comment #1

cjKennedy says ...

When you can't assail the message, attack the messenger.

comment #2

christian says ...

gore is hardly self-righteous.

and to attack him as if that changes the message, well, good luck FOX and that closeted reoublican drudge.

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

Man, Barack Obama and Michael Mann had better not gain any weight....

comment #4

lesterg says ...

I thought this week's baddie for the right was James Cameron?

comment #5

Reedyb says ...

There is an excellent blog with the facts, the rebuttal and more information.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/02/a_far_too_conve.htm

It was overly busy earlier, but basically, yes, Al Gore uses lots of power. But, Al Gore is installing solar energy and buying carbon emission credits, etc. Doing all the things he says we are supposed to be doing.

comment #6

Terry McCarty says ...

The mitigating factor of the article is that it has a link to carbonfootprint.com.

comment #7

rocco says ...

"carbon footprint"...PROOF POSITIVE that dumbing down an issue as complex as global warming makes those doing it look like a bunch of dummies. The element C is not the problem, and footprint is such a misnomer...blah, just saying they could have put some science into the phrase...hell, even carbon wake would be better...it's not walking over hot coals that's causing the problem here...i know, i know, i'm being too literal, but this issue is too important...

...using the term "denier" makes Jeff and anyone who says it sound like some paranoid, hysterical, uber-religious zealot, a la "Holocaust denier". Unlike the holocaust, there is MOST CERTAINLY a debate about what is causing global warming, and if you don't think a 10% natural chance pegged by leading scientists is a big deal, you, my friend, have no business engaging in such a debate.

Before I'm attacked, let me say--as I've maintained all along--90% is enough to convince me we need to change our behavior or we're in hot water...but I'm also enough of a pragmatist to at least CONSIDER we are mere bystanders and, if it is natural, we have no right to alter nature's course to maintain our current levels of comfort. A static world is a dead world...whether it's warming or cooling, we should do everything in our power to ensure it occurs as it would otherwise...but again, yes, I do currently believe that means reducing greenhouse gas emmissions.

comment #8

Stephe96 says ...

There was an ice age 10,000 years ago. Guess what? Then it got warmer.

Gore is just another liberal hypocrite. Conserving energy and saving the environment is for YOU, not for HIM! No way HE'S gonna change HIS lifestyle!

By the way, if the Hollywood libs were really concerned about global warming, they would move to shut their industry down. Film crews can't shoot 5 seconds of film outside without bringing a dozen trailer-trucks, SUVs and trailers for the stars, catering trucks...not to mention those powerful energy-devouring movie lights!

Global warming is the new Scientology.

comment #9

Brigadier Pudding says ...

so, because gore has a big electric bill global warming isn't happening?

god, you repukes are fucking imbeciles.

comment #10

Josh Massey says ...

"But, Al Gore is installing solar energy and buying carbon emission credits, etc. Doing all the things he says we are supposed to be doing."

Wait, though: According to the Oscar ceremony, Gore has been on top of this for 30 years! And he's just now installing and buying?

"so, because gore has a big electric bill global warming isn't happening?"

When did anybody say that? All that's being pointed out is his hypocrisy. But hey, you can use clever words like "repuke," so you're obviously smart enough to know that.

comment #11

Stephe96 says ...

"...so, because gore has a big electric bill global warming isn't happening?"

Er...actually, according to Gore, his 'big electric bill' is CAUSING global warming!

You "Global Warming End-of-the-World" alarmists are just as idiotic as the Religious Right nutjobs. Believe whatever you want...just don't push your nonsensical religious beliefs on me.

Or you could actually pony up some proof that human activity is causing the planet to get hotter. Until then, though...

comment #12

Brigadier Pudding says ...

josh,
"Global warming is the new Scientology."

that's from your republican brethren above.

did it ever occur to anyone that gore's bill is this high because he pays higher rates for green power?

and how much of that does he carbon offset?

whatever. he could live in a solar powered trailer and ride a bicycle everywhere, and the hate mongers on the right would still find ways to attack.

comment #13

Brigadier Pudding says ...

"Or you could actually pony up some proof that human activity is causing the planet to get hotter."

why don't you believe and trust the vast majority of the scientific community on this? i'd say they're a bit more educated than you on this, wouldn't you?

comment #14

Josh Massey says ...

I've tried religion once. I have no intention on doing it again anytime soon.

comment #15

Stephe96 says ...

"...why don't you believe and trust the vast majority of the scientific community on this? i'd say they're a bit more educated than you on this, wouldn't you?"

The "vast majority of the scientific community" once believed that blood-letting and leeches were perfectly sound medical procedures. Were they right?

By the way, what a shock that a bunch of scientists "agree" that there is a huge looming problem that we should give them billions of dollars to study, huh?

If they could prove it, they would. But they can't because it's simply unprovable. Planetary temperature fluctuations occur on a massive, unimaginable scale. They are perfectly natural and have occuring since the planet was first formed. The planet may very well be getting warmer. I have no problem with that. But the idea that human activity is causing even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that warming is, frankly, ludicrous. A planet's core temperature simply doesn't 'spike' over a few decades. We're talking a slow and gradual upturn over a period of centuries. What caused the planet to get warmer after the last ice age 10,000 years ago? How many SUVs were on the road then?

comment #16

MrThompson says ...

