Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[MrConservative 0]

What about all the hours he's spent fund-raising?

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

The millions raised to Alliance for Climate Protection, Lovearth & the Climate Project?

The 30 years he's spent campaigning for the environment?

The fact he is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing? CurrentTV for viewer content?

The fact he is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple and a Sr Advisor to Google?

His best-selling book from 1992?

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone?

But what does any of that have to do with peace? Nothing!! It's just a political award and makes the Peace Prize irrelevant.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

well he had to be doing something out of the oral oval office, didn't he?

[Fandango 1,440]

Does the fact that Jefferson owned slaves at the time that he helped write the Constitution make that document any LESS valid?

I don't think so...for all the reasons DeadPool mentioned above...

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

How authentic of you.

(s)he said what I was going to say, just before me...

surely that's not a first for two people to have the same opinion?! hahaha

So stop confusing the issue by questioning my authenticity (how funny of you, btw) and respond to the actual issue or not.

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

Edited October 13, 2007 by LisaD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does the fact that Jefferson owned slaves at the time that he helped write the Constitution make that document any LESS valid?

I don't think so...for all the reasons DeadPool mentioned above...

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

How authentic of you.

(s)he said what I was going to say, just before me...

surely that's not a first for two people to have the same opinion?! hahaha

So stop confusing the issue by questioning my authenticity (how funny of you, btw) and respond to the actual issue or not.

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

The validity of Al Gore's message (his movie) is anchored, in your opinion, on his personal carbon footprint. You've essentially said you can't separate the message from the messenger, yet with the example of Thomas Jefferson, you can. Interesting.

[Caladan 19]

What about all the hours he's spent fund-raising?

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

The millions raised to Alliance for Climate Protection, Lovearth & the Climate Project?

The 30 years he's spent campaigning for the environment?

The fact he is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing? CurrentTV for viewer content?

The fact he is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple and a Sr Advisor to Google?

His best-selling book from 1992?

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone?

But what does any of that have to do with peace? Nothing!! It's just a political award and makes the Peace Prize irrelevant.

Have you ever read the 'criteria' for the Nobel Peace Prize? Oddly enough, brokering a peace is not part of it.

Now you may not think Gore deserves it, but the wah wah wah it's just politics... did you say that when someone you liked won the award?

Next, we'll see the VJ brain trust decry Bill Gates for his millions of dollars of charity. He doesn't really care about poor people! Because he doesn't give ALL his money away and I heard he has flatscreens in his house.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What about all the hours he's spent fund-raising?

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

The millions raised to Alliance for Climate Protection, Lovearth & the Climate Project?

The 30 years he's spent campaigning for the environment?

The fact he is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing? CurrentTV for viewer content?

The fact he is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple and a Sr Advisor to Google?

His best-selling book from 1992?

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone?

But what does any of that have to do with peace? Nothing!! It's just a political award and makes the Peace Prize irrelevant.

Have you ever read the 'criteria' for the Nobel Peace Prize? Oddly enough, brokering a peace is not part of it.

Now you may not think Gore deserves it, but the wah wah wah it's just politics... did you say that when someone you liked won the award?

Next, we'll see the VJ brain trust decry Bill Gates for his millions of dollars of charity. He doesn't really care about poor people! Because he doesn't give ALL his money away and I heard he has flatscreens in his house.

Tar and feather the #######!

[Fandango 1,440]

Does the fact that Jefferson owned slaves at the time that he helped write the Constitution make that document any LESS valid?

I don't think so...for all the reasons DeadPool mentioned above...

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

How authentic of you.

(s)he said what I was going to say, just before me...

surely that's not a first for two people to have the same opinion?! hahaha

So stop confusing the issue by questioning my authenticity (how funny of you, btw) and respond to the actual issue or not.

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

The validity of Al Gore's message (his movie) is anchored, in your opinion, on his personal carbon footprint. You've essentially said you can't separate the message from the messenger, yet with the example of Thomas Jefferson, you can. Interesting.

Dodge and weave, Stevo...dodge.and.weave!

Thomas Jefferson didn't start a movement how it was bad for everyone to own slaves while he owned one of the highest amounts of slaves, did he? TJ's slavery ownership is not in issue because AT THAT TIME there was 'nothing wrong' with what he was doing. Society dictated that as a norm....as horrific as that sounds, that's what it was. So, while we can judge TJ for owning a slave - by today's standards, he's a monster....but again, in the context of the time period....not so much.

