Al Gore’s Nobel Speech: Rumors Of My Demise Were Greatly Exaggerated
Al Gore’s Nobel Speech: Rumors Of My Demise Were Greatly Exaggerated
In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech this morning in Oslo, Norway, Al Gore remarked that he shared a fate with Alfred Nobel — the creator of the Nobel Prize.
Gore noted that Nobel, who had been derided by the press as “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention of dynamite, later “made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace”:
One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention — dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace. Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.
In his Nobel speech, Gore referenced the fact that seven years ago this week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Bush v. Gore:
Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.
Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”
Watch a portion of Gore’s speech:
Gore said that seven years from now, if we fail to address the climate crisis, there is a chance that the North Polar ice cap will have vanished:
[T]he earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.
We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now.
Read the full transcript of his speech HERE.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
133 Responses to “Al Gore’s Nobel Speech: Rumors Of My Demise Were Greatly Exaggerated”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Pretty cool, Al. That's a darn good explanation for why you'll never run for President again (because it's a step down).
December 10th, 2007 at 9:53 amI think Gore enjoys the freedom that being a Nobel Laureate provides. If he did become a cog in the political machine again, he would definitely feel the strait jacket and probably become the wooden parody of a man that he was during the 2000 campaign.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:55 amComment by Bush is a four letter word: "Pretty cool, Al. That’s a darn good explanation for why you’ll never run for President again (because it’s a step down)."
Thanks to the Shrubbery, it is.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:00 amTroll frenzy in 3, 2, 1....
December 10th, 2007 at 10:00 amBeing President of the United States has been turned into the booby prize by the massive failures of Bushco. used car salemen now get more respect.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:02 amdeservedly.
Wait! Don't make any changes that will eat into corporate profits! We won't be able to make much difference anyway! There's no proof that man is causing the warming, (women, maybe more proof, but...), Gore rides on jets...
OK, trolls, your work is done for the day, go to some other thread.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:06 amOK, trolls, your work is done for the day, go to some other thread.
Comment by RUCerious — December 10, 2007 @ 10:06 am
:D
December 10th, 2007 at 10:10 amDon't worry, the neofacist wingnuts will be here talking about how Al if fat or something, as soon as Dan Bartlett regurgitates on them.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:11 amI questioned 2 weeks ago when the last Repuke won a Nobel prize. It appears to have been Teddy Roosevelt.
Teddy helped form the word 'conservative', due to his work in preserving & establishing National Parks.
Does anyone see the irony here? People calling themselves conservative have raped & clear cut our National heritage of forests while contributing immensely to global warming. Gore has been called a 'green whacko' by the Right.
In summary, Conservatives trash Gore for doing just what the last Republican Nobel laureate earned the Nobel for!
Will Bush win a Nobel prize for conservation? For anything? NO!
Will Neoturds continue to bash Al Gore? YES!
Will Larry Craig represent America's interests in Bali! Depends on how many bathroom breaks he takes.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:13 amWell, unfortunately humans are rather reactionary. The environment will get worse before it, hopefully, gets better.
It's what happens when the system if rigged in favor of the wealthy and powerful.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:14 amAlthough it may be a "step down" for Gore to clean up after Bush's mess, perhaps he may be the only individual capable and qualified to do so?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:16 amAh, the first flat earther shows up, right on time.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:16 amFrosty: And Bush has made certain of that! He's rewarded all of his millionaire cronies at the expense of everyone else - and feathered his own nest in the process.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:17 amEveryone understands why you're skeptical. Now, get back to work. As we all know, you're on the clock...
December 10th, 2007 at 10:17 amI should have said "rich lawless, POLLUTING cronies" and it would have been more complete.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:17 amThe evidence is in: clearly we don't give a crap about children and grandchildren!
December 10th, 2007 at 10:19 amAnd for those so-called "skeptics" out there, please answer one simple question: "Why not?". Even if there would be a question about the science, which there is NOT, why not change our evil ways? There is no good answer to the skepticism. This truth , everyone on the planet is realizing.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:19 amHow can we blame this on Israel?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:19 amthe Republicscum detractors would eat their own in the name of greed, that's becoming patently obvious.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:20 amveritas, I just keep hopin that the repugnicants actually do, in fact, eat their ok...
December 10th, 2007 at 10:21 amBefore you blindly jump into to a global warming frenzy...
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Right on cue...
Oh, and you forgot "Al Gore flew on a jet"
Yeah, I remember that article. And I remember the reduction in fluorocarbons, the restrictions on coal powered plants, the changes in the ways we dispose of freon and other damaging gases. Maybe, just maybe, in the intervening years that worked and and our ice age was dodged. Are you saying we did nothing or we should've done nothing?
