Al Gore's Energy Efficiency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liberal Genius

I agree with Buster that the figures they used (232 in a month) amounts to a giant heap of douchebaggery.

And this thread isn't about recycling, using less, not littering, it's about Al Gore being a douchebag and using anthropogenic (just for you rainbow bright) global warming to fatten his own pocketbook, and in the meanwhile being a complete hypocrite.

GLOBAL WARMING!!!! might be the biggest bunch of douchebaggery around today.

---

Al Gore is a prancing queen. He's a politician. Really people what do you expect.

But make no mistake that the objective of the Al Gore hysteria is to discredit any claim of global warming.

Yeah, yeah, you've got your lifestyle idiots all across all sides of the boards. But all this shit does is drag down the real issues into demigoguery and antidemigoguery which is a fucking waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

This fool is unbelievable....



For Further Information, Contact:
Adam King, 615.383.6431
adam@tennesseepolicy.org

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations
--------------snip -------------------

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

---

NOW THAT IS GREEN POWER !

edit


STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

its not about whether global warming exists or not. Its about a douche bag who does not practice what he preaches.

And wouldn't being rich enable you to choose more efficient but expensive technologies?

If I remember right, Bill Gates house is half built underground.

Bottom line is that climate change deniers have NOTHING else to offer than attacks on Al Gore (yes, who gives a fuck about him).

This here sums up their reasoning and level of analytical abilities:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Obviously the world needs more pirates!

Problem solved...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

Al Gore is a prancing queen. He's a politician. Really people what do you expect.

But make no mistake that the objective of the Al Gore hysteria is to discredit any claim of global warming.

Yeah, yeah, you've got your lifestyle idiots all across all sides of the boards. But all this shit does is drag down the real issues into demigoguery and antidemigoguery which is a fucking waste of time.

---

For the record, my only beef with all of the global warming hysteria is all of the political douchebaggery associated with it, along with the blind acceptance that it's mostly anthropogenic derivative, which is mostly propaganda pushed by douchebags like Al Gore only to fatten their own hypocritical pockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MtBakehead

Bottom line is that climate change deniers have NOTHING else to offer than attacks on Al Gore (yes, who gives a fuck about him).

This here sums up their reasoning and level of analytical abilities:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Obviously the world needs more pirates!

Problem solved...

---

First time we all saw that graph along with your joke, we maggots laughed so hard, we fell off our dinosaurs.

Welcome to the board, douchebag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skidog

bill Gate isnt winning Awards for movies about REDUCING CARBON FOOTPRINT AND POLLUTION THOUGH....

Non issue! Non comparison!

---

The last time his house's electrical consumption came up it was pointed out its carbon footprint was neutral because of all the carbon credits he buys. Still happening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liberal Genius

For the record, my only beef with all of the global warming hysteria is all of the political douchebaggery associated with it, along with the blind acceptance that it's mostly anthropogenic derivative, which is mostly propaganda pushed by douchebags like Al Gore only to fatten their own hypocritical pockets.

---

Commie. This is America.

But really for me the most annoying deal is the fact that people focus on the figureheads, the lifestyle, the trends and the talking heads. The focus can be either adoration or revulsion, but to me it's the same sack of shit. And I'm not Mrs Kreske (Firesign Reference, puhleez). That's what makes us so easy to manipulate.

So, the intent of my deft and lumpy repartee is to indicate that Al Gore doesn't matter. He's just another shil who will take advantage of the prom queen of the moment. Same with politics. Same with religion. And holding up he's hypnocracy on either end of the adoration metric only serves to repel induhvidual such as us from each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WWCD

The last time his house's electrical consumption came up it was pointed out its carbon footprint was neutral because of all the carbon credits he buys. Still happening?

---

FWIW, that's just as much bullshit as holding the Gore icon up as deity or false prophet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

So, the intent of my deft and lumpy repartee is to indicate that Al Gore doesn't matter. He's just another shil who will take advantage of the prom queen of the moment. Same with politics. Same with religion. And holding up he's hypnocracy on either end of the adoration metric only serves to repel induhvidual such as us from each other.

