Hello:

I don't know. A Nobel Peace Prize - an Academy Award. Plus, I think he could beat Billary. I surly hope so, ifin Ron Paul ain't going to get it.

ALL of the Republican Candidates are dufus's and un-electable. Poor righty's.

excon

PS> Ifin you don't know who I'm talking about, it's Al Gore - the guy who we ALREADY elected once.

I find it interesting that a UK judge just ruled (yesterday I think) that Gore's An Inconvinient Truth had a number inconvenient untruths in it.

I think that instead of putting it up as a candidate for "Best Documentary" it should be up for Best Fiction film. And perhaps instead of being up for a Nobel prize, he should be up for a Pulitzer... Pulitzer's are for fiction.

Elliot

Yeah, now he'll be even more of an insufferable, arrogant, pompous .

I'm sure you've seen this before, but just for old times' sake, I'll repost:

Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh--more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh--guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.


Yikes! Gore is an energy glutton. Now compare this to President Bush's comparatively modest home in Crawford, Texas, which is a model of environmental friendliness:

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.


Hypocrisy apparently is no longer a bad thing. In fact, it helps you win awards and look good.

'INCONVENIENT' VERDICT ON GORE (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10122007/news/nationalnews/inconvenient_verdict_on_gore.htm)
By ANDY SOLTIS

On the eve of Al Gore's expected win of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British judge said his global-warming documentary is riddled with nine glaring errors and should be accompanied by a warning about its "alarmist" and "exaggerated" claims.

Gore, whose "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar this year, is the heavy favorite to pick up a Nobel when the prize is announced today in Oslo, Norway.

But Judge Michael Burton ruled at the High Court of London that the movie is biased and contains "nine scientific errors."

The film depicts a bleak future in which the world is threatened by climate change, which it claims is already responsible for everything from Hurricane Katrina to the disappearance of snow from atop Mount Kilimanjaro.

But Burton said the scientific community doesn't buy those claims.

The film dramatically warns that polar bears are drowning as they try to swim up to 60 miles to find rapidly disappearing Arctic ice.

But the evidence that came out in court says it's just not true, said the judge.

"The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm," he said.

The film also claims the world's sea levels will rise up to 20 feet "in the near future."

The judge said scientists dispute this "Armageddon scenario" and say that the sea levels would rise that much "only after" thousands of years.

Earlier this year, a prestigious U.N.-sanctioned group of scientists, the International Panel on Climate Change, predicted that by 2100, sea levels would rise by seven to 23 inches.

Burton was responding to a British father, Stewart Dimmock, who sued his government because it was "brain-washing" his two children by sending copies of the film to schools.
The judge said the "powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film" was "broadly accurate."

He agreed with Gore's assertion that the Earth is slowly being warmed by the emission of carbon dioxide.

But Burton added that "it is not simply a science film . . it is a political film" with an "apocalyptic vision," and should be shown in schools only if teachers are given information to offset its "one-sided" agenda.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told The Washington Post that "of the thousands and thousands of facts presented in the film, the judge apparently took issue with a handful."
Gore and a fellow global-warming activist, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, are favored to win the Nobel when it is announced today, said Stein Toennesson, director of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo.

So if fiction is the basis for a Nobel Peace prize, then yes, Gore is a winner. And considering some of the other past winners, that probably is indeed the criterion. Jimmy Carter won it for bringing peace to the Middle East (most certainly a fiction). Arafat won it for renouncing terrorism and negotiating in good faith for peace with Israel (another fiction). The UN and Kofi Annan won it for their works benefiting the entire world (probably the biggest fiction). So Gore is in good company with his Inconvenient Untruth.

My thought when I saw the news is how it dishonors those in the distant past that deserved a prize.

I think the judge who made that ruling should share the Nobel Peace Prize.

But excon ;in all seriousness I have always thought of Gore as the strongest contender on the Democrat side. But he has other priorities like getting rich selling distortions.

Call to return Inconvenient Truth Oscar : thewest.com.au (http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=426777)

Call to return Inconvenient Truth Oscar
12th October 2007, 8:08 WST

A conservative think-tank in New Zealand has written to the president of the America's Academy Awards asking that the Oscar awarded to the director of an Inconvenient Truth be taken back.

Former New Zealand MP Dr Muriel Newman, director of web-based think-tank the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, said she had taken the measure in response to a British High Court ruling Thursday.