I'll simplify this for you: Pretend you were sick a few years ago. You went to the doctor and got better. Now, you're sick again. Do you NOT go to the doctor this time because last time you got better, so obviously that doctor was a liar and a fraud and just trying to take your hard earned money because of his alarmism over your health?
Or do you just trollpost on blogs while you get sicker and sicker?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:21 amAl Gore is intelligent, articulate, and right. Therefore, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the neocon cult hates him. He is everything they are not. If the democrats would only draft him to run for president again, and he would accept, he would blow them out of the water. maybe then these bloviating blowhards would implode.
Librull
December 10th, 2007 at 10:22 amHow much money are you going to get funnelled your way, if you are reporting, “Everything is okay. Looks good for the future�
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Thanks for your skepticism. However, I've noticed that the Church (temple, mosque, etc) have been using scare tactics since the beginning of their religions with even less proof, yet no one seems to criticize them.
"You're going to hell unless you do what we say. By the way, we require a 10% deposit. And don't worry about the evidence, either."
December 10th, 2007 at 10:24 amAny legislation, without industry as a partner, would kill that American industry, to the benefit of foreign (Asian) suppliers.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:25 amMorning Veritas, RUC, Frosty!
Anyone catch any of Obama's Sunday speech?
It was everywhere!!!! MSNBC,CNN,even Fox News!! Then the pudits discussed it ALL DAY LONG!!!!!
oh wait,
That was Willard "Mitt" Romney's "you have to be a religious bigot to be president" speech.
I could only find the dang speech on Barack on his website...\
and heard ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the rest of the day.....
Nice job on the webfeed, though...
December 10th, 2007 at 10:28 amJason M. Hendler doesn't care if the whole world burns as long as Jason M. Hendler and all the people who look and act like Jason M. Hendler are okay.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:29 amAnd don’t worry about the evidence, either.â€
Comment by dim wit — December 10, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Right... 2 of the most successful shakedown operations in the history of the planet are the Mafia, and ahem, the Catholic Church. They're both based on the model of the Roman legion, BTW.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:29 amComment by Jason M. Hendler — December 10, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Ooops... forgot... Heil Hendler!
Commies!!! Commies everywhere! Commies, commies, commies!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 10:30 am"Understand why some of us are so skeptical."
Oh yes. You guys are understandably skeptical of any group (I am accepting for the moment that your chimerical understanding of scientists as a unary blob is correct) that seems to CHANGE ITS MIND from time to time, since the watchword of your ilk seems to be "ALWAYS believe EXACTLY what I FEEL in my GUT, no matter what the evidence, facts, arguments, images to the contrary."
Yes, I can see how having anything like an open, inquiring mind would make you all itchy.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:32 amAs usual, Gore delivers with class. And he gets even more points if he wrote that speech (which I suspect he did -- private citizens rarely have their own speechwriters).
December 10th, 2007 at 10:32 amHanding a blank check to anyone is a bad idea.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 10:21 am
But... but... that's what Herr Brusch has DEMANDED for his little escapade in the ME, and yer always 100% for THAT idiocy...
Tsk... tsk... such hypocrisy, Masturbastic!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 10:32 am"Commies!!! Commies everywhere! Commies, commies, commies!!!"
Jason M. Hendler resents your mischaracterization of Jason M. Hendler's position, commie.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:33 amComment by bernard quatermass — December 10, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Wouldn't the proper greeting be "Comrade"???
December 10th, 2007 at 10:41 amthat American industry,
What American industry? The R&D into green energy industry?
The hydrogen conversion industry?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:42 amRevealed: scientist who sparked racism row has black genes
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who provoked a public outcry by claiming black Africans were less intelligent than whites has a DNA profile with up to 16 times more genes of black origin than the average white European.
An analysis of the genome of James Watson showed that 16 per cent of his genes were likely to have come from a black ancestor of African descent. By contrast, most people of European descent would have no more than 1 per cent.
"This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African," said Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics, whose company carried out the analysis. "It was very surprising to get this result for Jim."
The findings were made available after Dr Watson became only the second person to publish his fully sequenced genome online earlier this year. Dr Watson was forced to resign his post as head of a research laboratory in New York shortly after triggering an international furore by questioning the comparative intelligence of Africans.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3239366.ece
December 10th, 2007 at 10:44 ami posted this on the FAST thread... another opportunity here...
i get to read my mom’s time magazines when she’s finished…
found a part of this article especially significant:
The Eden Project is simultaneously futuristic and organic, and it’s not hard to see why Brits voted it their favorite new building of the past 20 years. Similar efforts in the U.S., however, have been received less rapturously.[…]
But the surprising success of Eden is also a sign of how green concerns have become a daily part of British life. London broadsheets follow global-warming news the way their tabloid counterparts cover soccer and missing British children. The country’s growing environmental industries were worth more than $50 billion in 2005, a figure expected to grow to $94 billion by 2015. And politicians on both sides of the aisle compete to look greener.
