PDA

View Full Version : The Joke that is Al Gore



KDawg
06-29-2007, 08:55 AM
Inconvenient Inaccuracies?

Some of Mr. Gore's allies have acknowledged glaring inaccuracies in the film. Though Mr. Gore was right for "getting the message out," University of Colorado climatologist Kevin Vranes told The New York Times he worried about the film "overselling our certainty about knowing the future." James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr. Gore's advisors, agreed the movie has "imperfections" and "technical flaws." Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998) and that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing).

Kevin Libin, National Post

Hans
06-29-2007, 11:49 AM
Now list all the accurate points and you will notice the inaccurate points do not take away from the truth.

pylus
06-29-2007, 12:33 PM
You'll also notice either he
A: Doesn't know all that he says he does, remember he did invent the internet.
or
B: Lied, remember he did invent the internet.

No inaccuracies Ever take away from the Truth.

KDawg
06-29-2007, 01:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now list all the accurate points and you will notice the inaccurate points do not take away from the truth. </div></div>

The point is, like Pylus said, Gore's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. If it just ended there, no big deal. But he's, along with other politicians, calling for taxes on "carbon footprints" and many other measure to "curb global warming."

You don't make decisions based on bad information -- it makes for bad decisions and causes unnecessary consequences.

GenX
06-29-2007, 01:57 PM
"Ontario will be distributing hundreds of donated copies of Al Gore's controversial documentary on climate change to public schools across the province."

LINK (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9172c197-1929-4c40-83fa-edaee57ae36d)

Nice to see the indoctrination continues on.

Hans
06-29-2007, 10:11 PM
Which documentary are you going to distribute?

Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/terrorism.pdf

So remember kids, from now on we call a kidnapper a terrorist. In which case we can throw them in jail indefinitely and trial them under a military tribunal according to rules we make up as things progress.

GenX
06-29-2007, 10:22 PM
Anyone have a clue what he is rambling about now?

Hans
06-30-2007, 02:51 PM
"or ransom."

So if someone kidnaps someone else and demands a ransom, by definition they are a terrorist. (With no rights, as proclaimed by you in another thread)

GenX
07-07-2007, 01:18 PM
As Madonna bounds on to the huge Wembley stage to save the planet, how the assembled Greenies will cheer.

The superstar is today fronting the massive Live Earth event, with nine concerts played over 24 hours across seven continents before an audience of two billion.

The much-hyped bid to save the world is being masterminded by former U.S. vice president Al Gore - who helped focus attention on the environmental movement with his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth - and features artists including The Police, Red Hot Chili Peppers, UB40 and Metallica.

No doubt to rapturous applause, Madonna will call for mass global change to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle 'climate crisis'.

Watching the veteran star lap up the adoration, her entourage could, however, be forgiven for exchanging slightly jaded glances - having witnessed her jet in for the concert from New York.

For her 2006 World Tour, she flew by private jet, transporting a team of up to 100 technicians and dancers around the globe. Waiting in the garage at home, she has a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, an Audi A8 and a Mini Cooper S.


Hypocrisy: Madonna will strut on stage today preaching at her viewers to save the planet - yet she herself produces more than 100 times the average amount of waste produced by Britons in a year

Indeed, Madonna's carbon footprint is dwarfed only by her ego - she has vowed that she will 'speak to the planet' at Wembley. In fact, an apology might be in order - for the superstar's energy consumption is only the tip of the iceberg in this epic vanity-fest.

The Live Earth event is, in the words of one commentator: "a massive, hypocritical fraud".

For while the organisers' commitment to save the planet is genuine, the very process of putting on such a vast event, with more than 150 performers jetting around the world to appear in concerts from Tokyo to Hamburg, is surely an exercise in hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, has dubbed it 'private jets for climate change'.

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army.

The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher.

The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.

Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.

The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

Moreover, the pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote - with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world.

Sepermodel Kate Moss, another profligate polluter through her use of private jets, is producing a T-shirt for the event. Yet, Gore is touting the concerts as 'carbon neutral'. So how can that be?

Let us start with some facts. Worldwide, an audience of around 1,268,500 is expected to attend the concerts - making it one of the largest global events in history.