---

I think you're forgetting the impact that his movie has had, and how they're playing it in schools as truth. That's pretty frightening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

I think you're forgetting the impact that his movie has had, and how they're playing it in schools as truth. That's pretty frightening.

---

He's not forgetting anything, just ignoring it....conveniently

http://img.tfd.com/wn/DD/63BF8-blinder.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

I think you're forgetting the impact that his movie has had, and how they're playing it in schools as truth. That's pretty frightening.

---

There is no truth. There is only theory. But the masses want truth, they need truth as long as they're fed it. And I can be pissed about it and pissed when either side of an issue constantly bickers over truth.

I'd rather not fight demigoguery with antidemigoguery because, as I've typed a bout 15 bazillion times, it's the same fucking thing. And I don't expect you to either. You're not dumb and I don't understand why you play dumb, but hey, it's your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maurice Ballstein

He's not forgetting anything, just ignoring it....conveniently

http://img.tfd.com/wn/DD/63BF8-blinder.gif

---

Maurice, Maurice, Maurice...You've completely missed my point and I am at fault for not succinctly and clearly explaining it to you.

The figurehead is not important to me. The figureheads may try to manipulate us through each other and they do so successfully. It's our job to try to see the principles, not the figureheads.

http://20gramsoul.com/wp-content/upl...itur070722.gif

B- the maurices of this world are not ready for your post-manipulative seascape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lemon boy

B- the maurices of this world are not ready for your post-manipulative seascape.

---

OK, I'll try to work in guache from now on.

Classic. All the dumbfucks want to do is kill the messenger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowful

Classic. All the dumbfucks want to do is kill the messenger.

---

Not true. I'm down for killing all his fluffers too.

DW, this is really important stuff.

I typically don't wade into these shitty padded room political waters, but here I go. I don't tie myself to any party line. I like to consider myself a freethinker and fairly logical individual. I rarely buy what any group is selling. However, I do process either side and come to my own conclusions. I'm also no scientist. So any take I have on global warming will be based on the info of others.

My take on the Global Warming situation is this:

If we all buy into Global Warming and we later find out it's all a bunch of bullshit let's think about what we will have lost....Hmmmm, let's see we will have taken efforts to further protect the environment and air quality of our planet. There will be some expense involved, but on the whole we end up with a better quality of life and environment. We hopefully leave behind a better planet than we started with or at least take steps to reverse what we've been doing.

If we all blow off Global Warming, continue to trash the planet and it turns out to be true. Now we've really lost. Quality of life, environment, health, cost, etc... It's not worth the risk (and I'm a risk taker). I'll take risks with myself, but not with the lives/health of others.

I can't say whether or not Global Warming is real or not, but what do you really lose by taking better care of the planet? On the other hand there is the definite potential to be up shit creek if we continue down the current path.

Not for or against. Just the consequences for betting on either side.

/2 cents

what if for each dollar spent cutting CO2 emissions we only return 50 cents? Secondly that the net effect of these efforts is only delaying the result five years.

but what if for every dollar spent on providing potable water we get eight dollars back?

Or for every dollar we spend on AIDS treatment and prevention we get $4 dollars back?

What if we rid the developing world of malaria and return seven dollars for every dollar spent?


We can do all three of the latter and more. Why would we hobble our economy so grievously to delay an inevitability by less than a decade?

and we can't do all of this because if we foolishly adopt Kyoto type restrictions we will not be able to help the developing world.

It's a pretty easy choice for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

what if for each dollar spent cutting CO2 emissions we only return 50 cents? Secondly that the net effect of these efforts is only delaying the result five years.

but what if for every dollar spent on providing potable water we get eight dollars back?

Or for every dollar we spend on AIDS treatment and prevention we get $4 dollars back?

What if we rid the developing world of malaria and return seven dollars for every dollar spent?


We can do all three of the latter and more. Why would we hobble our economy so grievously to delay an inevitability by less than a decade?

and we can't do all of this because if we foolishly adopt Kyoto type restrictions we will not be able to help the developing world.