[…]
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,1686834,00.html
environmental industries ... environmental industries ... environmental industries ... environmental industries ... environmental industries...
you get the picture...
December 10th, 2007 at 10:47 amAny legislation, without industry as a partner, would kill that American industry, to the benefit of foreign (Asian) suppliers.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 10, 2007 @ 10:25 am
As if Bushco hadn't already done that. Jason Hitler is very stupid.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:50 amComment by CaptainMantastic: "Before you blindly jump into to a global warming frenzy, read what scientists were saying 30 years ago:
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,944914,00.html
What are you saying here? Is it that, for instance, the scientists' observations of a drop in global average temperature and unusual persistence in the amount of winter ice were accurate and that current observations of the reversal of these phenomena aren't accurate?
Isn't it just possible that both sets of observations are true? Isn't it possible that we've pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere during the intervening thirty-three years that we've totally flipped the trend from cooling to warming? Might that explain why the effects of global warming are accelerating at an unanticipatedly high rate?
You know, Captain, at some point stubborn skepticism about demonstrably real phenomena sinks to the level of sheer stupidity.
We there yet?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:50 amWe there yet?
Comment by boreas — December 10, 2007 @ 10:50 am
The Captain is concerned that the Big Oil guys won't be able to buy their 5th vacation homes in the south of France. The captain worries about the very rich, because he thinks that being a fey captain on a blog will make him very rich, as long as the planet is allowed to die.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:53 amAlarm bells at the Petroleum Council! Lefty Al Gore thread posted! Trolls to your stations. Commence denying on my mark....
December 10th, 2007 at 10:59 am"Before you blindly jump into to a global warming frenzy, read what scientists were saying 30 years ago:"
Manny
That would be the mid-seventies, when computers as we know them were in their infancy, and hardly able to compile and analyze data in the fashion they do today. I think I'll put my money on more-recent data, and technology. But you can go ahead and cling to data compiled when analytic computing was in it's infancy, if it gives you comfort.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:00 amAlso ponder the idea that scientists rely on predictions of clamity for funding. How much money are you going to get funnelled your way, if you are reporting, “Everything is okay. Looks good for the future�
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Y'know, not everyone in the world thinks like Republicans do.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:01 amGood morning, whiteyfresh!
:-)
December 10th, 2007 at 11:02 amPredictably, the conservative chattering class and its amen corner in the right-wing blogosphere are apoplectic about the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore. But their rage and angst about the Nobel Committee's "politicized awards" for "mass exaggerators" and "deceptive rhetoric" isn't merely a function of the inconvenient truth of the success of Gore's global warming campaign. No, the rugged individualists of the right are just hopping mad that they never win prizes designed to recognize contributions to, well, the rest of humanity.
To remedy this perpetual slight, then, here are:
December 10th, 2007 at 11:03 am"Conservative Nobel Prizes We'd Like to See."
No, the rugged individualists of the right are just hopping mad that they never win prizes designed to recognize contributions to, well, the rest of humanity.
Comment by AngryOne — December 10, 2007 @ 11:03 am
I would be really happy if someone on the right did something worthy enough to be honored with the Noble Peace Prize.
No sarcasm here. It would make me really happy.
(Oh well, they're happier with their greedy, self interested ways.)
December 10th, 2007 at 11:06 amComment by cold_hard_left — December 10, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Paraphrase:
Waaaah! He gots something and I don't, waaahhhh!
December 10th, 2007 at 11:08 amComment by AngryOne — December 10, 2007 @ 11:03 am
They'll win a Nobel as soon as there is a "I got mine, screw U" award...
December 10th, 2007 at 11:09 am49:
Trolls know how to push buttons. It's unfortunate, but it's to be expected.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:12 amMakes you wonder who the real trolls are here.
Now you're going to try to redefine the word "troll"?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:12 amMakes you wonder why Trollphucks hang out where they're not wanted.
I know, I know, you can post here, too.
Yes, you have that right in a DEMOCRATIC blog.
Remember the kids at a high school dance that were never asked to dance? That must be what our Trolls are; hanging out with people you don't agree with & don't necessarily care about you, just to say they're 'somewhere'.
Pathetic. Dysfunctional. Losers.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:15 amComment by Zimzone
No the purpose of Trollism is to simply spam the communication and conversation. It is to distract the people discussing actual issues here with partisan nonsense and disrupt the exchange of ideas. This is why they love talking points which are just fast food equivalents of actual thoughts and responses.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:21 amMakes you wonder who the real trolls are here.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Truth hurts you, doesn't it, capt manhandler?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:22 amMakes you wonder who the real trolls are here.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Actually, no. It doesn't.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:23 amComment by lefty — December 10, 2007 @ 11:21 am
December 10th, 2007 at 11:27 amBingo! Trolls are here to dissemble, distract and disrupt. Period.
Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, but so did Yassar Arafat so that somehow negates the validity of the Prize.
Yet, I remember when Dubya was awarded Time's Person of the Year and it was hailed as a triumph of conservative thought. Yet, when I review previous winners of Time's honor, I see an interesting name... Adolph Hitler.
Hmmm... I smell hypocrisy
December 10th, 2007 at 11:31 amRegardless, the people of the United States wanted George W. Bush to be President of the United States over Al Gore, twice.
What a crock of shit. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and wasn't even running in 04..
Make up better shit, flatfoot.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:34 amAl synthesizes a complicated problem down to one we can all get a handle on: "We are what is wrong, and we must make it right."
How do we make it right?
Current neocon held government is not helping. Corporate apologists and powerful backers are fighting a cure tooth & nail ...bombarding us with doubts and propaganda. Deregulating industries so there is no oversight that protects the earth. Deregulating media so that propaganda can be mainstream.
If.... we keep electing corporate apologists to run our government this can never be made right. (hard not to do when they own the very media that sings their siren songs and our "free" press does not inform us) Their greed has been backed by the free market Freidman school of rack and ruin ...that deregualtes everything to increase profits for the corporate wealthy....but guess where their profits come from? The middle class, our earth and our future.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:35 amEvergreen:
Corporations run the world, bottom line.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:40 amAny legislation, without industry as a partner, would kill that American industry, to the benefit of foreign (Asian) suppliers.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 10, 2007 @ 10:25 am
money and entitlement! that's what it is all about as far as the deniers are concerned. to hell with future generations. to hell with all the other creatures that inhabit this planet. make a few minor sacrifices for the benefit of all? not me!
a$$holes!
December 10th, 2007 at 11:43 amTroll Argument:
I know the world is flat no matter what scientists say. It's flat because I put a ball on the ground and it stays there, if the world was round, it would roll down the slope because it wouldn't balance. Scientists just say the world is round because they want to scare us so that they can get funding for other round things, like the wheel......
December 10th, 2007 at 11:44 amWorshipping Al Gore..
Blindly following Al Gore and worshipping at the altar of constant man-made global destruction is self-defeating.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Skipping your obsessions and comparisons to religion...
How is it that you expect people to be skeptical of scientists because they may get grant money for research, but we're supposed to listen to oil company shills, who obviously have no agenda?
We have heard both sides: The scientists and their grants and the oil companies and their think tanks. When I hear from the 'pro-global warming' crowd, I hear scientists. When I hear from the 'anti-global warming' crowd I hear from Senators (Inhofe (R-Oil)) or employees of right wing think tanks (AEI).
If I'm sick, I go to a doctor, not a senator or a corporate executive. If the planet is sick, I'm going to listen to the scientists. They've a better track record in honesty than senators and businessmen.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:49 am#64: Raynman, there's another troll argument that they employ as well: there is uncertainty, so there's no point in doing anything, especially since it is certain to harm the economy.
The fact is that the uncertainty they embrace (which is a part of any complex scientific inquiry) must be dramatically magnified in order to outbalance the preponderance of evidence accumulating as we type, and yet the uncertainty of future economic impact disappears into a certain doomsday scenario in their minds.
And then there's O'Bigfool, who is content to simply cast anyone who thinks that we may be harming the planet as "blindly following Al Gore".
December 10th, 2007 at 11:51 amI've said it before and I'll keep saying it. There are NO examples throughout history of science losing an argument vs superstition, religion or partisan disagreement. The only reason you hear this nonsense is because corporations are funding fake science because they know that they are the ones doing the polluting and thus will have to pay the bill and ultimately will be blamed historically. The trolls who lose their minds when they hear the word "Gore" are just brainless tools who are choosing to believe corporations over scientists.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:52 amMcE:
Hundreds of years ago (before the internets with all the tubes) these trolls would have insisted the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe and a sneeze could cause you to lose your soul.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:53 amAl Gore won the Nobel Prize, but so did Yassar Arafat so that somehow negates the validity of the Prize.
Yet, I remember when Dubya was awarded Time’s Person of the Year and it was hailed as a triumph of conservative thought. Yet, when I review previous winners of Time’s honor, I see an interesting name… Adolph Hitler.
Hmmm… I smell hypocrisy
Comment by raynman — December 10, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Not hypocrisy so much as people just not understanding the nature of the awards.
The Nobel prize is not given because of who somebody is, it's awarded for what somebody does. Arafat shared the prize in 1994 with Peres and Rabin for their work on peace in the Middle East -- even though Arafat certainly had violence in his past, and both Peres and Rabin had their hawkish moments as well. Yet, because people seem to believe the prize is issued for what somebody IS, people will always question the validity of the award -- just by going down the list of past winners and finding somebody they don't like.
