2 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are demanding ol’ Al hand it back.
Al Gore strikes me as being kinda douchey, but unless he was actively involved in some sort of global warming conspiracy I feel he should keep his little trophy.
If the guy and his team genuinely felt there was a real threat backed by sound data (alongside many others) and busted ass to raise awareness for it, I say good for him.
Of course, at the end of the day, Al is still a politician and charging a hundred grand per 85 minute appearance means he isn’t doing this purely for the good of mankind, but still.
More like $100 million dollars plus obtained so far by “carbon credits” and other global warming fear-based schemes.
In a just world, we would have tarred and feathered him already.
Anyone who trusts the scientific opinion of a politician in the first place ought to have their head examined.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
In a just world, we would have tarred and feathered him already.
Anyone who trusts the scientific opinion of a politician in the first place ought to have their head examined. [/quote]
That “docudrama” was idiotic, it was filled with oddly placed emotional segments, that just came off forced and doucheeh to me…
Err, I think recent observation of Polar Bear behavior should caution against denying global warming. The photographic evidence that was shared with me sort of shuts down debate.
I wonder if you are consistent in your standards of evidence and how you arrive at conclusions?
If you were shown photographic evidence of Houston’s earliest snowfall ever (which just occurred now), or various other examples of recent record cold, would that shut down debate for you but in the opposite direction?
How do you deal with the fact that Greenland was green (which is why it was named that) less than 1000 years ago? Without any SUV’s or coal-fired powerplants being around.
Or the now-known fact that the Earth has exhibited a pattern for the last half-million years approximately of (on average) trending warmer and warmer in interglacial periods, with previous cycles looking basically just like this current one, but without man?
And how do you figure from the polar bear pictures that man is the principal cause?
I mean, you can figure things however you want, but is the method consistent and is it really conclusive?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I wonder if you are consistent in your standards of evidence and how you arrive at conclusions?
If you were shown photographic evidence of Houston’s earliest snowfall ever (which just occurred now), or various other examples of recent record cold, would that shut down debate for you but in the opposite direction?
How do you deal with the fact that Greenland was green (which is why it was named that) less than 1000 years ago? Without any SUV’s or coal-fired powerplants being around.
Or the now-known fact that the Earth has exhibited a pattern for the last half-million years approximately of (on average) trending warmer and warmer in interglacial periods, with previous cycles looking basically just like this current one, but without man?
And how do you figure from the polar bear pictures that man is the principal cause?
I mean, you can figure things however you want, but is the method consistent and is it really conclusive?
[/quote]
Only a mere 20 years ago one could not find beach side, sunbathing, polar bears. What isn’t shown in this particular photo, is a new habit of ordering icy alcholic beverages garnished with small umbrellas (while catching rays on the beach) to beat the heat. You tell me, does this look more like a bear living in a icy wasteland? Or, like a tourist at some tropical beach resort? I’ll be submitting this to the CRU, in case they haven’t already faked the same picture.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I wonder if you are consistent in your standards of evidence and how you arrive at conclusions?
If you were shown photographic evidence of Houston’s earliest snowfall ever (which just occurred now), or various other examples of recent record cold, would that shut down debate for you but in the opposite direction?
How do you deal with the fact that Greenland was green (which is why it was named that) less than 1000 years ago? Without any SUV’s or coal-fired powerplants being around.
Or the now-known fact that the Earth has exhibited a pattern for the last half-million years approximately of (on average) trending warmer and warmer in interglacial periods, with previous cycles looking basically just like this current one, but without man?
And how do you figure from the polar bear pictures that man is the principal cause?
I mean, you can figure things however you want, but is the method consistent and is it really conclusive?
[/quote]
Only a mere 20 years ago one could not find beach side, sunbathing, polar bears. What isn’t shown in this particular photo, is a new habit of ordering icy alcholic beverages garnished with small umbrellas (while catching rays on the beach) to beat the heat. You tell me, does this look more like a bear living in a icy wasteland? Or, like a tourist at some tropical beach resort? I’ll be submitting this to the CRU, in case they haven’t already faked the same picture. [/quote]
Well played, sir. Well played.
Al Gore didn’t actually win an Oscar. The producers of the movie won Oscars. Al Gore is not an Academy Award winner.
So good luck getting the Oscar returned.
Put this effort in the same category as The War on Christmas, and other nonsense.