She said she emailed Academy president Sid Ganis and executive director Bruce Davis with the request on Friday morning.

A British judge ruled an Inconvenient Truth, whose director Davis Guggenheim won an Academy Award for best documentary feature, contained scientific errors.

The judge said the film could be shown in British schools, although it must have guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

The controversial documentary starred former US vice president Al Gore talking about the perils of global warming.

"The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism.

"Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not," a statement from Newman said.

"This situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats. In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next placegetter elevated.

"While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected," she said.

Hello again:

Come on guy's, what do you REALLY think of him?

But, irrespective of whether you LIKE him or not, if you could be the president of the United States just by saying YES, would you? I believe, after this prize, the presidency is his for the taking.

No?

excon

I disagree. Roughly 50% of the country is conservative. Gore might have 50% of the country in his pocket, but he would still have to convince at least part of the other 50% to vote for him. And frankly, I don't think he can do it. And the movie would actually make it MORE dificult for him to do so. It would be really easy for Conservatives to use the distortions of the film against him to call him a liar and anti-industry and anti-capitalist. How long would he have union support if he gets labeled anti-industry? How many moderates would support him if he gets lables anti-capitalist?

Plus, he's still the most boring guy in the Democrat party. Hillary, for all I dislike her, is not boring. Obama isn't boring. Edwards is boring, but less so than Gore. People don't like boring. Boring puts them to sleep. It most certainly does not get them out to the polls.

I don't think that Gore has a shot.

Elliot

This is nothing new for the Nobel peace prize. If you recall, Adolf Hitler was in the running in 1938. The Nobel peace prize, it seems is almost just for old war criminal.

I think he may be the ABH (anyone but Hillary ) alternative that will be floated in the Spring but the Democrat base that is really pissed off that no one has challenged her . But I do not think he will run .

I think he may be the ABH (anyone but Hillary ) alternative that will be floated in the Spring but the Democrat base that is really pissed off that no one has challenged her . But I do not think he will run .
The Goracle probably wore out his whine way back in the Florida recount of Y2K.
Before that he rode in on Wild Bill, more like an adopted son than anything, in my opinion.

I know he uses more energy than the majority of the users on this website combined, yet he still wins the award. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

I know he uses more energy than the majority of the users on this website combined, yet he still wins the award. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?Hello Goddard:

To me, it does. It puts the kaybosh on the argument that since his energy footprint is big, he shouldn't say anything about it at all.

Huh?? Course it's big because he's wealthy and flies around the world doing stuff. You can't do that on the gas I use.

It's the same dumb argument that John Edwards is lying when he says he represents poor people, because John Edwards is rich.

Whaaaaa?? Talk about grabbin at straws.

excon

I'd like to congratulate Al Gore on his Nobel Peace Prize.

While, I'm at it , props to Barry Bonds for breaking, Hank's record.








;) Grace and Peace

What do I think of Al Gore? I cannot print what I think I Al Gore. One thing though, I am so thankful he invented the internet, otherwise I would be tapping this out in morse code over the telegraph lines.

Looking at Gore's writing, it's far from clear that Gore even believes that humanity is his most important priority….

Perhaps with the influence this brings he will use it to take on the Chinese who are in the process of creating the largest environmental and human disasters of this generation.



Meadow_Free_Press (http://www.meadowfreepress.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=182702&source=2)

I think he should get on his Gulf Stream and give them what for !

America is the largest polluter... the American fascists tried to divert your attention from reality, but AMericans are having none of it anymore.

We all have to work together, now, all of us on the planet. Nothing is going to come flying out of the clouds to save us. :)

We are #1 in CO2 emission, but the inconvenient truth is that we are far behind China in the more troublesome particulates. Some facts just don't get much respect.

Our industrialization has damaged our global environment, and changed the way we think and conduct ourselves at various levels. But, to think that the US is the largest polluter, Choux, or to think us the #1 in CO2, labman, is to deny what little we know of what the Chinese have been doing to catch up with those statistics. Air pollution, water pollution, land rape... most hidden behind them not wanting us to know and us not wanting to delve.

Sorry Captain, but we are still the biggest in CO2. That is why those wishing to destroy America, or at least willing to risk it by destroying George Bush, like to focus on it while ignoring other, more important problems.

American forests are also carbon sinks used to sequester carbon dioxide. Since the beginning of the last century there has been a continuos effort to reforest agricultural land in the US. The only thing that threatens that is farmers reclaiming the land to grow bio-fuels . Ironic isn't it ?