Dr Andrea Collins, an expert in sustainability from Cardiff University, has researched the impact of such mass gatherings on the environment.

"An event of this size at Wembley - which holds 65,000 at a rock concert, will generate around 59 tonnes of waste," she says. "That is largely composed of the rubbish from food and drink consumption."

She found that a Wembley-sized football match generated an 'ecological footprint' of 3,000 global hectares - an area the size of 4,166 football pitches. This is the amount of bioproductive land required to absorb the C02 emissions produced by such an event.

The concert organisers are preaching carbon neutrality - but isn't that just a guilt-free excuse?

Dr Collins estimates that the global audience for Live Earth will generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste. An extraordinary one million people are expected at the free concert at Rio de Janeiro's Copacabana beach, featuring Lenny Kravitz, Macy Gray and Pharrell Williams.

Other venues including the Coca-Cola Dome in Johannesburg - where Joss Stone is performing - will cater for audiences of tens of thousands.

Live Earth say that they will recycle much of the waste generated. Fine talk, but in fact some of the concert venues are struggling to keep up with their commitments.

A spokesman for Wembley says they only have the capacity to recycle around a third of waste produced - the rest will go into landfill sites.

Travel forms the vast majority of the 'carbon footprint' talked of by ecological campaigners - contributing up to 90 per cent of the environmental 'cost'.

Collins says: "It is patently absurd to claim that travel of this nature doesn't have an impact. Each person attending the event will have to make a return journey to the venue, be it by air, rail, bus or car. This burns fossil fuel - precisely what we are trying to reduce.

"There is also the environmental cost of these artists flying around the world - that is absolutely huge."

Indeed, an audit of the lifestyles of the A-list performers appearing at Live Earth, reveals that they are among the worst individual polluters in the world, as their world tours and private jets billow thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. One hour in a Gulfstream jet burns as much fuel as driving a family car for a year.

The Daily Mail has found that five of the top performing acts together have an annual output of almost 2,000 carbon tonnes. Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tonnes, according to John Buckley.

Remember, the average Briton produces just ten tonnes.

The veteran pop singer's Confessions tour last year produced 440 tonnes of carbon pollution in just four months, simply in flights between venues. This does not include the trucks required to transport equipment, the power needed to stage each show, or the transport for fans travelling to each concert.

Rock group Genesis re-formed last year and are in the middle of their European tour. The three-man band will fit their Live Earth performance into a tour of at least 47 locations across the world. Their carbon footprint last year totalled 195 tonnes.

James Blunt, another Wembley performer, completed his world tour of the U.S. last year, racking up a carbon footprint of 195 tonnes.

American band Red Hot Chili Peppers have, like Madonna, flown in to Wembley from the U.S.. They have produced 220 tonnes of carbon dioxide with their private jet alone over the last six months.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has learnt that Bon Jovi left the UK this week to travel back by private jet to the U.S. to perform at the New York stadium for the American leg of Live Earth.

Music impresario Andrew Lloyd Webber's ex-wife Sarah Brightman is being flown out to sing at the Shanghai concert in China. This is a distance of 5,679.95 miles, producing one tonne of carbon dioxide pollution.

Two other acts have already been criticised for being paid to promote fuel-guzzling cars. John Legend is featured in a Lexus advert, while Sheryl Crow's hit Everyday Is A Winding Road is used to sell Subaru 4WDs.
Al Gore

Plans for concert organiser Al Gore to appear at the event in both Britain and America on the same day were scuppered due to fears of the backlash it would cause

Razorlight frontman Johnny Borrell has been criticised for urging people to drive electric eco-scooters - but buying a 1,000cc Moto Guzzi bike - described as 'a monster-revving beast'.

Such is the level of disquiet felt about Live Earth in New Zealand, that a pressure group called the Climaction Coalition, is urging people to protest against it on July 7. Radiohead, who are pioneers in eco-friendly performing, have refused to appear. Of course, Live Earth is doing its utmost to ensure the event is 'green' in appearance at least - stars will be ferried between the stage and dressing room by energy-efficient Smart Cars and biodiesel fuelled Mercedes.

