lights on all over their houses. Saving energy? Good idea. Cutting on their light bill? Hell, most people cant see their dick in front of 'em they're so shortsighted. Repeat ad nauseum.

 

[Imagine]

Why is it that anyone who doesn't think declaring war on 1.7 billion people is a good idea will inevitably be declared to be pro-terrorism by someone?

 

[Torre82]

Why is it that anyone who doesn't think declaring war on 1.7 billion people is a good idea will inevitably be declared to be pro-terrorism by someone?

Its that all-or-nothing, us-or-them attitude that runs rampant in the south U.S.. If you cant take the bridge, burn it.

 

[jdb67]

I'm not getting into it with you Fox, I have to go watch some paint dry. I'm just pointing out that the whole Global Warming movement will have difficulty gaining traction if it's most visible proponent doesn't even do a goddamn thing about it.

HEAR HEAR!! It should be "do as I do"... Not "do as I say". I for one am sick and tired of having Leaders in our lives who do not "Lead by Example"!!

 

[louciano]

Al Gore isnt perfect and i have never liked him or his censor supportive wife, but at least he is trying to make people aware of global warming. Sure he wastes alot of power in his own home, but whatever, just by making people aware of the problem he is doing more than most of us who sit around and bitch about things but never do anything about it.

If you preach about a certain issue but don’t practice to your own rhetoric, the message u are trying to convey becomes very hypocritical. Like a preacher speaking against gays while gettin off on guys.

 

[123baz]

If everybody does one thing to help save energy we would be a lot better off. Al Gore is not asking you to change your entire life upside down, he is asking for a little bit here and there. Yes his house uses more energy than the AVERAGE house because it is probably 8 times bigger than the average house.

How come people like Gore and Bono try and do positive things in this world and all these jerks who criticize them show such anger towards them. We are such a negative society that looks for the negative in everything.

A doctor who preaches eating healthy is NEVER allowed to have a cheesburger? A parent who tells his child not to drink is NEVER allowed to have a glass of wine at dinner?

Al Gore is NOT perfect nor does he expect anyone to be perfect. He just wants people to get educated and do a small part. It all adds up.

 

[meesterperfect]

It doesnt matter what AL Gore does personally or how big his"carbon footprint" is.
Just Like John . Kerry says he drives a chevy suburban when speaking to auto workers in detroit, then says he drives a hybrid when speaking to environmentalists.
Hypocracy is a given with these guys. And the sky is blue.

The big picture is he's putting himself in position for what he truly wants to achieve, The Presidency of the United States.

 

[Member2019]

Yes and no ...

I think this Al Gore-is-a-hypocrite stuff is primarily a distraction from the issue of global warming itself (which Gore is right about) and what to do about it.

Yes and no.
Yes you are correct on the the issue of global warming itself, but no on "what to do about it."
Gore has offered 0 solutions, and virtually no leader or legislator or diplomat has.

Of course Gore is a hypocrite, at least to some extent. We all are, in one way or another. It is still commendable that Gore cares about this issue and wants to do something about the problem. The science is on his side.

"Wants to do something about the problem" is what we all want to do!
That's easy.

Actually offering solutions, I don't see anyone other than engineers.

Regardless of his electricity usage at his one home

It's far more than that, but the "Gore Mine" and other Gore business interests.

The USA has a serious homelessness problem that is bad by an Western standard.

It's called capitalism. It happens.
And it happens not because of the government, but because it's people don't care.
The foundations of Republicanism require the people to supplement liberty with charity.

 

[louciano]

A doctor who preaches eating healthy is NEVER allowed to have a cheesburger? A parent who tells his child not to drink is NEVER allowed to have a glass of wine at dinner?

There is a big difference between a doctor eating a cheesebuger then being one of the most biggest users of electricity in your state. You have to understnad that. Thats like that doctor goin to wendys everyday and gettin a classic double.

 

[Renegade1Oh]

Half the topic is moaning over new cars every 5 years. You'd think that people actually followed that suggestion and they're pissed because they actually spent some money.

He tried repeatedly to pass the Emissions Legislation. But it never passed. Next Re-Election, he lost and was replaced.

 

[Member2019]

My God, please read up on some basic American history ...

Those are disgusting facts and 80% of rich America doesn't care

And what empirical evidence supports this?
Considering the charity of private American citizens compared to others world-wide, I don't think you even know what you are talking about.
I mean take virtually any major disaster, and private US citizens often give far more than even other G8 nations do, let alone their own, US government.
I'm tired of the demonizations I see of "the rich" with absolutely no foundation whatsoever in a self-fulling prophecy.

You destroy American Republicism -- the combination of liberty and responsible capitalism -- and you kill the US economy more than the depression did.
Quantitatively, that is a 25% drop in per-capita output and wealth, which is -- not-so-coincidentally -- what the Canadian citizen is compare to the US citizen.

It happens? Not this much in a lot of other so called capitalist nations!

They are not capitalist nations compared to the US, they have 2x or greater the tax burden.

Read the quote in my signature. That's why. If you're not with us, you're against us. That's what Bush said when he declared the war on terror. That's what bullies say. It's part of the game.

I actually applauded that statement, because it was about time.
Countries have to decide if they will continue to "play the game" or "get serious" about "who they support."

Bitch about the US all you want, but states that support organizations that purposely target civilians are the problem.
And that single statement led many states in this world to start realizing the US wasn't going to tolerate it anymore.

 

[meesterperfect]

"Yeah Baby, Yeah!!" Austin Powers (International Man of Mystery)

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

I posted this last December a interesting take on Global Warming..

