What are your thoughts on this American Hero?

[quote name='Cheese']That's 50/50. If the recount continued in the three counties Gore was asking for, Bush would have still won, but a statewide recount, which the FLSC had ordered had gone through, Gore would have won.[/quote]

Any link to that? I'm genuinely interested in seeing that... I never saw a recount scenario that showed Gore winning. Even the ...Miami Herald? Whichever one ran for months after the inauguration, gave Bush a victory.


With the felon purge fiasco, the phony RNC-staffer protest that shut down the hand recount, the observers of the undervotes nitpicking, the legal haranguing and the convenience of Bush having the Florida Secretary of State as his campaign co-chair, not to mention his brother as the governor, to say that the vote was 100% legit is burying your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

Anyone can find any number of reasons why many elections are fraudulent, by finding people affiliated with the other party. There were some serious shenanigans going on on both sides of the table. One of the many ugly things about a 2-party system is how easy it is to find conflicts of interest, whether they exist or not. Not saying that Ms. Harris's role didn't LOOK suspicious, because it did... but again I go back to what I know of the final tallies in Florida and shrug. Unless we can find proof that someone was eating those chads...
 
[quote name='Fanboy']I love the fact that he won a "Webby" is being used as part of the criteria in determining his heroic status. :rofl:[/QUOTE]

without Al Gore you wouldn't have been able to make this post

:rofl:


Gore - 1

You - 0

webby2.jpg


:rofl:
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']I already answered you, you just didn't like the answer

You're not afraid of global climate change?

super

so why does what some random person posts on the internet spin you into such a tizzy?

seems inconsistent to me.. but that IS your m.o. so i shouldn't really be surprised[/QUOTE]

Your answer sucked and this one sucks. Why do you think I'm in a "tizzy"? More like I'm wondering if you're just stupid or a troll, or both (most likely the third).
 
[quote name='Iron Clad Burrito']Any link to that? I'm genuinely interested in seeing that... I never saw a recount scenario that showed Gore winning. Even the ...Miami Herald? Whichever one ran for months after the inauguration, gave Bush a victory.[/QUOTE]

www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/2072092.htm

It becomes a series of degrees, the more inclusive the recount (under and over votes) Gore wins; the more restrictive the recount (full votes only) Bush wins.
 
[quote name='Cheese']www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/2072092.htm

It becomes a series of degrees, the more inclusive the recount (under and over votes) Gore wins; the more restrictive the recount (full votes only) Bush wins.[/quote]

The only issue with that is the more recounts that occur, the more under- and -ver-votes we have, coming from the constant handling.

Plus we have this article dated 4 days after yours that says Bush won the same recount? I dunno. It'll be debated for years to come.
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']re-read your own posts[/QUOTE]

I guess it's easy to misread emotion over the Internet. I'm still curious as to whether you're a troll or just an idiot though.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I guess it's easy to misread emotion over the Internet. I'm still curious as to whether you're a troll or just an idiot though.[/QUOTE]

i thought that was settled a long time ago

i'm both

GoreAl-thumb.jpg


put it in the lllockbox
 
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm


President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm


[/quote]

:lol: at "President of Czech Republic"

:lol: even more at 'drudgereport'

seriously funny stuff. :lol:

anyone who is incapable of understanding the science (i.e. Drudge), should just stay out of the discussion

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.

Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.

If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

nothing in this thead has anything to do with anyone's 'sanity'. red herring
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged


The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

.[/QUOTE]

"The facts are simple," says Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society. "The earth is flat."

As you stand in his front yard, it is hard to argue the point. From among the Joshua trees, creosote bushes, and tumbleweeds surrounding his southern California hillside home, you have a spectacular view of the Mojave Desert. It looks as flat as a pool table. Nearly 20 miles to the west lies the small city of Lancaster; you can see right over it. Beyond Lancaster, 20 more miles as the cueball rolls, the Tehachepi Mountains rise up from the desert floor. Los Angeles is not far to the south.

Near Lancaster, you see the Rockwell International plant where the Space Shuttle was built. To the north, beyond the next hill, lies Edwards Air Force Base, where the Shuttle was tested. There, also, the Shuttle will land when it returns from orbiting the earth. (At least, that's NASA's story.)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm



"You can't orbit a flat earth," says Mr. Johnson. "The Space Shuttle is a joke—and a very ludicrous joke."


lmfao!!
 
[quote name='schuerm26']http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece[/QUOTE]

While I hardly would question the sanity of those more receptive to the theory of global warming, I do agree with the overall tone of this article with regard to a certain amount of skepticism. Remember, the "scientific consensus" has been wrong quite a lot throughout history, from the Earth being flat to the Sun orbiting the Earth to gravity to the circumference of the Earth to global cooling (in the 1970s). It's only fair to realize that we often (I would say pathologically) believe that we know a lot more about insanely complicated natural systems than we really do. I'm afraid that certain facts (rising temperatures overall, increase in CO2 in the atmosphere) aren't enough to convince me that we are the main cause, or even a significant cause, of the temperature increase. I think the evidence doesn't bear that kind of extrapolation, although again, I do respect those who feel they do and wouldn't say they are insane.
 
besides

this thread isn't about global climate change and the impending temperature shift that will result

it's about our next President

gore.jpg

Al Gore

and how he will save America
 
Any advice on how to speed up this global warming process? It's snowing and icy here in St. Louis today (matter of fact, we haven't had a winter quite like this in years).
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Any advice on how to speed up this global warming process? It's snowing and icy here in St. Louis today (matter of fact, we haven't had a winter quite like this in years).[/QUOTE]

global 'warming' is a misnomer

global climate change is resulting in more extreme weather conditions on both ends of the temperature spectrum

places that used to be temperate will become very hot or very cold

places that used to have extreme temps will become more temperate

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

enjoy the cold weather in St Lou.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top