A proposal for Gore to appear at concerts in Britain and America on the same day - something that Phil Collins, the Genesis drummer and singer, was able to do at the original Live Aid in 1985, courtesy of Concorde - has been dropped because of the anger that the 'gas-guzzling' flight would provoke.

Andrea Robinson, Live Earth's green manager, says her message to celebrities is: "Leave the Learjet at home - fly commercial."

Wembley Stadium will be lit using low energy fluorescent lightbulbs, while the backdrop is composed of recycled tyres and oil drums. The organisers tried to introduce re-usable cups for interval refreshments, but found that - like many green strategies - this was not practical on such a huge scale.

Some bio-produced plastic, made from corn, will be used, and artists' changing rooms will be fitted with energy-saving lightbulbs - all rather a drop in the ocean compared to the pollution generated by fans traveling across the UK to the concert or using the stadium's 2,618 toilets. Plans to ask the British public to turn off their electrical appliances during the Live Earth broadcast were scuppered when the National Grid pointed out that as everyone switched on again, a giant power surge could cripple the country.

Some stadiums are greener than others. The Aussie Stadium in Sydney will run the event on 100 per cent green energy supply. Each Australian Live Earth ticket comes with a free public transport voucher, while all the bathrooms will be waterless with waste being composted into fertiliser.

Conversely, in New York's Giants Stadium, trade unions have blocked Live Earth's attempts to recycle, and the 52,000-seater arena is not situated near public transport. The smallest - and least polluting - concert will be held at the British Antarctic Survey's base in Rothera.

Bizarrely, the concerts are also being 'independently audited' by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers over the next seven weeks, to assess the level of pollution they will have generated.

It is unclear what benefit this exercise will have, although the Live Earth organisers talk in terms of providing a 'legacy' for future events, showing how recycling and low-impact travel can be encouraged, and carbon-offsetting used. But the fact remains - massive rock concerts are hardly eco-friendly.

So just how does Gore claim that Live Earth will be carbon neutral? He does so by convenient use of 'carbon offsetting' - a trendy new method of absolving yourself of guilt.

Carbon offsetting involves 'neutralising' the emissions you are responsible for by buying 'credits'.

A spokesperson for Live Earth says: "This might involve buying environmentally sound lightbulbs for a Third World school, planting trees, or installing solar panels in a developing country."

A huge industry has sprung up to provide corporations with carbon credits.

However, critics say that the practice is simply a way for consumerist industries and nations to export their responsibility to developing countries. Others say it simply does not work.

Carbon-offsetting is, it turns out, how celebrities square green issues with their extravagant lifestyles and use of private jets.

Jon Bon Jovi has said: "We wrote a cheque, we took care of our footprint and raised awareness, blah blah blah."

When Gore - who himself spent eight years flying on Air Force Two - was asked if he had persuaded Madonna to stop using private jets, he said: 'Well, I appreciate and respect her as an artist and as a person, and there are many artists who are offsetting their role in contributing to the CO2 build-up, and I understand that.' A rather longwinded way of saying 'no'.

Madonna has, however, been given an instruction handbook on climate crisis by Live Earth.

John Rego, the environmental director of Live Earth, says he expects to purchase at least 3,000 tonnes of carbon credits to off-set the event. It is believed the organisers will spend in excess of 1million on carbon offsetting to counter criticism.

Rego explains: "All the events are carbon neutral. We have chosen a reforestation and reagricultural project in Mozambique. It is a credible certifiable carbon-diffused project. We are in the process of purchasing a carbon offset."

Dr Collins says: "Taking a flight and planting a tree does not add up. It does not make it all right. It is having your cake and eating it."

Dr John Barrett, from the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York, says: "There is a huge irony in flying halfway across the globe in a private jet, eating up fossil fuel.

"The idea that you can offset the pollution you cause is just ridiculous. What these people at Live Earth have done is defined their boundaries to suit themselves, but there is no sense in which this concert is carbon neutral.

"Planting trees or investing in renewable energy does not reverse the damage of releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the environment.

