digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Gore Calls Canada Climate Plan a 'Fraud'

washingtonpost.com — Al Gore condemned Canada's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, saying it was a fraud "designed to mislead the Canadian people." Canadian Environment Minister John Baird rejected Gore's criticisms. "The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," Baird

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • M0b1u5, on 10/12/2007, -62/+53Gore needs to shut the ***** up and start studying science.
    But if he did, he'd have to change his mind about man-made global warming.
    Oh wait.... I see the problem now...
    • Naidim, on 10/12/2007, -52/+46Gore's home, plane, cars, etc. all exclaim loudly "HYPOCRITE" yet the MSM loves him anyway. Typical limousine liberal.
    • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -37/+29naidim,

      So you're saying you can only care about the environment if you don't own a car? It's better to not care about the environment and pollute than to try to change attitudes even if it's basically impossible to live in today's world without incurring some kind of environmental damage?

      Grow up, people.
    • Light11, on 10/12/2007, -17/+57It is a fraud. Did anyone see what David Suzuki did?

      i, as a Canadian, hope that our government's take on the environment will start getting serious and not just to get votes
    • ismokedope, on 10/12/2007, -35/+34@jcsaint

      Read up on Gore's mansions.. check the energy he uses in one month...
    • Sphonix, on 10/12/2007, -34/+8ManBearPig, half man, half bear, half pig; I'm super serial.

      ...

      Excelsior!!!
    • Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -13/+63"So you're saying you can only care about the environment if you don't own a car? "

      Let's see, we have rich people telling us to consume less, but they go around and consume about as much as 10 North American families. Then they go around and "make it right" by buying credits.

      So basically, just they can continue with their lifestyle and not make any changes. But a family of four with an old gas-guzzling hatchback, who can't afford things like credits, are up ***** creek and we have these rich ***** slimeballs preaching and making people like this feel guilty (and yes, a significant part of the environmental movement is based on guilt).

      It's a social justice issue when the rich want to deprive us of little things that make our lives better (car, inefficient housing because we can't afford upgrades, etc.) while continuing with their profligate lifestyle. People won't stand for that and it's important to remember that the human brain is still the stone age egalitarian brain.
    • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3About Gore's bill. Take from it what you will. I need to grab lunch and can't keep debating.

      http://blog.nodvin.net/?p=185
    • Sphonix, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Ok... so apparently no-one liked that episode of South Park...
    • nighttrain2007, on 10/12/2007, -14/+17Well of course it's a fraud isn't it? I mean their chief 'global warming' specialists aren't living in massive houses with horrible electric bills, meanwhile bilking, I mean collecting, funds for carbon credits from the well meaning sheep in Canada. That's the only real sort of climate plan Gore could accept
    • themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -22/+14Oh yeah? Well Gore is a fraud.
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12"Gore needs to shut the ***** up and start studying science."

      He has. Perhaps YOU need to STFU and start studying science, instead of gobbling up the propaganda spread by ExxonMobil and friends.
    • datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11And the pot calls the kettle black. Oh the irony.
    • tibman, on 10/12/2007, -16/+46A case of do what I say not what I do!!


      House 1:
      The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place." The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.

      The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, which uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home. In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all." This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.

      (Source:Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct, 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001.)

      House 2:
      This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006. (Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)


      PLEASE Scroll down......................









      House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford, Texas.

      House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville, Tennessee.
    • beosnitch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
      --H. L. Mencken
    • Azio, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4bury me
    • DavidBGie, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Gore is the fraud as we all know. Maybe by calling something else a fraud he hopes to move up from level 2 fraud to a level 1 fraud.
    • rthakidn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Yes it's a fraud. And who better to notice. After all, it takes one to see one.
    • pyrates, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@ismokedope

      He actually pays more because he uses cleaner energy sources then if he paid less for energy sources that aren't as clean.
    • JamesGolick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
    • painted82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Fhionnlaoch

      Very nice post! This is why free speech is so important. So we can discuss these ***** political tactics and see through them. This is not a left vs right issue. Both liberals and conservatives are spouting lies after lies because if they actually told the truth about their political agendas, there would be a revolution nation wide. War on Terror, War on Drugs, and now this War on Global Warming... these are all designed to take away our civil liberties and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The global elite needs to destroy the middle class to bring forth a fascist NWO that will forever enslave mankind.