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world

 

[AFA]

I posted this last December a interesting take on Global Warming..

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world

Yes I remember when you started that thread.

 

[Member2019]

People don't know their history ...

I posted this last December a interesting take on Global Warming..
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world

Oh man, my personal favorite quote from that article ...

"leading to predictions of a twenty-foot rise in sea levels by 2070. In this scenario, southern Florida vanishes"

Which would merely mean that the University of South Florida in Tampa (yes, that's the original and main campus), founded in the early 1900s, would once again be appropriately named!
Yes, I'm an arrogant prick who knows my history, ban me. :thefinger

I'm tired of articles preying upon the ignorance of people.
The "flooding" that people talk about will largely erase only man "reclaimed" areas
(oh, Iove how "reclaimation" has now been used by the Army Corps of Engineers both ways now!)

New Orleans was flooded because people build where they shouldn't.
It almost went under in the '60s, due to both hurricanes and other events.

If (more like when) South Florida goes under, it will because we had no business being there.
You see that big "pond" in the middle of Florida? Read up people!

 

[contiGT]

Fact is that we have no idea what causes variations in climate. 10000 years ago most of the northern hemissphere was covered with ice. I wonder what cars the cavemen where driving? You can always here that "This is the warmest January in 200 years" or something when reading an alarming report. What caused the heat back then? And when we do have a very cold winter month, this is also caused by our lifestyle! The temperature has and will always fluctuate!

But, in the world of BBC motorjournalist Jeremy Clarkson. He means that the "weird-beards" (his term for environmentalists) warns that we will have Riviera climate in Britain all year. Who cares!???.

 

[Member2019]

Enjoy the Gulf Stream heat for the next few years ...

Fact is that we have no idea what causes variations in climate. 10000 years ago most of the northern hemissphere was covered with ice. I wonder what cars the cavemen where driving? You can always here that "This is the warmest January in 200 years" or something when reading an alarming report. What caused the heat back then? And when we do have a very cold winter month, this is also caused by our lifestyle! The temperature has and will always fluctuate!
But, in the world of BBC motorjournalist Jeremy Clarkson. He means that the "weird-beards" (his term for environmentalists) warns that we will have Riviera climate in Britain all year. Who cares!???.

Has to do with the Gulf Stream.
When we have more hurricanes in Florida, you guys (as well as the NE US coast) have your warmest winters.
Enjoy it a few more years, because it's going back down soon.
It's approximately a 35 year cycle.

 

[contiGT]

"Everyone" said last hurricane season would be even worse. It's difficult to predict weather.

BTW. The "Who cares" in my last post is - of course - JC's. You have to see him to appreciate him! ;-)

 

[Member2019]

The 35 year Atlantic hurricane cycle ...

"Everyone" said last hurricane season would be even worse.

Just because cyclones don't form doesn't mean the pressure systems and conditions were not as predicted.
In fact, they were very much "on the money" in many of those areas.

It's difficult to predict weather.

Not really, the US National Weather Service has gotten pretty good in the last 5 years.
That's because we've had about 30 years of satellite technology combined with over 20 years of forecast research.

The result, combined with statistical analysis prior, is a fairly accurate model of how the Atlantic ocean cycles.
The current peg is at 35 years, basing recording shore conditions for the last 100 or so years with more recent, and far more accurate, tracking.
I mean, just 20 years ago, we didn't track (let alone name) a number of storms in the Atlantic until they came close to the west Atlantic.
That's why the "record storms" are not applicable outside of the last 20-30 years.

The shore patterns of the Gulf and Florida region now match those of the '60s and surrounding years, including the "close calls" New Orleans had prior.
The same goes for the temperatures of the northeast US, especially in the following winter.
But that doesn't completely describe a complete cycle, as you really need more than 1-2 to get a feel.
That's where the history gets very inaccurate.

Because in the '20s and '30s, southern Florida wasn't habited and much of the Gulf region was under-developed, except for portions of New Orleans, although not quite like in latter decades.
Although people forget the walls in New Orleans and Houston are the direct result of massive amounts of damage in these 2 prior cycles (billions, even in yesteryear dollars as well).
And we had absolutely no coordinated collection of Atlantic storms until they were spotted close enough to the coast.
I mean, this is before wireless communication after all, even modern radio that traveled any distance.

As such, we only have coastal and other temperature trends to go on.
And that's where things get very interesting.

Like the fact that the winter temperature trends of the last few years in the NE US match those of '20s and early '30s when it comes to record highs.
In other words, we're in the middle of a cycle that was worse -- at least average temperature wise -- than in the '60s, and more like the '20s and '30s.
Again, this is only from the Gulf Stream running up along the NE US and onto the UK.
Whether that means there was an increase in storms or no over the '60s, we're not sure.
But it's clear that we're in the worst of any cycle we've seen in around 70 years.

My current, personal theory (i.e., right out of my ass) is that the Gulf Stream temperatures moved so far north this past year that they prevented a number of storms from forming as the Gulf Stream stars mixing with the east Atlantic.
We still had the patterns, pressures, upward temperatures latitudal-wise, etc..., but just not the formations of so many cyclones.
Which means we were relative fine for this past year, possibly another year or two even, as that is "too far north" to impact.
But I personally believe we are definitely going to have another "2004-2005" pair of seasons come 2009-2010 or so.

That's just my theory, based on the personal research I have, using some rather elementary, statistical interpolation.
In other words, it could be utterly baseless.

BTW. The "Who cares" in my last post is - of course - JC's. You have to see him to appreciate him! ;-)

I have seen him.
I might be an American, but I tap a lot of media outlets -- especially the BBC.