"It is far better not to pollute in the first place. Carbon offsetting can be a removal of guilt, but it is not an effective one."

Live Earth is encouraging 'citizens of the world' to take small steps: share a car, plant a shrub, turn off a light or hang out washing rather than use a dryer.

But Dr Barrett says: "It would be far better for these celebrities to stay at home. Holding large concerts to highlight environmental concerns and cut carbon emissions just seems ridiculous. What planet do these people live on?"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=466775&in_page_id=1879

Hans
07-09-2007, 12:54 PM
Can you condense that, to much to read.

GenX
07-09-2007, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you condense that, to much to read. </div></div>

Live Earth was a colossal failure.

Hans
07-09-2007, 01:35 PM
Thanks!

GenX
07-09-2007, 01:53 PM
'salright!!

Westender 3
07-09-2007, 06:10 PM
"Live Earth was a colossal failure."

Not quite as colossal a failure as Dubya's war over in Iraq. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

KDawg
07-09-2007, 06:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Madonna has, however, been given an instruction handbook on climate crisis by Live Earth. </div></div>

This is The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook, written by none other than David de Rothschild (heir to what is probably the biggest banking fortune in the world). I was watching Canada AM this morning and Marci Ien (one of the anchors) referred to this handbook as their bible.

As has been said here before, this global warming hysteria has nothing... I repeat ... NOTHING to do with the environment. It's a religion to these people.

GenX
07-09-2007, 06:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: West Ender 3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Live Earth was a colossal failure."

Not quite as colossal a failure as Dubya's war over in Iraq. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif </div></div>

I wouldn't bet on it!

GenX
07-09-2007, 06:56 PM
"Britain's phase of "Live Earth," a massive series of concerts organized by former Vice President Al Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection has been branded a "foul-mouthed flop" by a London newspaper.

The Daily Mail reported Monday organizers of the London phase of the concert, held at Wembley Stadium, had initially predicted huge viewing numbers. But the BBC's live afternoon coverage of the concert Saturday drew an average of only about 900,000 viewers, the paper reported.

The peak audience came during Madonna's performance, but only drew a weak 4.5 million average viewing audience.

The BBC said the poor showing was largely due to good weather Saturday afternoon, in addition to its Saturday tennis coverage at Wimbledon.

Critics, meanwhile, said viewers tuned out to what they believed was a hypocritical event. Some were criticized for flying to concert venues which were held simultaneously on the seven continents. In addition, tons of trash left behind by concert-goers further stained the venue's green-minded theme.

A stream of foul language used by performers also cut viewers, the Mail reported, which prompted a number of angry postings to the BBC's Web site."

LINK (http://www.newsroomamerica.com/usa/story.php?id=381874)

Do I feel schadenfreude? Is that schadenfreude I feel?

Why, yes it is!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Thanks for another laugh, enviro-whacko lefties.

Return of Too Many Daves
07-09-2007, 07:51 PM
Hmm, just because some ill-conceived Al Gore publicising concert was rubbish (and it was, Madonna with kids again! and she swore), doesn't mean climate change isn't a problem. But what was the point of those concerts? Surveys show that the population of the US (who are most able to make a difference) are already well aware of the issue and are in favour of government intervention at a taxation level, in particular in the electricity sector (see this weeks NewScientist podcast).

GenX
07-09-2007, 08:00 PM
It all depends on how the survey questions are used.

How are they worded?

If someone asks, "Are you in favor of the government helping clean up the environment" then of course a majority of people will say yes. But if you ask, "Are you in favor of government intervening in certain free market principles in order to address concerns over the still-hotly debated global warming controversy" then you would get a whole new set of answers.

Return of Too Many Daves
07-09-2007, 09:06 PM
Check out the podcast. Live and learn.

GenX
07-09-2007, 09:34 PM
Kind of early for a white flag from you, but I'll accept it.

Return of Too Many Daves
07-09-2007, 10:17 PM
White flag? Do you just see the words you want to see?

GenX
07-10-2007, 09:15 AM
Have a cup of java Dave, it's gonna' be alright.

Return of Too Many Daves
07-10-2007, 10:52 AM
Speedy that is racist.