It's a pretty easy choice for me.

---

Easy on the logic there gpytia, Buster might have an aneurysm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatdrink9

I typically don't wade into these shitty padded room political waters, but here I go. I don't tie myself to any party line. I like to consider myself a freethinker and fairly logical individual. I rarely buy what any group is selling. However, I do process either side and come to my own conclusions. I'm also no scientist. So any take I have on global warming will be based on the info of others.

My take on the Global Warming situation is this:

If we all buy into Global Warming and we later find out it's all a bunch of bullshit let's think about what we will have lost....Hmmmm, let's see we will have taken efforts to further protect the environment and air quality of our planet. There will be some expense involved, but on the whole we end up with a better quality of life and environment. We hopefully leave behind a better planet than we started with or at least take steps to reverse what we've been doing.

If we all blow off Global Warming, continue to trash the planet and it turns out to be true. Now we've really lost. Quality of life, environment, health, cost, etc... It's not worth the risk (and I'm a risk taker). I'll take risks with myself, but not with the lives/health of others.
tt
I can't say whether or not Global Warming is real or not, but what do you really lose by taking better care of the planet? On the other hand there is the definite potential to be up shit creek if we continue down the current path.

Not for or against. Just the consequences for betting on either side.

/2 cents

---

Thanks, md.
Even more important are the political ramifications of getting fossil fuel independent. Russia is the largest energy exporter in the world (when both oil and natural gas exports are combined). With our lovely benevolence demonstrated in the Middle East, chances of them locking up that region are pretty damn good once we leave (or maybe while we're still there). Russia fukking hates us. China is close behind them in that hatred and getting pretty friendly with Russia. Where would that leave the US?

Learning Russian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatdrink9

If we all buy into Global Warming and we later find out it's all a bunch of bullshit let's think about what we will have lost....Hmmmm, let's see we will have taken efforts to further protect the environment and air quality of our planet.

---

Hope you're not an atheist, because that would really destroy that line of thinking. You know, believe in God even if you are an agnostic, because in the end, it might be the right thing to do.....and if there's no God, at least you treated people well and had a wholesome lifestyle while you were at it. Same thing.

As far as trashing the planet, the same people saying they're "green" etc seem to keep having kids left and right. Pretty much the worst thing anyone can do for the planet is have children. Not saying that's right or wrong, just extremely hypocritical having your position on the subject.

We're humans, and we're the biggest consumers the planet has ever seen.
We're all a bunch of piss and shit factories.......but at least I know that and don't try and hide from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

what if for each dollar spent cutting CO2 emissions we only return 50 cents? Secondly that the net effect of these efforts is only delaying the result five years.

but what if for every dollar spent on providing potable water we get eight dollars back?

Or for every dollar we spend on AIDS treatment and prevention we get $4 dollars back?

What if we rid the developing world of malaria and return seven dollars for every dollar spent?


We can do all three of the latter and more. Why would we hobble our economy so grievously to delay an inevitability by less than a decade?

and we can't do all of this because if we foolishly adopt Kyoto type restrictions we will not be able to help the developing world.

It's a pretty easy choice for me.

---

As truly spoken by a car dealer. Those are some fine numbers to pull out of one's ass. Backed up by some pretty mighty "what ifs". Woe is me. Impressive references. And feigning the possibility of mildly being interested in helping somewhere else to get out of trying to do something else positive is equally admirable.

Liberal Genius Group Troll Summit Blurred, That's the beauty of not having to toe the line to any specific party. I can decide (by thinking for myself) what does and doesn't work for me. Atheist here. If I were worried about self-preservation I probably would apply that logic to religion (and wouldn't jump large cliffs). But I'm not. As I mentioned earlier I'm a risk taker when it comes to myself, but not when it comes to others. The logic from the original post stands. And as far as reproducing goes: 1 boy and 1 girl had 1 boy and 1 girl. We're sustainable. ;)

And I'm out. There's a reason I don't play in these threads and avoid politics. Too much poison. Back to something more positive.