Thousands of scientists have made observations regarding global warming; a justice's verdict, that Al Gore's climate change film contains 9 scientific errors, is exalted.

10/13/2007 12:23:27 AM

Give him another Nobel Prize for inventing the Internet, too. That seems more important than making a propaganda film.

10/13/2007 12:24:21 AM

You're a fucking moron.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

10/13/2007 12:47:48 AM

Quote :

"You're a fucking moron. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp"

I agree... blatant jokes and sarcasm should be taken seriously and proven false at every possible opportunity.

10/13/2007 1:03:24 AM

Quote :

"I am quite sad and disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize didn't go to Bush and his cabinet for bringing freedom and democracy to the Afghan and Iraqi people."

*snort*







oh, wait .......

a hundred thousand men, women, and children are dead.

this ain't no blowjob.







[Edited on October 13, 2007 at 1:02 PM. Reason : oh wait]

10/13/2007 12:56:01 PM

Doesn't Gore have to share this with like 200 other people from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

10/13/2007 2:52:06 PM

Pope Al Gore

10/13/2007 9:14:11 PM

Emperor Al Gore

10/13/2007 10:11:07 PM

his movie is full of lies

10/13/2007 11:06:43 PM

10/13/2007 11:40:44 PM

This presents an interesting dilemma for some folks, I imagine.

I mean, I'm sure there are folks who have lots of respect for the Nobel "institution" and have also disagreed with Gore vehemently.

So what does this mean for them?

The Prize is a joke? Always been a joke or just an off-and-on joke? Gone down hill recently?

Or will this sway some folks into believing that maybe Gore is on to something for having adpoted this issue?

Hmmmmm...

[Edited on October 14, 2007 at 12:55 AM. Reason : And what is this "retirement plan" that burro keeps mentioning?]

10/14/2007 12:51:03 AM

people who hate gore, and scoff at the very mention of global warming, tend to automatically hate the nobel peace prize as well as the UN or anything multinational in general.

I've found that they are generally the "america-first, america-only" sort of folks who think that the rest of the world is here to provide a color backdrop for the American Drama. That is, if they're really even cognizant of the fact that there actually IS a "rest of the world" in the first place





[Edited on October 14, 2007 at 1:16 AM. Reason : ]

10/14/2007 1:12:36 AM

^I dunno.

I am close to a few people who work in the environmental sciences, and all of them still find the many debates on climate change worthwhile and, at the least, entertaining.

I know there is so much bullshit tied up in money and our "way of life" that creates most of the doubt. But I do believe there are legitimate authorities who, unaffected by The Man, genuinely believe global warming may not be a threat or significantly affected by humans...

It's difficult for me, as a non-scientist, to suppose these folks are wrong.

[Edited on October 14, 2007 at 1:32 AM. Reason : And none of these people I know are "America first-America only" or whatever...]

10/14/2007 1:31:45 AM

I stopped counting on the intelligence of the average American when "Soulja Boy" became the #1 song in the country.

10/14/2007 1:39:06 AM

http://tinyurl.com/2bobkd

Quote :

"Gore Derangement Syndrome By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: October 15, 2007 On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more. And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists. What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane? Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration. And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme. The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved. But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening. Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously. “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater. The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain. Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get. Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them. So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros. Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy. "

10/15/2007 12:27:48 PM

Quote :

"Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration."

Is this asshole STILL bitching about the 2000 election? jeez...

10/15/2007 9:35:48 PM

owned by krugman

WHAT AN ASSHOLE

10/15/2007 10:04:21 PM