As far as the TIME Magazine "Person of the Year" award -- this is NOT necessarily an honor, even though many people think it is. It was set up to be awarded to the person who had the greatest influence on the news for the past year -- whether that influence was good OR bad. Most U.S. Presidents have been POY at least once, and so have classic "bad guys" like Hitler and Khomeini. Even Wallis Simpson was POY in 1936 for her role in Edward VIII's abdication.
TIME has adopted a softer, more "chicken" stance in recent years, and have been going out of their way to avoid naming anyone controversial. Last year, the winner was "You" with a mirror cover, and the year before that, it was "The Good Samaritans" -- both abstract choices not inclined to incite a flurry of hate mail to the editors.
But the year where it was most noticeable that TIME had lost their courage was 2001. The events of the year and how they affected us pointed to a clear winner as to who "influenced the news" the most -- and that was Osama bin Laden. Nobody else even came close. But who did TIME name as POY? Rudy Giuliani! And Rudy has been touting that as an "honor" ever since.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am"Scientists have been wrong"
This is not the issue. Do I _really_ have to resort to pointing out the obvious?
The important question is whether they are wrong THIS TIME.
Of COURSE skepticism is crucial. The problem from where I stand is that most of the criticisms of Gore et al come down to things like "I don't LIKE what they're saying," "scientists have been wrong before" (OF COURSE THEY HAVE!!! THEY'VE ALSO BEEN RIGHT BEFORE!!) or "Yasser Arafat won a Nobel prize."
December 10th, 2007 at 11:56 am"While others feel the need to “fit inâ€, and often adapt their own personalities and lifestyles to do so, the mainstream of America still strives to do things “my wayâ€"
How interesting, you sure seem to spend a lot of time trying to get people here to hew to "your way." Is there perhaps a tiny contradiction in such behavior?
Not that such a contradiction would surprise me, since you seem to have the introspective ability of a gnat.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:58 amComment by CaptainMantastic
Global warming isn't going to make every part of the globe warm, you moron. It's going to cause major climate shifts which can have any number of devastating effects: drought, famine, rising sea levels, desalination of the seas. Theoretically it could cause another ice age as well if the oceans stop redistributing hot and cold water.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pmAnd while Al Gore wasn’t running for President in 2004, his ideas certainly were, and his ideas lost….again.
How about '06, Bigshit? Oh, you don't want to acknowledge that 'Gore like' issues is why Neoturds were bounced from congress?
How convenient!
You can follow the Rightard Lemmings as far as you like, we got off that path well before the cliff.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:05 pm"Here’s what you’re missing. Sometimes the doctor is recommending a procedure or prescription that you don’t need, so he can line his pockets."
And here's what YOU'RE missing.
Sometime the tobacco company doesn't want you to quit, so he can line his pockets.
Deal?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:07 pmCorporations would never lie to protect their profits, bernard. Say it ain't so!
December 10th, 2007 at 12:09 pmthe people of the United States wanted George W. Bush
That would properly be stated as, the electoral college, after judicial action stopping the recount of the Florida ballots, elected Bush...
December 10th, 2007 at 12:10 pmAnd while Al Gore wasn’t running for President in 2004, his ideas certainly were, and his ideas lost….again.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 10, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Take some more civics classes yourself, dimbulb. ideas don't run for office... people do.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pmLet's see how the people of this country think the republicans have done in the last eight years, say around November 10th or so next year bigmouth.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:26 pmFrosty:
You are right, corporations rule the world (now wouldn't that make a good title...ha ha)
...but a lot of people don't realize it and don't know they are being manipulated (ie with phoney arguments and phoney doubts against observable fact and measurements and yes, a lot of people don't know how much Exonmobile has paid for the privilege to destroy our earth and make obscene profits off of us at the same time and how complicit our elected officials have been in allowing them to do this.
And maybe it is not an unmoveable bottom line? Maybe we can temper the corporate stranglehold that is doing in our earth and our democracy?
Shouldn't we try to correct this?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:26 pmActing on our beliefs, while causing no harm to others, is our goal.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 10, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Is there a prize for the most unintentionally funny blog of the year? This would qualify for consideration!
December 10th, 2007 at 12:32 pmSeven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.
We should all have such an opportunity, even if it's painful.
Thank you, Al Gore, for all you do.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:34 pmAm I a moron if I am under the impression that when people talk about ‘global’ warming that they imply that all the world is becoming warmer?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Yes. Because it shows you don't know what the f_ck you're talking about.
Dismissed.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:35 pmAm I a moron if I am under the impression that when people talk about ‘global’ warming that they imply that all the world is becoming warmer?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Yes, and for so many more reasons as well.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:40 pmEvergreen:
"corporations rule the world (now wouldn’t that make a good title…ha ha)"
:D Yeah, I think I have that title floating around on one of my bookshelves...