Not to mention you've 'conveniently' left out the fact that his movie is loaded with scientific inaccuracies. The very thing he's getting a Nobel Prize on, and the movie isn't completely accurate and he talks the talk yet doesn't walk the walk. When you're getting a Nobel Prize for preaching the 'right' way to live, then you should live that way as well. If the movie's not comprehensively accurate & you're shown to be a hypocrite...just what exactly is he being honored for? If he truly felt GW was such a true problem...why on earth is his carbon footprint so big????

See, I can appreciate his carbon footprint if he was all 'fock global warming it's a bunch of #######'. But when you're the 'poster boy' for how horrific it can be....when you make a 'movie' so alarmist you might as well be labeled Chicken Little....and yet your home consumes twice the yearly energy of an average family IN ONE MONTH?????? Then you get a Nobel Peace Prize for environmental issues? Gimme a break

If you can't see how they're related, well then more fool you really.

Jeez sometimes with you I swear it's like pulling teeth. Good thing J's a dentist

(I'm still laughing at you throwing my 'authenticity' into this btw)

Edited October 13, 2007 by LisaD

[Widge 0]

What about all the hours he's spent fund-raising?

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

The millons raised to Alliance for Climate Protection, LIveEarth & the Climate Project?

The 30 years he's spent campaigning for the environment?

The fact he is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing? CurrentTV for viewer content?

The fact he is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple and a Sr Advisor to Google?

His best-selling book from 1992?

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

[MrConservative 0]

What about all the hours he's spent fund-raising?

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

The millions raised to Alliance for Climate Protection, Lovearth & the Climate Project?

The 30 years he's spent campaigning for the environment?

The fact he is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing? CurrentTV for viewer content?

The fact he is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple and a Sr Advisor to Google?

His best-selling book from 1992?

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone?

But what does any of that have to do with peace? Nothing!! It's just a political award and makes the Peace Prize irrelevant.

Have you ever read the 'criteria' for the Nobel Peace Prize? Oddly enough, brokering a peace is not part of it.

Now you may not think Gore deserves it, but the wah wah wah it's just politics... did you say that when someone you liked won the award?

Next, we'll see the VJ brain trust decry Bill Gates for his millions of dollars of charity. He doesn't really care about poor people! Because he doesn't give ALL his money away and I heard he has flat screens in his house.

I have actually, it has been posted in this thread.

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:

The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.

– Alfred Nobel

From what I see here Al Gore has not fulfilled any of the requirements outlined. The Peace Prize is for promoting peace, not for work on saving the environment. His political leanings are not at issue here. What he did to rate the Peace Prize is. Whether what he did was good or not isn't Germaine. It just does not fall under the category of the Nobel Peace Prize. That means that it was given to him for political reasons and that diminishes the meaning of the prize.

[no name 1]

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

It's pointless tho, the naysayers have some weird ax to grind (mostly I think it's just anything Dem-related, not anything else)...

What about all the hours he's spent fund-raising?

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

The millions raised to Alliance for Climate Protection, Lovearth & the Climate Project?

The 30 years he's spent campaigning for the environment?

The fact he is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing? CurrentTV for viewer content?

The fact he is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple and a Sr Advisor to Google?

His best-selling book from 1992?

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone?

But what does any of that have to do with peace? Nothing!! It's just a political award and makes the Peace Prize irrelevant.

Have you ever read the 'criteria' for the Nobel Peace Prize? Oddly enough, brokering a peace is not part of it.

Now you may not think Gore deserves it, but the wah wah wah it's just politics... did you say that when someone you liked won the award?

Next, we'll see the VJ brain trust decry Bill Gates for his millions of dollars of charity. He doesn't really care about poor people! Because he doesn't give ALL his money away and I heard he has flat screens in his house.

I have actually, it has been posted in this thread.

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:

The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.

– Alfred Nobel

From what I see here Al Gore has not fulfilled any of the requirements outlined. The Peace Prize is for promoting peace, not for work on saving the environment. His political leanings are not at issue here. What he did to rate the Peace Prize is. Whether what he did was good or not isn't Germaine. It just does not fall under the category of the Nobel Peace Prize. That means that it was given to him for political reasons and that diminishes the meaning of the prize.

Read it again.

