Nothing like being the representative for Green Living when you have you fly by personal jet.
|
I'm glad he won and hope he soon joins the presidential race, preferably in league with Barack Obama as a VP choice. Seems to me like the country is ready for 16 years of non-conservative rule.
--Erik
The country has already demonstrated that its ready for non-conservative rule by kicking the bums out of the house...you know, that place where the constitution places rulership in this country.
If what you meant to say non-conservative management, well then sure, lets elect a non-conservative for president.
Let me say that Al Gore's Nobel Pize is slap in the face to all the scientists who've actually done the research. Neither Al Gore nor the UN committee deserve it as they did nothing to advance the research. Giving the Nobel Prize to people with the biggest microphone is a cheap shot. Its not as if the media has no idea who Al Gore or the UN are and they had to struggle to get the message heard. They just had to say "hey, I have a message"...real brave.
In his little 5 min "thank you" AL Gore didn't even thank all the scientists...the jerk.
|
|
[QUOTE="mwbeeler"
You want crazy? My take on Global Warming: It’s supposed to happen! We’re screwing up by trying to prevent it. Then again, I think the same thing might be true about cancer, and we’re blocking our own evolutionary process trying to “cure” it. But that’s what makes me crazy (or a very small subset thereof)….
lmao...I've always thought it go that way.
Any scientific theory is only as good as its ability to predict results.
So, In terms og man-made global warming theory. I the the world cuts CO2 emissions by 50% what will the temperature be next year? (or increase, percentage should vary with a good theory)
Truth is, the theory can't predict at all, so its a poor theory.
Does this mean stop research? Hell no. More research please! But what we shouldn't be doing is making political policy out of a poor theory.
Problem: Global Warming will cause massive shifts in human behavior as people cope with the new environmental realities.
Solution: Make political changes such that there is a massive shift in human behavior to avoid new environmental realities.
Me: Uh...so either way I have to face a massive shift my behavior? I'll choose to foght nature. At least its truly fair and doesn't have guns.
|
|
In his little 5 min "thank you" AL Gore didn't even thank all the scientists...the jerk.
Pretty much all working scientists are use to not getting thanked for the work they do to try to improve whichever facet of the world we live in. Be it chemistry, biology, climatology, genetics, or even the social sciences like archaeology and anthropology. We do it because we want to figure out mysteries that are personal to us or important to us. We (generally) don't go into it thinking we're going to get all the adjulation and props that our research deserves. If we are at all realistic we don't think we'll be livin' the rock star lifestyle and snorting lines of blow off the backs of supermodels while our adoring public tries to get backstage passes and sex us up before our lectures. Most everyone in the modern age who gets a Nobel Prize is propped up by a support staff of dozens(+) of underling researchers who will go forever nameless and he's not the first to gloss over the contributions of 'the team'. It's is kinda jerky, but that's the way it works. He's a faceman, not a producer of the product he's selling.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, guys.
I'd like to point out that this was the Peace Prize, not the prize in Chemistry or Biology. If the Nobel committee had wanted to recognize an achievement in science, the appropriate prize would have been one in the appropriate hard research field.
Mr. Gore and the UN team received the prize in Peace, which seems appropriate to me.
I'll come back and play tomorrow but it's time to watch a zombie flick here, guys.Which one? Sounds like a great idea.
28 Days Later.
Aside from a few, "oh come on... it would never go down like that" moments which drove the plot a bit awkwardly at times, it was a very tense film. I dreamt myself into it last night but I must have done alright for myself with the zombies because I woke up refreshed. That only happens when I completely skirt a dream danger or win convincingly.
Ever since the Dawn of the Dead remake a few years ago these fast moving zombies make for a chilling apocolyptic experience. I'm not scared so much as riveted and stressed. It isn't the zombies and their deadness or questionable good looks that move me, it's the fear of outbreak and predation upon our kind.
I solemnly swear to never eat any you guys, not even if you start to look delicious.
28 Days Later.
Aside from a few, "oh come on... it would never go down like that" moments which drove the plot a bit awkwardly at times, it was a very tense film. I dreamt myself into it last night but I must have done alright for myself with the zombies because I woke up refreshed. That only happens when I completely skirt a dream danger or win convincingly.
Ever since the Dawn of the Dead remake a few years ago these fast moving zombies make for a chilling apocolyptic experience. I'm not scared so much as riveted and stressed. It isn't the zombies and their deadness or questionable good looks that move me, it's the fear of outbreak and predation upon our kind.
I solemnly swear to never eat any you guys, not even if you start to look delicious.
I haven't seen it. I'll check it out. And i agree it isn't so much the sight anymore, it is the stress of avoidance that makes the movies "scary".
As for the "eating", yeah, I'd try to stay away since human meat can be rather fatty.................so they say!! ;-)
The deal with the energy bill is that:
A) He lives on a huge, honkin' ranch. Huge honkin' ranches consume a wee bit more energy to run that an average house. If ... somebody had been able to show that Gore uses 20 times the energy of an average consumer per square foot or some other such standardised measure, I'd sit up and pay some attention.