And yes, I agree with you that we should do all we can. And my husband and I act upon that belief whenever we can. I do get frustrated, though, at the propaganda that so many people *know* to be true. We are all in a system, but it's so insidious and controlling, many people can't see it and believe the lies that the corporations have so successfully planted in the public domain.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:43 pmCaptainMantastic:
You have made a point or two that I might agree with, but it has been my experience (in general) that once I move toward an interesting view that I see some merit in, that poster loses interest. (Especially when they are "across the aisle, so to speak.)
Are you suggesting you are not one of those?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:47 pmI may be skeptical about Al Gore’s answers to environmental issues, but I want clean air and water. Do progressives really believe that those who question Al Gore or Kyoto really want a dirty or unhealthy planet; really?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
A lot of them are in denial because solutions may require them to change their behavior, yes. And some truly don't give a damn, because they assume that whatever changes occur are going to affect other people, and they themselves will be insulated by privilege.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:47 pm". . .and they themselves will be insulated by privilege."
Comment by gummitch — December 10, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
This is exactly what my husband says whenever I'm amazed that those in power care so little about the health of the planet.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:50 pmAl Gore is to George Bush what JFK is to Mitt Romney.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pmLiberals once said “the earth is cooling rapidly and we are headed to an ice age,â€
No, that was a magazine headline, quit spewing falsehoods... Oh, I'm sorry, that's all you know... Well, just quit spewing then.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:58 pm#Am I a moron if I am under the impression that when people talk about ‘global’ warming that they imply that all the world is becoming warmer?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Global warming causes imbalances in the global weather patterns. These patters become disrupted and cause weather shifts in several parts of the world: some places get drier, some places get colder, some get warmer, and so on.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:01 pmtepid-flaccid-leftout:
translation ~ "If people thought I was smart, they'd pay me money too!
I could charge 12 cents an hour for my current intellectual views."
December 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pmSelf-confidence, self-sufficiency, and self-determination is our creed. Acting on our beliefs, while causing no harm to others, is our goal.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 10, 2007 @ 11:53 a
This is so laughable, it is you in your rugged red states who get vastly more tax benefits than those in blue states. For every dollar of taxes New York puts in to the federal coffers the state of New York gets back much less than that dollar in benefits so it can support welfare queen states like Mississippi, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Look at any blue state versus a red state, it holds true across the board. It is you who support Bush who get federal govenment subsidies (welfare), so you are wrong on yet something else you ignorant fool.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:03 pmBTW, I am unaware if I have said anything to offend you (unless you find anyone who disagrees with you offensive), but if I have, I’m sorry.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
Stow it, Captain. What you're not aware of would likely fill several large books.
Scientists used to think the earth was flat, and that the mentally ill were inhabited by demons.
Stop the presses!!! The Captain and his trollie friends have doubts! By all means, let's do nothing until they're convinced.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:04 pmSo RU spouts the view that making money
No, idiot, I was pointing out that you're jealous of those whose intellect is in demand.
Boy are you dense...
December 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pmIt’s okay to disagree, even with those ‘on the same side of the isle’. Try it. It’s liberating. Courage.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Debate? Bullshit is what you have, not debate. You're an idiot.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pm“Scientists used to think the earth was flat, and that the mentally ill were inhabited by demons.†When those theories were proven wrong, they turned to “global warming.â€
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 10, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Most of us got smarter. I'm sorry you were left so far behind.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pm“Scientists used to think the earth was flat, and that the mentally ill were inhabited by demons.†When those theories were proven wrong, they turned to “global warming.â€
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 10, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
I am constantly amazed by CHL's pride in his ignorance. Bushies take great pride in how stupid they are; Bush himself does. It's still amazing.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:10 pmIf you shut down debate all the time, you know people start to call you? The Decider.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Go away. You have no debate points. Your ignorance prevents it.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“Scientists used to think the earth was flat, and that the mentally ill were inhabited by demons.†When those theories were proven wrong, they turned to “global warming.â€
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 10, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
This whole "science" thing just baffles you completely, doesn't it? You can't tell the difference between scientists and priests.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:13 pmCHL ~ living proof of
'faith based stupidity'
December 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pmIf you shut down debate all the time, you know people start to call you? The Decider.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Now I'm stung. How will I survive?
We have been warned about climate change. It is here. Maybe you're upset you're stuck with that Chevy Suburban or that you might have to change a few things in your life, I really don't care. But what I do care about is the ability of humans to continue to survive on this planet -- that includes your children, as well as mine.
I've changed my lifestyle, taking the very small chance that the science is wrong -- because it's the right thing to do. Why are you and your idiot friends wasting so much time and energy trying to be RIGHT?
December 10th, 2007 at 1:16 pmCaptain:
"It’s okay to disagree, even with those ‘on the same side of the aisle'".
Oh I wasn't referring to fellow liberals, I am quite often on the left of any debate with friends. (Though generally IRL. I am usually much more polite on boards.)