---

The committe's basis for giving it to Gore/UN IPCC panel:

"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

It cited Gore's awareness at an early stage "of the climatic challenges the world is facing."

The Nobel Peace Prize committee also cited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

The IPCC groups 2,500 researchers from more than 130 nations and issued reports this year blaming human activities for climate changes ranging from more heat waves to floods. It was set up in 1988 by the United Nations to help guide governments.

Climate change has moved high on the international agenda this year. The U.N. climate panel has been releasing reports, talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, there is growing concern about the melting Arctic.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/

Edited October 13, 2007 by devilette

[MrConservative 0]

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awareness of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling Suvs

It's pointless tho, the naysayers have some weird ax to grind (mostly I think it's just anything Dem-related, not anything else)...

What about all the hours he's spent fund-raising?

The fact that he made the environment his issue for 8 years in the WH?

The millions raised to Alliance for Climate Protection, Lovearth & the Climate Project?

The 30 years he's spent campaigning for the environment?

The fact he is cofounder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to Sustainable Investing? CurrentTV for viewer content?

The fact he is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple and a Sr Advisor to Google?

His best-selling book from 1992?

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone?

But what does any of that have to do with peace? Nothing!! It's just a political award and makes the Peace Prize irrelevant.

Have you ever read the 'criteria' for the Nobel Peace Prize? Oddly enough, brokering a peace is not part of it.

Now you may not think Gore deserves it, but the wah wah wah it's just politics... did you say that when someone you liked won the award?

Next, we'll see the VJ brain trust decry Bill Gates for his millions of dollars of charity. He doesn't really care about poor people! Because he doesn't give ALL his money away and I heard he has flat screens in his house.

I have actually, it has been posted in this thread.

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:

The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.

– Alfred Nobel

From what I see here Al Gore has not fulfilled any of the requirements outlined. The Peace Prize is for promoting peace, not for work on saving the environment. His political leanings are not at issue here. What he did to rate the Peace Prize is. Whether what he did was good or not isn't Germaine. It just does not fall under the category of the Nobel Peace Prize. That means that it was given to him for political reasons and that diminishes the meaning of the prize.

Read it again.

The committee's basis for giving it to Gore/UN IPCC panel:

"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

It cited Gore's awareness at an early stage "of the climatic challenges the world is facing."

The Nobel Peace Prize committee also cited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

he IPCC groups 2,500 researchers from more than 130 nations and issued reports this year blaming human activities for climate changes ranging from more heat waves to floods. It was set up in 1988 by the United Nations to help guide governments.

Climate change has moved high on the international agenda this year. The U.N. climate panel has been releasing reports, talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, there is growing concern about the melting Arctic.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/

What a load of dung! The committee really had to reach for that one. In the first place most of what he has been putting forth is hotly contested, and none of it makes "the best work for fraternity among nations". In the end he has done nothing but spew half truths and lies to further his own world view.

This is a portion of a story about Mr. Gore

Several Nobel prizes, for instances, have honored life-saving breakthroughs in stopping cancer. But in Earth in the Balance, Gore wonders aloud whether cancer treatments should be used if they would result in the harvesting of what he considers to be to be too many trees. On page 119 he writes:

"The Pacific Yew can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical, taxol, which offers some promise of curing certain forms of lung, breast, and ovarian cancer in patients who would otherwise quickly die. It seems an easy choice - sacrifice the tree for a human life - until one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated."

Really sounds like someone that is thinking about the well being of people isn't it. He puts trees above curing cancer!!

Here is some more from that story:

But in Earth in the Balance Gore decries "the much-heralded Green Revolution" as well as biotechnology that promises to further revolutionize agriculture. Gore concedes,

"To be sure, these same new 'miracle crops' ... have temporarily conquered hunger in a few of the Third World Nations."

But, he concludes,

"the higher yields made possible by genetically altered crop strains often cannot be sustained over time, as the pests and blights catch up to them and as overirrigation and overfertilizing take their toll on soil productivity."

Modern farming techniques, he writes, are

"a set of dangerous bargains with the future worthy of the theatrical legend that haunted the birth of the scientific revolution: Dr. Faustus."

This is an example of how Gore alarms and misleads at the same time. Yes, any agricultural improvement may have negative side effects that need to be fixed. But India's "temporary" conquering of hunger has lasted 40 years, and the nation is now a net grain exporter.

So Mr. Gore would rather see millions starve because he doesn't like modern farming. Hmmm.....