      Even if global warming is actually caused by men, the solution is wrong! They're trying to force a tax on every citizen in all the developed countries!!! Look at the preachers of man made global warming and how their actions are in direct contradiction with their words. All these politicians and celebrities, who pollute the air with at least ten times more CO2 than an average American, talking about how we should change our ways is just plain disgusting and sickening. Unless these liars change their own lifestyles and actions are taken to shut down factories, I will never see global warming as a serious issue, but rather as just another mainstream propaganda upon the American people.
    • sjbdallas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Don't forget, it's not just the rich that are pumping this up. The media is trying to tweak every story they do so it has a global warming angle. That thing diane sawyer did on earth day where she was interviewing the guy about the pole's ice thinning. He told her it was thinning on one end, but thickening on the other but she kept turning it back to concentrate on the thinning part. Just like the floods in one area apparently don't make up for the drought in the other.
  • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -15/+14It's nice to see he's keeping involved in this. Following up on things like this, it really makes me believe that he is passionate about this, and he really believes in it.
    • inukki, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11i am canadian
      je suis un canadian
      canadamiuguvunga
      canadajin desu
      after saying these, i like what al gore is doing, he is a great "eartharian"
      as an aboriginal (inuit), I find his purpose to be true and genuine
      people like Al Gore and David Suzuki can lift the burden of humanity in good way
      just like anyone, I want world peace, but It's not my place to say for I am not one of the pagents of anything lol
    • Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14And Gore's fat pocket, mansion, private jets, and slaves thank you for your continued support.
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Gore is the pot calling the kettle black. For all of his concerns about the environment, he refused to support the Kyoto Accord while he was Vice-President of the USA. (reason: no targets for 3rd world countries).

      That being said, Canada had a Liberal government that signed the Kyoto Accord, and did nothing for 9 years and let emissions rise 30%+ above Kyoto. They were defeated last year, and the Convervatives have finally decided on an action plan (note: Kyoto was not part of their campaign a year ago, and they still got elected)

      The Canadian plan is a reasonable one, with a target of reducing emission rates by 18% over the next 3 years. If that is achieved, we will be well on our way to meeting Kyoto within 10 years. If the Liberals actually started a plan like this when they signed Kyoto in 1998, we would be on the verge of meeting our committment, instead of being 30%+ over (and rising).
  • synapticcleft, on 10/12/2007, -16/+38The Harper government doesn't care about the environment, that is obvious and I think it is great that Gore is taking a shot at them. Baird, the environmental minister is a pitbull who also doesn't seem to care about the government or the Kyoto accord and it is pathetic that he is in charge of enivornmental policy in Canada.
    • Battleloser, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23They don't care? Have you seen the money they're pouring into green and conservation programs?

      I mean *****, I voted liberal for both minoritys, but I'm surprisingly satisfied by the conservatives this time around.

      And please, people, keep in mind that Canadian politics are probably very different then your own, don't red me just for liking a political party that calls themselves conservatives.
    • Yazilliclick, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I'm not going to comment as to how much the current government 'cares' about the environment since that's just speculation.

      I will say that if you honestly believe that we houls have kept on with kyoto and anything less is a horrible travesty then you're just one of the few gullible fools that are falling victim to the slandering of the government from the other parties as they try to gain votes. Kyoto failed long ago back when the liberal government did ***** all to put it in place and enforce it. By the time the conservatives gained the current minority government it was far far FAR too late to try and meet the goals in it without drastically damaging the economy.

      And besides that several of the points my by Gore make absolutely no sense. How exactly is it wrong to let a company's greenhouse gas emmisions increase if their production increases provided that they are implemented methods to rude the emmision:production ratio? Anything else is just asking the impossible. Then again he is a hypocrite and is only doing it to boost his sales and make more appearance money.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Trusting the environment to a Calgarian is like trusting the Keebler factory to Cookie Monster. Harper doesn't give a crap about anything but oil drilling and tax exempt status for Alberta.

      http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/leaders/pdf/firewall.pdf
    • canadianbaking, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9synapticcleft:

      The conservatives are enacting legislation to lower greenhouse gases. Does it kind of suck that we'll miss our Kyoto targets? Yup. Did they even care about the environment 18 months ago? Probably not. But our liberals (whose environment minister was Stephane Dion) allowed greenhouse gas emissions to increase 30% during their 14 years in office, and Gore's 8 years in office were an environmental nightmare (all greenhouse gases and SUVs). So for these 2 douchebags to be complaining about the environment instead of apologizing for it makes me think I should really question their motives when they claim to be 'speaking' for the environment. ''Cause they had their chance to speak for it. And didn't.
    • mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"I mean *****, I voted liberal for both minoritys, but I'm surprisingly satisfied by the conservatives this time around."