No, I was referring to those on the right. Once you agree with a point of two of theirs (on blogs), they lose interest in the discussion. I suspect because it means to them that their purpose (being disruptive) has failed.
"Courage."
Are you channeling Dan Rather?
;-)
I don't have much time right now, and have no desire to debate the "Is Global Warming Real?" non-question. Yes, it's real.
I do, however, share your concern with mandating change in the US to deal with global warming, while leaving China and India out to continue polluting. Especially, China, which is set to surpass the US in terms of pollution, has appalling standards already, and where corporations have even more power than they do in the US. (Thanks globalization!)
Should we continue to do very little because China will do nothing? No, but unilateral solutions hardly seem much better when whatever they do will effect everyone else anyway.
At any rate, there is a very good book that touches on this subject, "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century".
Gotta run.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:22 pm"Anyone else long for the days when progressives were open minded, patient, tolerant and inclusive?"
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
We've been such a misunderstood and maligned group for so long, we're a bit touchy.
;-)
OK, I'm really going now.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:23 pmFrosty, perhaps a pollution tax/tariff on those unwilling to comply?
If Chinese goods weren't so cheap, maybe we could force ourselves to stop buying them...
December 10th, 2007 at 1:24 pmPEACE prize, NOT Science prize.
"Nuff said.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pmFrosty, perhaps a pollution tax/tariff on those unwilling to comply?
If Chinese goods weren’t so cheap, maybe we could force ourselves to stop buying them…
Comment by RUCerious — December 10, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
That's a good idea.
OK, you people are just addictive. I am going to the grocery store. . .now.
Now. Really. I mean it.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pm:p
December 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pmpointed out that scientists 30 years ago thought the planet was cooling.
from wiki
Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[5]).
December 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pmWhen scientists are wrong about a hypothesis and the facts refute that hypothesis, they change the hypothesis, not stubbornly insist that they're never wrong and look like bigger idiots.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:36 pmComment by Frosty Cupcake — December 10, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Hmmmm...
If I wasn't sure Captain Mantastic was a gay porn star, I'd wonder about the two of you disappearing at the same time. :-D
December 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pmI not saying I’m right; but I am skeptical and I just thought it was okay to come here and debate it.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
You're not here to debate. You're here to repeat the same drivel over and over and over and over and over.
That's not debate, that intransigence.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:40 pmTell me, Captain, do you really think the government and the corporations are separate entities?
December 10th, 2007 at 1:41 pmI not saying I’m right; but I am skeptical and I just thought it was okay to come here and debate it.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Could you please then continue with your skepticism into other areas? Like say what Bush is telling you? For some reason you pick science to be skeptical of - the field which brought you the computer, television, electricity, nuclear power, automoblie, telephone, vaccines, medicine, airplanes, space travel and the internet. Instead you listen to corporations and politicians and ignore the very people who invented just about everything that made this country as prosperous as it has been. Amazing.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:47 pmLefty:
PEACE prize, NOT Science prize.
Other notable winners of the so-called Peace prize:
Yassir Arafat
Jimmy "the anti-Semite" Carter
Kofi Annan and the UN
Mikhail Gorbachev
the UN Peace-Keeping Forces
the fraud author Rigoberta Menchu (1992).
Those who REALLY deserve this prize:
Martin Luther King Jr. (1964)
Andrei Sakharov (1975)
Anwar Sadat (1978) (jointly with Menachem Begin; Sadat was assassinated a few years later)
Mother Teresa (1979)
Lech Walesa (1983)
Desmond Tutu (1984)
Nelson Mandela (1993) (shared with Frederik de Klerk).
Here's the criteria for the Peace prize from the Nobel's website:
"according to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'"
Again, this is NOT a Science prize.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pmA Gore thread. Perfect. This always brings out the weirdest and most hysterical troll-blather.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pmthey accuse us of being nothing more than Bush-haters, then look at the mountain of hateful bs they dispense for poor old Al, who never got anyone's legs blown off, and never killed a bunch of civilians.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pmand who never mortgaged us to chinese communists to pay for his wild-eyed fantasies of militarism and domination.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:06 pmComment by JT
Ummm... what? WTF are you talking about. Gore haters are "skeptical" of his message which is the message that scientists have been feverishly trying to get out. You don't want anyone to listen to what he has to say. Period. He won the award for promoting a scientific message.
That's like the people who crap on golf when they say it's not a sport, as if golfers are supposed to stop playing.
Who gives a sh!t if it's not a science award?
December 10th, 2007 at 2:07 pmMany hear you loud and clear. But with the likes or dislikes of bush hanging around for another year the message will not likely get out. The bush philosophy is much like his religous philosophy, the need to take us to the brink, the end.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:10 pmAgain, this is NOT a Science prize.
Comment by JT — December 10, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
It's really beside the point, isn't it? Al Gore is not a scientist, he's an activist. Activists get the Peace Prize.
Suck it up, dingleberry. Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:29 pmIf I wasn’t sure Captain Mantastic was a gay porn star, I’d wonder about the two of you disappearing at the same time. :-D
Comment by Zooey — December 10, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Ha!
:D
December 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pmAnyways, me and Cupcake are just friends.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 10, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Aww. . .
:)
December 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pmMantastic,
Do you really not comprehend that corporate interests American government are now tied at the hip. Bought sold & delivered.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pmTracy!!!! - -Fend off any terrorist attacks yet today?? - I've heard Mondays are a big day for them.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:47 pmMaybe Tracy can help us here.
Tracy, do you hate Al Gore with a passion because he wasted so much money, or because he got so many people killed?
December 10th, 2007 at 2:48 pmTracy doesn't hate the Goracle. She realizes as any sane person would that the Goracle is a fraud. Enriching himself and his friends off the backs of the people he purports he's trying to save. Preying on the young and the uneducated.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:26 pmPreying on the young and the uneducated.
Comment by Conservative and proud — December 10, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Not sure about the age deal but even Karl Rove acknowledged that the more educated people are the more likely they are to be left of center. So now the Nobel committe is comprised of the Insane as are the majority of US voters who cast Gore votes? Actually upon further reflection I think it may just be your post which is nuts
December 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm150 - weak attempt to impugn - how many have died for Al to make that money???
(money that he actually gives to charity, rather than building monuments to himelf)
December 10th, 2007 at 3:45 pmI should also ask:
How much of your tax money he pissed away, to accomplish what he has?
How much has he borrowed from the Chinese and added to the national debt, to accomplish what he has?
Who is now missing an arm or a leg, or both, so he could accomplish what he has??
You Righties, I repeat, are closer kin to Manson Family members than you are to any civilized community, and you demonstrate it with every hysterical proclamation you deliver.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pmI don't need to do better, matched up, as I am, against cultists who would absolve the Cheerleader Prince and indict someone like Gore.
I have my opinions, but they do not include believing that up is down, black is white, or violence is peace.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pm"Climate change will trigger profound global change, and these changes could pose genuine risks to international peace and security."
That is why he got the PEACE prize you see.
http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/pdf/purvis_busby.pdf
December 10th, 2007 at 4:40 pmManson was trying to touch off the "race war to end all race wars" by doing what he did, and his followers believed in him for it, and defended him for it, and attacked anyone who disagreed, or called him/them murderers. Nothing anyone else said mattered to them.
Dubbie is trying to touch off "the war to save civilization from marauding muslims for once and for all", and his followers believe in him for it, and defend him for it, and attack anyone who disagrees. Nothing anyone else says matters to them.
If you think no 8-month pregnant women have been killed in Iraq, if you believe no innocents have died in Iraq, then you're just denying the horrible truth. No, Dubbie didn't kill them - the people he commands did, and they did it in an attempt to do something just as crazy as Charlie and the Family.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pmno. and it also doesn't mean there is any valid parallel between WWII and whatever it is we have going on right now )which is definitely NOT a "war".
December 10th, 2007 at 6:21 pmMantastic still doesn't understand that is not about how much a government helps its people with social programs, but about how much it helps Haliburton & Boeing & Exonmobile etc with our tax dollars! It is about the take over of our government (our democracy) by corporate power & money & the Friedman school of economics devotees. Neocons.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:23 pmIf 9/11 had happened, then we discovered there was an Islamic Jihad Navy at anchor off our coast somewhere, and 3 advanced Islamic militaries rapidly grabbing territory around the world, you might have something - otherwise it is you who is overreaching.
A more apt analog of the jihadists is found right here at home. We have a very healthy number of people who belong to radical groups of one stripe or another, who advocate "changes" ranging from extermination of particular races to the overthrow of our own Government. It would be a mistake to conclude that, based on their existence and activities that the whole of our Country consists of such people, or that such people were a serious threat to anyone anywhere (other than the occasional black or gay person, or Planned Parenthood Dr. (or oklahoma federal building)).
Pointing to the radical fringe in some other Country does not permit the broad generalizations that make "that whole part of the world" a "grave and imminent threat" to us.
It's been argued repeatedly, and I believe accurately, that our response to 9/11 has played perfectly into the hands of those who foment terrorism abroad - we've done exactly what they predicted we would, and they've stood by laughing into their sleeves and recruiting even more successfully while we spend ourselves broke and tear apart our own Country from within.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:34 pmand they're the only people in Iraq to have shot off bombs and guns? Please. Did they drop the white phosphorous bombs from their airplanes too? How many helicopter gunships does AQ have, exactly?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:31 pm164 - so you just believe whatever Rush says about someone, 'cause he's the only public figure to make those accusations about Gore, and you're obviously just repeating them.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:32 pm