BigDavyG

Another dipsh!t bringing politics into it - look at the facts instead - they tell their own story.

There are clear environmental problems that we as a race have to address. it is possible to think that and at the same time have the opinion that Al's movie was full of holes and half-truths.

To imply that the movie was soundly based in scientific fact or to imply that the VP has no power is just plain bunkum old boy.

another bloody yank

I'm not saying there isn't Global Warming, and I'm not saying humans didn't play a large part in bringing it about.

I am saying that his "documentary" was crap propaganda, not science and that he didn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for making it.

BigDavyG

That would make you a fascist scumbag then*


*Apparently, though quite why people feel the need to divide themselves along party political lines on such a subject is beyond me. All seems rather petty to me to be honest.

paddingtongreen

Come off it Davy, the usual suspects who argue from the "Right" perspective are knocking the award and the film, while the usual suspects from the "Left" perspective are praising both. It is political.

The Vice President has no more power than the President gives him. Kennedy left LBJ to twiddle his thumbs.

There are errors of fact regarding consensus in the film, but the general message is consensus. To carp over some details is like rejecting the sense of a written sentence because it has some punctuation errors or misspelled words.

scrubbedexpat099

I am off to get some carbon credits, that time of day, I also am carbon neutral.

I can get some for others if you are running short.

BigDavyG

I think that people were doing an admirable job of publicising global warming before Al came along to steal the "glory" - in much the same way as he did with those poor guys who invented the internet
To then give him the Noble Peace Prize, well its somewhat disconcerting. Mind you, they gave it to David Trimble and Gerry Adams, so maybe its perfectly fitting.

Imagine if Al had decided to go crusading when he WAS VP - do you not think it would have carried more impact ?? Maybe he didn't because he was too busy working on his "career" at the time.

Funny how when I criticise a right-wing politico that no-one chooses to comment on that. All in all if people could comment on these issues with out bringing their political bias into the debate we would probably agree a lot more than we disagree.

Leslie

The fact that he is/was a politician and you seem to hate his position/actions sort of leads the conversation in that direction.

What was it he DIDN'T do exactly? Are people now to be held accountable for what they don't do in lieu of what they do do?

snowbunny

I believe Kyoto was entered into when Gore was VP (1997)and reneged on by Bush when he took office in 2001.

So what's this about doing something?

BigDavyG

I dislike his lack of action in office, and then his attempts to rectify it by jumping on the bandwagon years too late.
What difference you think the party he was a member of makes in beyond me.
I would attack his actions either way.

Elvira

These may have been true for some other Western nations, but certainly does not apply to the US.

fatbrit

That is the modus operandi, though.

Evolution can't be right coz they're a few holes in it. No point in pointing out to them it's a theory rather than a law so of course it's got a few holes in it as that's well beyond them. So if evolution's wrong, creationism must be right, right?.

Listening to the Hannity show on a long drive the other week and he was railing against "socialist medicine". The argument was 3 or 4 cases of people who got shoddy treatment from Britain. So if we can find 3 or 4 people in Britain, which had socialist medicine, they must be wrong and contemporary US medicine must be right, eh? He spent over an hour on this argument before I turned it over to masturbate to the wonderful tones of Randi Rhodes, instead.

Listened to him today on a shorter drive .There was some poor soldier who'd killed some unarmed Iraqis and one of those nasty liberals had complained about him. So if the soldier was brave and patriotic, the nasty liberals who call into question why we're shooting civilians must be cowardly and unpatriotic, eh?

Beggars belief that a quarter of the population are so effing thick that they fall for it.

paddingtongreen

You're selling Roger Ayles short. He fashioned Faux News to exactly match the prejudices of that audience. He is going to start a pro business financial channel on the basis that CNBC is anti-capitalist. I find it difficult to imagine how you could be more pro business than CNBC.

Manc

CNBC caters also to little people making money in mutual funds and dabbling in a few shares here and there. (I am a fervent fan of Jim Cramer)


heaven forbid the surfs make money.........

anotherlimey

lol, that guy is great, wish they had someone like him in the UK

paddingtongreen

I don't like people who scream unintelligible things at me, besides you could lose money following his picks. Mind you, compared to Kudlow......