      That boggles my mind. I didn't have high hopes for a conservative government, but I am agog at just how horrible they have been. Harper's government has been riddled with hypocrisy, doubletalk, trash talking, and meaningless action. They have turned out worse than I ever could have imagined.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually, they're continuing to exercise their chance to speak for it. I'm not sure what happened during those other administrations, but I do know that a leader doesn't have exclusive control over what people do during their stays in power.

      Also, there's a gradual increase in awareness over time here, as the science becomes clearer, the situation worsens, as people in general become more ripe to pay attention.

      I'm not trying to say that Gore is not a hypocrite, because he probably is, as is virtually everyone who tries to say something strongly. But being a hypocrite doesn't necessarily make someone wrong.

      The long and the short of it is: either the environment is in danger or it isn't. And if it is, then it will require some measure of social change to protect it, so that we as a species, and other species, can keep surviving. Is the environment in danger? I don't know, but extensive reading of scientific journals and other sources has led me to believe rather unequivocally that it is. How much social change is required to protect it? I don't know, but I believe that, for issues as important as this, a conservative approach *must* be taken. If there's even a small chance that we're soiling our beds, we have to take that chance seriously, because *we don't have any other beds*.
    • cameldung, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How can any Canadian can take the Liberals seriously is beyond me? If Gore was Canadian, he'd be a Liberal. It follows that I don't understand why any Canadian would take Gore seriously.

      (I'm Canadian and I am not from out west)
    • aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@mikepictor: Do you have anything resembling facts and examples? I see an awful lot of rhetoric but no substance. If they were doing so poorly, don't you think they would have been defeated by now given their minority status?

      I heard a lot of double talk from the NDP and Greens here in BC about the Premier Gordon Campbell but look at what his government has done and is doing for the economy and the environment. They were off to a rough start with the corrupt big labour unions trying to disrupt business but the Provincial Liberal party of BC (not affiliated with the federal liberals) is more popular than ever. The Premier is working on an environmental accord with Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho.

      The NDP and the Greens are all talk and hypocrisy.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ yazilliclick

      While yes, reducing green house gas intensity is a good thing, it doesn't help all that much. For example, an oil sands company may reduce their emissions by several tons per thousand barrels, but if they constantly increasing output (which they are) then they still have an ever increasing impact. Its like thinking using a smaller bullet is less lethal, but while increasing the number fired... the net impact is still much worse. Its a word game meant to divert your attention from the reality of the situation.

      What is needed is emission CAPS and economic rewards for reducing total emissions.

      Personally, I think all the environmental programs put in by the conservatives are complete BS. Like the one that allows companies to produce relatively untested chemicals as long as they prove they are safe in the future. And then they have the nerve to say that this is a first step for the world when the EU has been implementing a chemical regulation plan for years (that requires a substance to be proven safe BEFORE production, not after).

      I don't really agree with Gore and his politics, but he still is right in calling the plan a fraud. Why can't a Canadian government just make David Suzuki the environmental minister and get something done? (Wishful thinking on my part)
  • jmw320, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7I am so glad that Al Gore is concerned about Global Warming, but how else would he be able to be in the media besides "caring" about Global Warming.
    • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21you useless puke. He was picked up by the media, he was giving his slideshow for years, and his passion for the environment and global warming goes back a long time. i dont mind cynics, but thats just a pointless comment.
    • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21You make it should like he's only doing this to be in the media and you completely disregard the fact that this has been his signature issue for decades. He held hearings while a Senator, he wrote Earth in the Balance in the '80s and George H.W. Bush even called him Mr. Enviro during the '92 campaign. He's not new to climate change or environmental protection.
  • SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -25/+21Why is Gore given any news time at all still perplexes me.

  • giddieon, on 10/12/2007, -25/+16Mr Gore can go ***** himself...This is Canada and Canadians will decide what happens>>> Even if the Pm is a bit of a bone head....we will take care of it...

    So from one Canadian to mr gore... pissoff....
    • homercaholic18, on 10/12/2007, -16/+14And from another Canadian to Mr. Gore, Good on ya and your totally right. The whole Canadian Government under Harper is one of the worst things that could happen to Canada. Sorry Giddieon couldnt take a little criticism and so far Canadians havent been deciding what happens, Canadians are being ignored in the decisions on what happens.
    • MrSpontaneous, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19@giddieon

      He can still voice his opinions. How many times have us Americans heard you guys criticizing every aspect of our society, from our culture to our elected officials? Climate change is an international issue, and, if Mr. Gore feels that the Canadian plan is as phony as the Canadian dollar, then, as a denizen of this planet, he has every right to voice his concerns.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I'm Canadian and my decisions are not being reflected by our government. In many, many ways.
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10As another Canadian, I'm happy to say "Go go Gore!"

