• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Al Gore: Proven fraud and hypocritical fear monger. (1 Viewer)

Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wow, been quite a while since my last post...combination of factors I completely forgot about this place. Regardless, I hope to post here more often now.

Anyway....the issue at hand...
 
USA Today had a column about him a few days ago. It detailed not only his pollution, but specifically his high energy usage to provide himself with a luxurious lifestyle.
 
Right, I linked to Usa Today in my article.
 
had it not been for Al Gore we would not be having this conversation. After all, he made the internet possible....:rofl
 
What Gore said about the internet was that he was on a senate committee that helped spread the internet or something of the sort. It would appear he has been somewhat of a hypocrite on the issue. Just like any decent politician he can bring the issue to the table, but that doesn't mean he himself would follow it.
 
The Philosopher said:
Right, I linked to Usa Today in my article.
That's a different column.
 
I don't think Al has much chance of ever being president. Even the people who agree with his movie 100%, aren't rushing to his defense in this thread. His movie may be 100% correct, but that just makes him that much more of a hypocrite.
 
From A New Refutation of the Very Possibility Of Al Gore, a philosophical and scholarly analysis that proves Al Gore doesn't exist. This is obviously left over from the 2000 elections but, in light of his new movie, is still timely. I highly recommend it as the highest form of satire.
The question before us is this: Does Al Gore exist? Let us address this question from a phenomenological perspective, taking as a starting point the following sentence from Martin Heidegger's Being and Time : "The nothing nothings" (or "Nothingness nihilates"). That sentence is an extremely apt description of Al Gore giving a political speech. He isn't there, and he's not saying anything or, to put it differently, he is nothing and he's saying nothing. Al Gore is a kind of hole or vacuum. Let us consider Al Gore provisionally as a section of unoccupied space and time (later we will have to refine this account).

A Gore supporter might reply that while "of course" Al Gore is something or perhaps even someone, the problem is his public persona. He tries to stay safe by sticking to pure cant and revealing as little as possible of himself.

Paradoxically, however, the fact that he will not or cannot reveal himself in public is precisely his most authentic revelation of himself. As he speaks from concealment he is nothinging or nihilating: his self is the self that creates or clears the absence that he presents, and the presentation from which he is absent. His self is nothingness, the source of the nullity he embodies in public space. The nothing nothings; but more, only the nothing nothings. Nothing cannot derive from something, as if by a slow decay. Rather, the abyss lurks at the heart of each thing as a possibility. In human beings the abyss lurks as a choice, but to choose nothing (what Sartre called "bad faith") is to choose the unreality at the heart of oneself, to annihilate oneself or tumble into perfect falsehood, or rather perfect negation of truth, as the essence of oneself.

(snip)

One can see this most clearly when one listens to Al Gore, which is a complete waste of time. It's not just that in listening to Al Gore time is disposed of nonproductively, that time is lobbed into the universal garbage pail along with the cosmological coffee grounds and orange peels. As Al Gore speaks, time is wasted as a disease wastes the human body; time slowly collapses in on itself like the body of a consumptive: time withers, time decays, time atrophies as all things cease to be, even the very ceasing-to-be itself of things. So Al Gore makes not only everything impossible, he makes nothing itself impossible too, for nothingness must be the annihilation of itself as well as of everything. Al Gore is the universe feeding on itself and then feeding on its own excrement and then feeding on its own feeding maw, until it collapses into itself like a black w/hole that consists of a single infinitesimal point. And then Al Gore is the annihilation of that infinitesimal point itself, and the annihilation of that annihilation.

To vote for Al Gore, then, is to endorse and to become the negation or abnegation of all truth and all reality; it is to take up a position as the destroyer not only of oneself, and not only of American political discourse, but of the entire fabric of the universe. Thus this election poses itself as a question: Will we trip over Al Gore's abysmal foot into the infinite void, falling eternally into dimensionless nonbeing? For when all space is unoccupied, then space itself collapses, and not only does nothing exist any longer, there is no place where anything could come to exist; the collapse of space is the collapse of all the dimensions and modalities of being; it is the destruction not only of actuality but of possibility. Consequently, a vote for Al Gore is a vote not only against the universe in which we happen to find ourselves; it is a vote against the very possibility of any universe, of even a single merely possible lepton. A vote for Al Gore is a vote for the complete annihilation of all possible worlds.

Thus there is more at stake in this election than tax policy; as you enter the polling booth you face the question of whether you yourself will cease to exist.
 
mpg said:
I don't think Al has much chance of ever being president. Even the people who agree with his movie 100%, aren't rushing to his defense in this thread. His movie may be 100% correct, but that just makes him that much more of a hypocrite.

Was his movie 100% correct?

I read somewhere that he had 100 scientists or so view the film, but only 19 agreed with his assessment, and of those 19, only 5 were willing to go on record.

I will have to look into it.
 
Don't Bother! I found exactly what you're looking for!


Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy

By Seth Borenstein, Associated Press


The nation's top climate scientists are giving An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm

SixStringHero said:
I read somewhere .... 100 scientists ..... 19 agreed .....