Fucking scientists! Only in it for the money! All I know is that the planet has warmed up before. How do I know that? Not because of scientific research, thats for damn sure!

comment #17

austin111 says ...

Yes, indeedy, the planet has warmed up before and cooled off before.....but never before has it been subjected to the kind of warming trend that it now displays alarmingly according to all scientific record keeping, which is, by the way, done in a far more precise manner than EVER before. And why is that? Because there are a gazillion more people on the planet and because it's quite obvious that we are a big part of the equation now. In a very short timespan as far as history is concerned, many places on the planet will be underwater. I wonder if the naysayers here will be around to enjoy the rising oceans in their backyards. All I know is that many of the best scientists/researchers/doctors in history (Pasteur, Lister, etc.) were once labeled as alarmists, quacks, insane or just plain wrong....until they were proven correct. This time a lot more is at stake.

comment #18

rocco says ...

Pudding Pop...so in an attempt to go green Gore paradoxically uses MORE coal-generated electricity?? No, he's just not very "green". It's not my opinion, it's there in black and white. I'm not being contentious, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of your costly bill reasoning.

Steph...I'll be the first to defend the room to debate here, but good god, let's stick to things we understand. I'm fairly confident no one here graduated from Rensselaer Polytech., nor understand anything regarding the correlations and extrapolations that either support or counter the current warming dogma, so leave it to the scientists, huh?

Now... the scientists left some wiggle room for doubt...an entire order of magnitude, in fact. We can argue the ethical considerations in relation to that all we want, but the science is better left to people more qualified than any of us posters. We can talk about the lynchmob mentality that is growing towards "deniers" a la the venom spat upon Clovis-First "deniers"...or we can discuss the the environmental fundamentalism that is taking hold amongst the unqualified and incapable middle-class americans about whom I speak. Whatever we argue about, we should never lose sight of the fact that the one thing man has proven indisputably and irrefutably throughout history is that he is motivated by self-interest FIRST, and humanity SECOND, and will go to unfathomable lengths to his protect ideas and reputations, even if that means compromising his scientific integrity.

90% is a probability that should scare us all "green"...but even if it were 100%, speaking and trusting absolutes is always a dangerous and foolish game.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/index.php?s=Olbermann

comment #20

christian says ...

and all these deniers of science have no trouble funding star wars space programs or pre-emptive wars..just in case. better to kill than conserve.

comment #21

SpinDozer says ...

'When you can't assail the message, attack the messenger.'

Its kind of funny that most of the people with their undies in a bunch over this (not dyed-in-the-wool Red State morons-you know who you are) are the libertarian types who are all about polluting industries trading carbon credits. Thing is, Gore as a politician never said Go Ye Therefore and Live In A Preindustrial manner or a Pox Upon Ye - he said - look we can take a few sensible measures, compact fluorescent bulbs etc. and make a difference. He didn't advocate a social revolution, as far as I can tell the blubbering over his 'hypocracy' is for those who have no real understanding of what they criticise. What Pol has ever done what you guys are saying Gore ought to do? Gandhi comes to mind, after that pickings get a little slim. More about bashing Gore/tying him to imaginary 'elitism' of libs than GW-denying.

comment #22

SpinDozer says ...

'but I'm also enough of a pragmatist to at least CONSIDER we are mere bystanders and, if it is natural, we have no right to alter nature's course to maintain our current levels of comfort.'

This makes no effing sense. If we are mere bystanders in a natural process that will result in the melting of Greenland's Glaciers, rising sea levels, etc. and a bad day for mankind in general, we either eat-drink & be-merry for tomorrow-we-die or we try to do something about it, like use a different kind of light bulb.

'The "vast majority of the scientific community" once believed that blood-letting and leeches were perfectly sound medical procedures. Were they right?'

Given the state of Scientific Knowledge of the time, yes. The Village Idiot who points at snowfall in upstate New York as a refutation of GW offers no more compelling an arguement than the one that rails against the 'theory' of evolution. For there to be 'controversy' over GW, there has to be either a compelling counter hypothesis or a fatal flaw in the the theory which is demonstrated in a peer reviewed journal.

Obviously, there could be a discovery or observable phenomena tomorrow or a new theory which alters scientific GW; if this happens, there will be a controversy...tomorrow.

'Whatever we argue about, we should never lose sight of the fact that the one thing man has proven indisputably and irrefutably throughout history is that he is motivated by self-interest FIRST, and humanity SECOND, and will go to unfathomable lengths to his protect ideas and reputations, even if that means compromising his scientific integrity. '

Chum, that means there is always someone in the 1st category eager to knock off the guy in the 2nd category - generally resulting in a 'controversy'.

comment #23

christian says ...

i heard phony right wing moralist dennis prager recently say, "i don't want to tell my grandchildren i had a choice to fight terrorism or the possibility of global warming and chose global warming."

what about eating a steak or fighting terrorism? i bet he made an easy choice there. what a tool.