      It was priceless to see Baird squirming in front of the cameras, doing his best impression of the typical U.S. thirty-percenter: "B-b-but Gore...!"
    • mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"So from one Canadian to mr gore... pissoff...."

      and from another canadian, I will welcome commentary by anyone that has a chance at motivating useful change regarding the environment.
    • burtonbe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Mr Harper can go ***** himself...This is the USA and Americans will decide what happens>>> Even if the President is a bit of a bone head....we will take care of it...

      So from one American to mr Harper... pissoff....


      See how asinine that sounds?
    • mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I am a Canadian. I agree with Gore's comment, the new environment minister's plan is lip service. It doesn't tackle the environmental problem and the environment minister said that following Kyoto was bad economic policy. It very well might be bad economic policy, but so are labour laws.
      I usually don't vote Conservative, but I've been impressed by most of Harper's initiatives and this Government in general...Environment is the only issue they are completely screwing up, IMO.
  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -19/+19He's probably correct. Harper has totally ***** up our country.
    • spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8No, no he hasn't. In fact, he's done more on the issue than any other Prime Minister before him. He's taking action, not just signing Kyoto.

      He's perceptive to the public, which is great. People told him his first plan was a failure, and now this is round two; which is an improvement. Although not the best plan possible, it's a good start.
    • Sturmur, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10lol. How can you gauge this? We've had 15 years of Liberal corruption, anything after that is an oustanding success.
    • mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Those 15 years of liberal government had some fantastic times for Canada. Economic vitality, progressive social reforms, international respect. There were individuals in the liberal government that were corrupt, no question. It's absurd however to paint the entire party with that brush though.

      Harper is horrible PM that is poisoning the country, but I don't attribute his hypocrisy to all conservatives. As much as I may disagree with them, I think many conservatives are decent people, you just wouldn't know it by looking at his cabinet.
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1115 years of fantastic times, especially for Liberal friendly ad agencies in Quebec who receives millions in direct funding from taxpayers. Nothing better than kickbacks, well deserved for a party in power for so long of course!

      15 years of fantastic times, including nonstop economic growth, which was completely unaccountable to the environment, resulting in Canada being almost 35% above its Kyoto targets. Targets agreed to by the Liberals, who did nothing at all to reduce emissions.

      The Conservatives are cleaning up the mess the Liberals left behind after 15 years of corrupt, negligent rule.
    • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3"The Conservatives are cleaning up the mess the Liberals left behind after 15 years of corrupt, negligent rule"
      That's *****. Harper is just better at hiding his ***** than the Liberals were. If you don't think Harper is as corrupt as every other politician, you are a complete mindless sheep.

      At least our country was prospering under Liberal leadership, Harper is just Bush's buttbuddy and will sell us out at the drop of a hat.
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Nice. Any proof? I can show you proof of Liberals funnelling public money to their private coffers.

      Seems like the Liberals were more interested in taking public money, than solving Environmental problems.
    • aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ahhell: Take your rhetoric and stick it up your ass. Give us some examples or STFU.
  • gtluke, on 10/12/2007, -23/+26gore is a fraud
    • mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8nah hes good. He's actually a nice guy when you get to talk to him.
  • se2schul, on 10/12/2007, -16/+13"Gore Calls Canada Climate Plan a 'Fraud'"
    well...... I think it's more like:
    Canada calls Gore's unscientific blatherings 'Fraud'
  • jbecker, on 10/12/2007, -20/+18Al Gore is "a complete and total fraud".

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
    • LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19Please, don't bring facts into a perfectly irrational argument.
    • Biskino, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Jeeze yea. I mean can you imagine if Gore had won in 2000? Wow, what a mess the world would be in now! Whew!

      On a side note, this crack cocaine I'm smoking is SOOOO moreish!
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The irony here is that your own cited source (the first) indicates several substantial mitigating factors: he works from home, his wife also does, he runs a guest house, he pays the green power premium from the local power company, and claims to purchase offsets to balance his carbon production.

      Assuming that the zero-carbon-footprint offset is true, he's actually not being a hypocrite at all. He's applying the 'non-conservational' environment policy, where rather than strictly reducing your overall consumption, you instead consume renewable resources--infinitely recyclable, biodegradable, nonpolluting, and self-generating resources.

      The environmental friendliness game isn't strictly about trying to live like a pauper, it's about trying to make responsible choices. And the way things stand right now, it's not feasible for everyone to actually use zero carbon, and actually not pollute at all, because we're dependent on utilities, widespread manufacturing, and so on. Investing in carbon offsets, and other pollution offsets (although that's not something that's really hit the table yet), is really the best a person can do these days to simulate zero-carbon.