Hello Goddard:

To me, it does. It puts the kaybosh on the argument that since his energy footprint is big, he shouldn't say anything about it at all.

Huh??? Course it's big because he's wealthy and flies around the world doing stuff. You can't do that on the gas I use.

What the hell does his personal wealth have to do with his energy consumption?

He is wealthy, of course, just ask the folks like myself who are dying of lung cancer and emphysema after decades of smoking his number one cash cow -- Tobacco.

But really -- If he is as wealthy as we both agree he is, then why isn't he spending his largess on green alternatives to offset his carbon footprint?

And yes, I'm aware of his having purchased 'green credits' from his local utilities.

But this still does not negate his vast energy consumption.

Also, it's disingenuous to equate the energy consumed by his travels with the energy consumed in the maintenance of his estate.

Hello again:

Come on guy's, what do you REALLY think of him?

Truth be told, it doesn't really matter what I or any one else on the 'Right' thinks of him.

What matters is what those on the 'Left' think of him.

And as far as that goes, most folks on the 'Left Coast' still haven't forgiven him for conceding the 2000 election so quickly.

Face the facts, ExDude -- Most folks with a brain in their head can see the yellow streak running down his backside.


But, irrespective of whether you LIKE him or not, if you could be the president of the United States just by saying YES, would you? I believe, after this prize, the presidency is his for the taking.

No?


No.

He burned that bridge back in 2000 when he allowed himself to be bullied by the SCOTUS.

Y'know, my fondest wish is that his having won the NP will foment a groundswell of nostalgia for what might have been -- Which would lead to his being drafted to run for the presidency.

Of course anyone with a brain in their head knows he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning such a contest -- But it would sure as hell even the 'Right's' chances of prevailing in 2008.

Sorry Captain, but we are still the biggest in CO2. That is why those wishing to destroy America, or at least willing to risk it by destroying George Bush, like to focus on it while ignoring other, more important problems.

Interesting.

What could be more important at this juncture than ridding ourselves of the present 'Mental Midget In Chief'?

Seriously.

This idjit has and is destroying our country far faster than any elected official on the 'Left' has.

Y'know -- Self identifying as a 'Right Winger' doesn't mean we have to support the current 'Standard Bearer' as he drags our country down to new lows.

Just something for those capable of thinking for themselves to think about.

Et tu, eh?

What the hell does his personal wealth have to do with his energy consumption?.............Also, it's disingenuous to equate the energy consumed by his travels with the energy consumed in the maintenance of his estate.Hello again, growler:

I'm not rich, but I'm richer than a bean farmer in Mexico. My energy footprint is a LOT bigger than his, and I'm a fairly green guy. If I was WEALTHY, my footprint would be proportionately bigger. What?? You think I should live in a little house when I have lots of bucks?? Really? I'd also have a boat and an airplane - a jet airplane... Yes, I would.

So, I don't think there's any significant difference between one's business use of energy and one's personal use of energy, and I don't think one needs make excuses for using it.

For the same reason, I don't think his use of energy signifies anything negative at all... So attack away.

excon

PS> Good to hear a righty speaking the truth about the dufus in charge.

PPS> Go Hawks!

Hello again, growler:

I'm not rich, but I'm richer than a bean farmer in Mexico. My energy footprint is a LOT bigger than his, and I'm a fairly green guy. If I was WEALTHY, my footprint would be proportionately bigger. What??? You think I should live in a little house when I have lots of bucks??? Really? I'd also have a boat and an airplane - a jet airplane.... Yes, I would.

No.

I've done very well financially over the past twenty years, but I still, and calculatingly so, manage to live within my needs, rather than within my means.

Being wealthy doesn't mean one needs to live ostentatiously.

Especially when one spends as much time harping about the lifestyles of those living within their means as Gore does.

Look, ExDude, paint it any way you like, but Gore is *still* a hypocrite.

Harvey I will ask you to restrain from a disagree of my facts until you at least bother to check them

New Study Shows Reforestation of Agricultural Land Played an Important Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gases over Last Century (http://www.unh.edu/news/news_releases/2000/november/sk_20001109trees.html)

Harvey I will ask you to restrain from a disagree of my facts until you at least bother to check them

Well, the "seems the other way to me" bit should be everybody's first clue that the rating wasn't coming from an informed viewpoint, Tom.