GenX
07-10-2007, 10:56 AM
Of course it is.

KDawg
07-15-2007, 04:06 PM
Australia has coldest June since 1950. Oh, that's right. Global warming can do that too.

link (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22069080-5001031,00.html)

Hans
07-15-2007, 05:33 PM
Did nobody ever explain to you that when it's summer in the northern hemisphere, it's winter in the southern hemisphere?

KDawg
07-16-2007, 01:01 PM
Yeah, thanks for that.

We're talking about relative temperatures over a period of time for the same area. (ie. "It's colder here this June than it has been for 50 years").

Which season we're in or Australia's in is irrelevant.

Hans
07-16-2007, 04:17 PM
And what are the average temperatures for Australia around this time of the year, for the past 50 years?

KDawg
07-17-2007, 09:30 AM
I don't know and don't care. That is not the point of my post.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we've horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we're still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.</div></div>

Global warming advocates are saying that temperatures are rising.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. </div></div>

Do you see the point?

The Berean
07-17-2007, 10:52 AM
The point is that if the globe is warming, it can indeed cause cooler temperatures in certain areas.

Hans
07-17-2007, 11:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know and don't care. That is not the point of my post.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we've horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we're still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.</div></div>

Global warming advocates are saying that temperatures are rising.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. </div></div>

Do you see the point?

</div></div>

No, I do not. If you take the hottest June on record for Australia, which year do you get?
You are missing 1 factor here : It's not because 1 month is abnormally could that the other 11 months do not count.
If you add up the average temperature globally, you will see it's rising.
That is what global warming advocates are saying. They are not saying that the month June in Australia is warming up...

darryl smith
07-19-2007, 03:42 PM
It amazes me that after all this time away people on this board have learned NOTHING!. Still applauding Al the Bore for his insane global warming crusade, still proclaiming the war in Iraq as a failure when its clear things are working over there (there are more civilians killed every year in gane related violence in the US then in the conflict in Iraq). Still calling for a total socialization of the planet in the name of "its the nice thing to do". You guys are too much! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/computer.gif

Speedy...Sorry I have left you at the helm for a long time but I am back! Wont be posting often but I am watching and applauding your ongoing (although apparently pointless and futile) attempts to educate the liberal masses. Carry on Chap! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/beerchug.gif

Hans
07-19-2007, 09:16 PM
Things are working in Iraq? Last time I checked, it's chaos and fighting between various clans, trying to gain enough control to take over the place.
Which will be happening in 2008, as US troops will be pulled out.
And I do use pulled out instead of coming home, because you only come home after a victory.
I just hope that whoever takes control during 2008 will not be some Islamic lunatic who wants to take over the world.

The Berean
07-19-2007, 09:39 PM
"..(there are more civilians killed every year in gane related violence in the US then in the conflict in Iraq)..."

Thats a hell of a way to show that things are going well in Iraq.

How many dead in Iraq?? Every day??

darryl smith
07-20-2007, 10:02 AM
where have you been checking? CNN maybe?

The Pentigon and the US military report a very different picture, so do the european media! People in Iraq are certainly not absolutely safe but its deffinitly not chaos.

The have a government, they have jobs, the lights are on and the economy is growing. Kids are in school and people are rebuilding. Sounds like a great start to a new democracy to me!

darryl smith
07-20-2007, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"..(there are more civilians killed every year in gane related violence in the US then in the conflict in Iraq)..."

Thats a hell of a way to show that things are going well in Iraq.

How many dead in Iraq?? Every day?? </div></div>

on average in a country of 40 million (ish) a dozen or so. That seems comperable to Northern Irland in the hayday of the problems there, sounds like far fewer then in many countries in Africa, deffinitly fewer then Russia on any given day and fewer then China executes on any given morning. You have to put things in context!

Duying in a strugle to free your country from tyranical rule is a far more useful way to die then over a crack rock or some spray paint on the wall of a wharehouse!

07-26-2007, 08:26 AM
regardless if A.I.T. documentary might have some inaccuracies.. it made everyone think and globally people are starting to become more conscience of it. i am all for it