I like Al Gore, and even if I didn't, I agree with not confusing the message with the messenger - but this rationale bugs me. Unless he needs that honkin ranch for his honkin' gut, maybe he ought to get a smaller house. Your argument sounds like "his huge energy bill comes from massive consumption, not massive consumption, so it is OK..." If you burn more gas because you're driving an SUV, is that somehow better than burning the same gas because you're driving a small car more often?
All that aside, I say he should hop on the treadmill and get in the race. I might even vote for him. God knows I can't hardly vote for anybody else.
28 Days Later.I'll come back and play tomorrow but it's time to watch a zombie flick here, guys.Which one? Sounds like a great idea.
Just a heads up: The sequel's no good. Really no good. Which is a shame, because you would think "U.S. Army vs. Zombies" would be the best movie ever, wouldn't you? It squanders its potential.
|
Gore is a nutcase. So he won the Nobel Peace Prize! So what.. Yasser Arafat won it to. Hell, so did Jimmy Carter.
Honestly, I don't think there have been all that many undeserving winners. Arafat/Peres/Rabin was probably one, but a lot of people were really excited about the Oslo Accords. To my mind, the worst winner of all was Henry Kissinger. Also, a number of post-Arafat/Peres/Rabin winners have been worthy candidates, with my personal favourite being Doctors Without Borders.
As for Carter - he might not have done a particularly good job as president, but the Carter Center has done a lot of good work since then, especially through its work with election monitoring. So I think he's a perfectly viable candidate.
|
|
I like Al Gore, and even if I didn't, I agree with not confusing the message with the messenger - but this rationale bugs me. Unless he needs that honkin ranch for his honkin' gut, maybe he ought to get a smaller house. Your argument sounds like "his huge energy bill comes from massive consumption, not massive consumption, so it is OK..." If you burn more gas because you're driving an SUV, is that somehow better than burning the same gas because you're driving a small car more often?The deal with the energy bill is that:
A) He lives on a huge, honkin' ranch. Huge honkin' ranches consume a wee bit more energy to run that an average house. If ... somebody had been able to show that Gore uses 20 times the energy of an average consumer per square foot or some other such standardised measure, I'd sit up and pay some attention.
Maybe. He lives on his family farm, and pays extra to have his electricity produced in a more environmentally friendly manner. That seems reasonable enough to me.
Just a heads up: The sequel's no good. Really no good. Which is a shame, because you would think "U.S. Army vs. Zombies" would be the best movie ever, wouldn't you? It squanders its potential.
28 Days Later.
I enjoyed the film enough to recommend it to fans of the genre. I spent two tense hours following a story that started intimately with the rage virus as it affected a family and ended with ragnarok type carpet bombing.
However, Land of the Dead however did nothing for me yet a lot of people dug it.
Zombie apocalypse is in the eye of the beholder.
Am I the only one who thinks there must be someone else on the planet more deserving of this honor that Al Gore? Don't get me wrong, I agree with the dire importance of the global warming issue, but I think Gore's a hypocrite, not to mention a politician using the issue for his own benefit. Gore's actions contradict his supposed passion for this issue anyway. Remember the story about his home energy use...20 times the average? Sounds a bit suspicious to me, but maybe I'm the only one.
Kind of fitting, really: the man who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on energy, yet warns of the dangers of global warming recieves an award for peace created by the man who invented dynamite.
|
|
Gore is a nutcase. So he won the Nobel Peace Prize! So what.. Yasser Arafat won it to. Hell, so did Jimmy Carter.Honestly, I don't think there have been all that many undeserving winners. Arafat/Peres/Rabin was probably one, but a lot of people were really excited about the Oslo Accords. To my mind, the worst winner of all was Henry Kissinger. Also, a number of post-Arafat/Peres/Rabin winners have been worthy candidates, with my personal favourite being Doctors Without Borders.
As for Carter - he might not have done a particularly good job as president, but the Carter Center has done a lot of good work since then, especially through its work with election monitoring. So I think he's a perfectly viable candidate.
Cool! Now I'm the Vomit Guy. I may just have to get a new alias...
Ooohhh, i don't feel so good. Bllllaaaarrrggghhh!
Ooohhh, i don't feel so good. Bllllaaaarrrggghhh!Hey, vomit guy! You're a superhero now!!!!!
Sweet! Maybe I can get my own secret headquarters and some kind of 'Vomit Signal'.
Now if only we knew some good drawers...
Bllaarrgghhh!
|
My apologies for irking a few here who don't like to discuss certain topics or even allow others to discuss them. I have always thought this to be the most civil of boards, and I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers by expressing my opinion in a forum where I thought any topic was up for discussion. For what it's worth, I despise republicans and democrats equally, although this wasn't supposed to be a political rant, per se. In hindsight, I suppose my posting two whole 'political' threads over the last several months may have been somewhat excessive aferall. Anyway, I do apologize.
No problem.