For years I admired people that won the Nobel Peace Prize. Probably because I was younger and did not really know a lot about the people that won them but I had heard many good things about them.
Now I feel that the winners of the Prize for the last 20 years or so have only because of their being exposed to the public. To name a few, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Kafi Annan,Nelson Mandela, Henry Kissinger, Martin Luther King Jr.
But now that I am older and more educated about who these men were and what they did to deserve the Prize I feel that the prize has no more worth than the certificate of guaranty of the stone in a ring that you buy at the dollar store, or the certificate that you get when someone buys a star and has it named over you.
I hate that I now have a empty space where I before had the admiration for the winners.

Tom,
I'm sorry if I should have clicked the agree button, I have read that report and agree with it, what I questioned is your remark "there has been a continuous effort to reforest" when deforestation is such a crisis.

(In response to the escalating deforestation crisis in the United States, 5 Senators and 90 Representatives now support the Act to Save America's Forests (S. 977, H.R. 1376), the most comprehensive forest protection legislation in U.S. history. This legislation would immediately halt and reverse the deforestation on our public lands. Other efforts to halt the deforestation have not succeeded. It is imperative that all Americans work together to pass this bill, before our nation's natural heritage is lost forever.)

Please forgive me for disagreeing.
Harvey

Harvey ;those were 1998 bills. Do you have any information what their status is /was ?

It is a complex issue for sure. It is part of the reason I see no need for agricultural subsidies ;especially in biofuels .My larger point in the posting is that 20% of the green house emissions is through deforestation world wide and that this rush to biofuels could be counter productive. The example I see is New Zealand . They ended price supports and it freed up a lot of the land to return to the forest . By adding subsidies for corn to fuel conversion land that would've not been cultivated is now being plowed.

I for one am in favor of smart forest management. The studies I have read show that younger forests are better at sequestering CO2 than ancient forests . I think in the US ,part of the problem we have had with the severity of forest fires (which produce a hell of a lot of CO2) is poor management of the forests and restrictions of all logging rather than having the logging industry as part of the solution (thinning projects and replanting ).. A better solution by a long shot than phony carbon credits in my view.

This idjit has and is destroying our country far faster than any elected official on the 'Left' has...

...Just something for those capable of thinking for themselves to think about.


All right. Using the facts available at your disposal, please state how Bush is "destroying the country far faster than any elected official on the 'Left' has."

Carter decimated the US military, made us hostage to Iran, sent the economy into a tailspin, drove oil prices through the roof with his policies, and created an oil shortage that required rationing at the gas pumps.

In what way has Bush been detrimental to the economy? Seems to me that the economy is chigging along quite nicely, with sustained low unemployment, the highest stock market gains in history, strong retails sales figures for an extended period, and inflation that is the lowest in our history.

In what way has he been bad for energy issues? It is under Bush's tenure as President that the government has spent huge amounts of money to create alternative fuels, put hybrid cars on the roads in numbers never before seen, and attempted to increase oil production and productivity (which has been stymied by the libs in Congress).

In what way has he been bad for the military? He has done more to promote the strength of the military than any other President since Truman, with the possible exception of Reagan. Military recruitment numbers are meeting the goals set, and reinlistment numbers are exceeding goals. This despite an unpopular war.

If, as you claim, you can think for yourself, please tell me how Bush is "destroying the country" faster than Carter did? Or LBJ for that matter? Other than spouting the news-media party line, can you come up with any facts to back up your statement?

Elliot

[QUOTE=excon]Hello again, growler:

I'm not rich, but I'm richer than a bean farmer in Mexico. My energy footprint is a LOT bigger than his, and I'm a fairly green guy. If I was WEALTHY, my footprint would be proportionately bigger. What?? You think I should live in a little house when I have lots of bucks?? Really? I'd also have a boat and an airplane - a jet airplane... Yes, I would.

So, I don't think there's any significant difference between one's business use of energy and one's personal use of energy, and I don't think one needs make excuses for using it.

For the same reason, I don't think his use of energy signifies anything negative at all... So attack away.

excon

================================================== ================
The point of his jet fuel consumption is that Al Gore can choose to fly commercial, or use the internet that he invented to be at a conference virtually rather than actually be physically present.

Does not take much intelligence to realize this.

And why should he preach to us about energy use when he does not follow his own example?






Grace and peace

But he has other priorities like getting rich selling distortions.

And carbon offsets :D