Mr. Gore is self serving and has an agenda that isn't based on saving humanity.

quotes from:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/al_...ion_of_the.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does the fact that Jefferson owned slaves at the time that he helped write the Constitution make that document any LESS valid?

I don't think so...for all the reasons DeadPool mentioned above...

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

How authentic of you.

(s)he said what I was going to say, just before me...

surely that's not a first for two people to have the same opinion?! hahaha

So stop confusing the issue by questioning my authenticity (how funny of you, btw) and respond to the actual issue or not.

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

The validity of Al Gore's message (his movie) is anchored, in your opinion, on his personal carbon footprint. You've essentially said you can't separate the message from the messenger, yet with the example of Thomas Jefferson, you can. Interesting.

Dodge and weave, Stevo...dodge.and.weave!

Thomas Jefferson didn't start a movement how it was bad for everyone to own slaves while he owned one of the highest amounts of slaves, did he? TJ's slavery ownership is not in issue because AT THAT TIME there was 'nothing wrong' with what he was doing. Society dictated that as a norm....as horrific as that sounds, that's what it was. So, while we can judge TJ for owning a slave - by today's standards, he's a monster....but again, in the context of the time period....not so much.

Not to mention you've 'conveniently' left out the fact that his movie is loaded with scientific inaccuracies. The very thing he's getting a Nobel Prize on, and the movie isn't completely accurate and he talks the talk yet doesn't walk the walk. When you're getting a Nobel Prize for preaching the 'right' way to live, then you should live that way as well. If the movie's not comprehensively accurate & you're shown to be a hypocrite...just what exactly is he being honored for? If he truly felt GW was such a true problem...why on earth is his carbon footprint so big????

See, I can appreciate his carbon footprint if he was all 'fock global warming it's a bunch of #######'. But when you're the 'poster boy' for how horrific it can be....when you make a 'movie' so alarmist you might as well be labeled Chicken Little....and yet your home consumes twice the yearly energy of an average family IN ONE MONTH?????? Then you get a Nobel Peace Prize for environmental issues? Gimme a break

If you can't see how they're related, well then more fool you really.

Jeez sometimes with you I swear it's like pulling teeth. Good thing J's a dentist

(I'm still laughing at you throwing my 'authenticity' into this btw)

You missed my point. If Adolph Hitler (for the sake of argument) was one of the authors of the Constitution, would it make that document any LESS valid? Do you follow me now? Don't try to meander between - 'he's a hypocrite therefore his movie is worthless' to 'his movies is full of inaccuracies' (I've already demonstrated to you a reputable group of scientists who essentially gave a thumbs up to his documentary on climate change). Regardless of whatever hypocracy you find with Al Gore's personal lifestyle, does not negate the validity of his documentary.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

Exactly. Sour grapes.

[DeadPoolX 9]

(s)he said what I was going to say, just before me...

surely that's not a first for two people to have the same opinion?! hahaha

So stop confusing the issue by questioning my authenticity (how funny of you, btw) and respond to the actual issue or not.

Should the fact that the movie's not entirely accurate and AG's own carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours have any bearing on him being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work with the environment?

Yeah, it kinda should.

I am definitely a man. This is good, because if I wasn't, my fiancee and I would be living an entirely different lifestyle.

*takes a look, just to be sure everything is where it should be*

Yup. I'm a man!

[Aaron_WSU 0]

I came late to this argument, so I'll just throw out my personal spiel and you guys can rip it apart if need be.

So far, I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that people contribute significantly to climate change. Climate change happens, and it will continue to happen naturally. IMO, people like to believe that they are the center of the universe, the most important thing on the planet. We want to believe that we can impact our universe. People are drawn to that. People love to hear about how they can make the world a better place, and I dare say they even like to hear that they can make a negative impact. See, it is in every person's being to desire to leave their mark on the world. Whether that be a child or a legacy, we all want to feel like we contributed something. Politicians play very strongly on this desire. The idea of voting for example. Telling people to get out there and make a difference. As if one person could really make a difference in an election or climate change. It is nonsense. Not to say we shouldn't be good stewards. We should be.

BTW, anyone a big recycling fan? I wonder if it actually costs more to establish recycling plants, staff them, and recycle the raw materials than it would be to extract more raw goods from the earth?

My message for Al Gore: "Practice what you preach. I will listen to what you say about the environment when you start playing by the rules that you want me to play by".