Yeah, you just about had it remembered correctly!
(Plunk Plunk Plink! Ya musta broke a string!)
 
...said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
Hmm. Recalling my Logic 101 class, that statement leaves me with some questions. For one thing a real climate scientist is probably familiar with the original science and scholarly publications; if they disagree with Gore's conclusions, they probably wouldn't waste their time on his demagogic presentation. For another thing the passions surrounding the hysteria over GW, and the feeding frenzy of the popular press, suggest that anyone who publicly disagrees in such a forum merely invites personal attacks, and serious scientists have better things to do with their time.
 
I Love it! The "Silent Majority" concept is back! Quick somebody e-mail Jerry Falwell with a link to this page! He'll be as proud as a papa peacock.

Yes, scientists tend to shy away from the spotlight, and that is one of the things which makes the problem of human induced GW all the more alarming. The scientists are being vocal, and they are attacking those who disagree about GW vigorously. They are saying, in effect, "Let's quit messing around and let's start reducing CO2 emissions now." For me, a reading of this state of affairs further indicates that GW is a real, serious problem.

If these scientists are wrong, their carrers might be ruined in 15 years. If they are discovered to be wrong in the distant future, they will be excoriated in future scientific literature. In general, I feel that scientists value their reputation and their legacy. These aren't drug dealers, prostitutes, or politicians we are dealing with here. These are people who have worked their asses off and earned Phd.s. They honestly think they have it right.
 
My point was that the "poll" represented only the views of those who cared to take part, like the poll questions on this message board and countless other web sites, rather than a cross-section of all the people working in the field. For all I know, these 19 "scientists" could be the same mutual admiration society that gives favorable peer reviews to each other's publications spouting the same line.

The fact that more than 80% of the prospective voters in the poll declined to participate is significant to me.
 
Citizendave said:
I Love it! The "Silent Majority" concept is back! Quick somebody e-mail Jerry Falwell with a link to this page! He'll be as proud as a papa peacock.

Yes, scientists tend to shy away from the spotlight, and that is one of the things which makes the problem of human induced GW all the more alarming. The scientists are being vocal, and they are attacking those who disagree about GW vigorously. They are saying, in effect, "Let's quit messing around and let's start reducing CO2 emissions now." For me, a reading of this state of affairs further indicates that GW is a real, serious problem.

If these scientists are wrong, their carrers might be ruined in 15 years. If they are discovered to be wrong in the distant future, they will be excoriated in future scientific literature. In general, I feel that scientists value their reputation and their legacy. These aren't drug dealers, prostitutes, or politicians we are dealing with here. These are people who have worked their asses off and earned Phd.s. They honestly think they have it right.
Greenpeace polled climatologists, and the majority of respondents don't believe that we'll have catastrophic climate change if we continue on the present course.
 
mpg said:
Greenpeace polled climatologists, and the majority of respondents don't believe that we'll have catastrophic climate change if we continue on the present course.

I'm sure this is a lot more science behind this film than say 'The Day After Tomorrow.' :2razz:

Bus if this is what the climatologists agreed on, then I'm content for now.
 
Greenpeace polled climatologists, and the majority of respondents don't believe that we'll have catastrophic climate change if we continue on the present course.

Are you citing a survey done in 1992?

..... Greenpeace International polled 400 climate scientists during December 1991 and January '92. The sample included all scientists involved in the 1990 study of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others who have published on issues relevant to climate change in `Science' or `Nature' during 1991. Scientists were asked whether they thought there would be a point of no return at some time in the future, if emissions continued at their present rate. By the end of January 1992, 113 had replied, in the following way: probably - 15 (13%), possibly - 36 (32%), probably not - 53 (47%). In other words, 45% believe the runaway greenhouse effect to be possible....

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0638.html

Sixstringhero and mpg: putting aside the two excellent sources you have both cited, I'd like to just say that there's this other article which I'm remembering, and as best as I can recall, it supports my side of the issue, so I believe what I believe, and that's my current position, it remains unchanged, so there.
 
So Al Gore doesn't fully live up to all the recommendations in his movie. <shrug> Big deal, the real question is whether or not the assertions in the documentary are true. If they are, then he deserves respect for making such an impassioned effort to educate the public. If his movie results in positive changes on a mass scale, that probably outweighs whatever flaws he may have in his personal lifestyle.

I don't believe the movie is a political tactic. To me it looks like the actions of a man who, having retired from being a politician, is now free to speak his mind without asking a consultant what to say first. The result may not be pretty, but I think it's more indicative of his true beliefs than anything we saw during 2000.
 
Citizendave said:
Are you citing a survey done in 1992?



Sixstringhero and mpg: putting aside the two excellent sources you have both cited, I'd like to just say that there's this other article which I'm remembering, and as best as I can recall, it supports my side of the issue, so I believe what I believe, and that's my current position, it remains unchanged, so there.
I'm not sure if that's the same poll. jfuh posted it. Either way, Al's a hypocrite, but especially if his movie's correct.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom