The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Discuss your favorite actors, directors or screenwriters
Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by Stewball »

movieboy wrote:
Stewball wrote:And why do you object to political comments instead of trying to show how such political comments are wrong, or more to the point, that politics is more pervasive in movies than we care to admit? And I think my finding "something political in every movie" is extreme hyperbole.


Because you used to comment on a non-political movie by Ben Afleck & call him a "libural" & then bring in Clooney who isn't even in the movie into the discussion & call him Afleck's "libural" boss & what not.


Glad you brought that up, I do believe they're on the outs. Not sure what's going on there but I think he definitely cut the cord. Could be Affleck did The Accountant, but Clooney doesn't do puzzles--toooooo thinkful maybe.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by Stewball »

90sCoffee wrote:I dunno where he dragged socialism in the socialism vs capitalism etc comment. Pretty sure he's one of those people that thinks socialism = communism. And I'm guessing letting a corporation run rampantly free and avoiding any sort of a carbon tax or environmental regulations is going against freedom :lol: .


OMG, carbon tax! That automatically undercuts any other point you'd have been trying to make, which would include:

I trust the government less than the next guy and have no time for Al Gore but I still don't understand the point of this post.


You need to go no further than "carbon tax". :roll:

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by Stewball »

Darren wrote:When the revolution comes I'm going right for Stewball's cracker ass.


The revolution is already here, which I'm sure you know, thus your totally appropriate avatar. (This was your 8th post is 7 years? Maybe you're overthinking things.)

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by Stewball »

zopz wrote:I think most of these people conflate socialism more with Stalinism (I'm from a country where socialism worked pretty damn well for a while) and the irony is that precisely the gut-wretching reaction some people get when they hear the word is the result of decades of capitalist propaganda, nothing to do with contemporary liberal scheming. Btw, the country I live in never came close to resembling an 'autocracy'. :lol:


No the most common form of socialism is fascism, i.e. national socialism (government control rather than government ownership). We may ask, why does the country you live in remain unnamed?

Hence, you try to offer people great shit like 'free health care' and they run you out as a dirty conniving socialist.

Not me trying to offer it, but yeah.

Anyway, pro-tip:


**bates breath**

if the validity of arguments for or against an issue is weighed according to how well someone like Al Gore, or Micheal Moore delivered them, you're doing something wrong.


I wish...

How about reading some peer-reviewed scientific material (a healthy variety corresponding to all points of the spectrum) before blowing your load on this forum.


Like the variables shuffling going on in the Climategate debacle, or UN officials admitting that climate change is the means to achieving a socialist utopia (my paraphrase). And I'm blowing my load, as you put it, on Al Gore's second installment of lies. Nice try on changing the subject though.

CosmicMonkey
Posts: 594
1271 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by CosmicMonkey »

Stewball wrote:No the most common form of socialism is fascism, i.e. national socialism (government control rather than government ownership). We may ask, why does the country you live in remain unnamed?


I usually try to avoid engaging in Stewie incoherent ramblings, but I can only take so much. This is blatantly wrong. The most common form of socialism in the 21st century is democratic socialism. Of the 21 countries ranked above the United States on the Democracy Index, all but three* have been governed by some point by nominally Socialist party.** While true, revolutionary communism has definitely tended towards autocracy and authoritarianism, socialism itself is statistically no less likely to be undemocratic than is capitalism. Democratic socialism has been a completely normal thing in the rest of the Western world for a long time, and it still amazes me to find Americans who seem to be completely baffled by the concept or a\unable to differentiate the vastly different ideologies of fascism, stalinism, and democratic socialism. And while yes, there still are some socialist and communist dictatarships in the world, a large percentage of autocratic states (such as those in the Middle-East and Sub-Saharan Africa) in the world today are heavily capitalist in nature, where socialist concepts such as progressive taxation of universal healthcare are completely unheard of.

Stewball, you're allowed to have different opinions, but your arguments are meaningless if you start with such grossly incorecct premises to begin with.


*That would be Norway, Japan and Canada (although 6 out of 10 Provinces in Canada have elected Socialist governments, and although not nominally socialist, all three countries have had a long histories of liberal politics and a welfare state, especially compared to the United States.

**As defined by member parties of Socialist International or the Party of European Socialists.

Darren
Posts: 14
4471 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by Darren »

"or UN officials admitting that climate change is the means to achieving a socialist utopia"


*********************CITATION NEEDED*****************************

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by Stewball »

CosmicMonkey wrote:I usually try to avoid engaging in Stewie incoherent ramblings


You can try but you can't succeed.

This is blatantly wrong. The most common form of socialism in the 21st century is democratic socialism.


Yeah, well Nazi Germany was democrat socialists by any definition of the term. But that only addresses how they were put in power. It's a phony category. You need to look not only at how it acquired power, but how it stayed there.

Of the 21 countries ranked above the United States on the Democracy Index, all but three* have been governed by some point by nominally Socialist party.**


Hell the US has been a fascist state since the '30s. There was a considerable faction her considering being allies with Germany--until Germany showed it's soul and invaded Poland.

While true, revolutionary communism has definitely tended towards autocracy and authoritarianism, socialism itself is statistically no less likely to be undemocratic than is capitalism.


How many capitalist states are you talking about? There've been damned few.
Democratic socialism has been a completely normal thing in the rest of the Western world for a long time


Democratic socialism is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The one and only source of ALL evil isn't wealth, selfishness, power, sex etc. it's a legal/moral double standard.

and it still amazes me to find Americans who seem to be completely baffled by the concept or a\unable to differentiate the vastly different ideologies of fascism, stalinism, and democratic socialism.


I'm all ears.

And while yes, there still are some socialist and communist dictatarships in the world


OMG, SOME! And what about oligarchies--which they all are--rule by elite members protected in their positions by legal double standards..

large percentage of autocratic states (such as those in the Middle-East and Sub-Saharan Africa) in the world today are heavily capitalist in nature


Name one. Fascism is nothing but government stifled/owned capitalism.

where socialist concepts such as progressive taxation of universal healthcare are completely unheard of.


Nothing gives government more control of its populace than to administer healthcare.

Stewball, you're allowed to have different opinions, but your arguments are meaningless if you start with such grossly incorecct premises to begin with.


I think it's already apparent to the undecided that my premises presented to this point are at least worth judging with out bias, and in all likelihood, correct.


*That would be Norway, Japan and Canada (although 6 out of 10 Provinces in Canada have elected Socialist governments, and although not nominally socialist, all three countries have had a long histories of liberal politics and a welfare state, especially compared to the United States.


Norway and Canada are more than nominally socialist. Japan I'm not qualified to comment on.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by Stewball »

Darren wrote:"or UN officials admitting that climate change is the means to achieving a socialist utopia"


*********************CITATION NEEDED*****************************


I'm so glad you asked. I just put this stuff together. I'm sorry, you'll have to pick out which ones are UN stuff. The first one is probably sufficient. And now here's where you cherry pick some mostly irrelevant fact and whine about how it's all BS.

Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change quote:
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model (read capitalism) that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”—this is accurate
The rest is somewhat sloppy:
http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... apitalism/
The Smoking Gun:
http://www.green-agenda.com/

Excerpts:
We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the
climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore, Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
Daniel Botkin – evangelical emeritus professor at Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara; B.S. in art; post graduate study in English as a second language (no degree); honorary Doctor of Literature degree from the Evangelical Reformed Methodist Church (italics my add)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level."
- Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

UN downgrades man's impact on the climate

Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:37am GMT 11/12/2006

Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organization has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.
The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.
Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
One leading UK climate scientist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity surrounding the report before it is published, said: "The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future."
The IPCC report, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, has been handed to the Government for review before publication.
It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.
Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C. Unseasonable warmth this year has left many Alpine resorts without snow by the time the ski season started.
Britain can expect more storms of similar ferocity to those that wreaked havoc across the country last week, even bringing a tornado to north-west London.
The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.
Large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect.
Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to delay global warming but would lead to larger changes in the future.
He said: "The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.
"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."
The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.
The report states that snow cover in mountainous regions will contract and permafrost in polar regions will decline.
However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said.

CosmicMonkey
Posts: 594
1271 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by CosmicMonkey »

I have no idea what your definitions of socialism and fascism are, but I guarantee you (as a former Poli-Sci major) that they are vastly different from those used by 95% of political scientists. Then again, considering that you think global warming is a hoax, in contrast to 97% of climate scientists, you seem to be one of those sorts to think that the opinion of "experts" isn't worth your time.

Welp, I tried. Will I have the time, energy, and mental health to try again sometime in the future? Let's find out!

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: The Rev. Al Gore at it again

Post by Stewball »

CosmicMonkey wrote:I have no idea what your definitions of socialism and fascism are, but I guarantee you (as a former Poli-Sci major) that they are vastly different from those used by 95% of political scientists.


You say that like 95% of academia is above reproach. Global warming has shown that even some sciences are not immune to the corruption that's overwhelmed the arts and soft sciences.

Then again, considering that you think global warming is a hoax, in contrast to 97% of climate scientists


Once again demonstrating that liberals are never above pulling numbers out of their ass.

...you seem to be one of those sorts to think that the opinion of "experts" isn't worth your time.


The "sort" that sees the corruption and calls it out. And it looks like you're the "sort" who ignores massive evidence, nay proof, when presented (see my last post) when it flies against your issues and methods of social manipulation.

Welp, I tried.


No you didn't, you just came out of the starting gate, blinders in place, and moseyed on over to the barn for some more fermented hay.

Locked