      To balance things a bit, Bush's house is obviously also a great example of an environmentally friendly house, from a different perspective. I don't know what else Bush does with his life, and it doesn't really matter that much; what you *can* see, right there in the public forum, is that Bush is doing ***** all for the environment with the considerable power afforded him by his office.

      Anyway, it's not a competition, it's about what each person can do. Gore seems to be doing what he can, spending money on offsets, and a lot of money on environmentally proactive campaigning. Bush seems not to be doing what he can; he has an environmentally friendly house, but terrible environmental policies in the political part of his life.
    • krebcycle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Hey, look, someone thinks George Bush is an environmentalist because he waters his lawn with dishwater. That's just about the funniest thing I've read today, and Digg usually gets some real jokers. Get a grip folks, who gives a ***** what their houses are like, it means nothing.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@krebcycle:

      My 'misconceptions' were nothing more than a possibly poor choice of words. I think most of what I said was pretty clear in context.

  • LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -17/+23This proves without a doubt this whole global warming thing with Gore is political. Canada is doing more than Gore's own administration ever did, yet he's crititcal. Somehow I think this would be a different story if Canada's PM wasn't listed as a conservative.

    Heck, Bush's own house is far more environmentally friendly than Gore's and he takes shots at him all the time as well. Check out Snopes if you don't believe me.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4The point isn't who's done more, it's who's doing enough.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Something to think of here is that Gore, as vice president, is not carrying a whole lot of power over policymaking. Gore may personally be an environmentalist, but that doesn't mean that his running mate, the President, or the rest of his political party, agree with him.
    • Railer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4You hit it right on the nose, Harper has done more in one year than the Liberals did in 12, and has gotten NO credit in the press at all. People wonder why I think global warming is *****, because of politicized ***** like this. A conservative government put billions into the Environment and yet Douchebags like gore and suzuki throw fits like children, not because nothing is being done, but because a conservative government is actually attempting to do something.

    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@railer:

      I think the fit is being thrown because they want to see more done. When the Liberals were in power, they ***** it up pretty good too; the environment, however, is a political issue *this year*, and an interested party who wants to see public movement on an issue will recognise that to get any followance, they have to strike hard, when the iron is hot, so to speak. Suzuki and Gore are hitting harder now probably to some extent because there are conservatives in power, and there probably is some bias in there based on dislike of the party's policies or approaches in general. But moreso, I think they are hitting hard because now is a great opportunity, and what the conservatives are currently doing is not sufficient to ensure us a healthy future. Regardless of whether the Liberals ***** it up before also.
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Global warming is the subject of the hour, and the political opportunists are the ones that say "We will meet Kyoto on target!" when we are already 35% above our target and only 5 years to go.

      The Liberals are no more likely to meet Kyoto in 5 years than the Conservatives.. at least now we have a blueprint that we can work towards. If we had started down this path when Kyoto was signed 9 years ago, we would already have met the targets.
    • krebcycle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@penumbra

      Gore is no longer vice president of anything, he has no 'running mate' since he's not running for anything. Also, he has no affiliation with the current president. Gore's party is environmentalist. What you meant with your crazy comment is beyond me but I thought I might try to clear up some of your misconceptions.
  • MrPotato, on 10/12/2007, -19/+15Al Gore and the word "fraud" used in the same sentence...how poetic is that? Hey Al, pissoff you hoser!
  • EarthAndStars, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Perhaps he should first point out that many carbon offset programs are a fraud. Physician heal thyself.
    • shieldss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Many? Try all.

      wife: "Hi honey what'cha eatin'? "
      husband: "a Double Whopper with cheese."
      wife: "you know that's bad for you."
      husband: "It's cool, it's offset with cholesterol credits."
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@shieldss:

      The concept of the carbon offset is marginally better than that; because basically, everyone rejects the idea of actual legislative or voluntary change which directly results in less carbon being generated. Carbon offsets are a way to generate funds in the hands of people who are actively pursuing the kind of environmental change that's needed. It is a little like your 'cholesterol credit' scenario, except that the credits you buy (ostensibly) go to pay for reduced-cholesterol hamburger research, so the hamburgers you eat in twenty years (assuming you live that long) are cholesterol free.

      If you're 20 now, you probably will survive to experience the cholesterol-free hamburger; if you're 40 now, you probably won't. Of course, the situation is complicated by the fact that a) there are many hamburger company lobbyists who have a heavy investment in cholesterol factories, who would lose a lot of profit if cholesterol stopped being in hamburgers; and b) that *noone* is likely to live long enough naturally to see all hamburgers be cholesterol-free.

      ...so it's kind of a weak analogy, but it still mostly works.

      As for many carbon credit programmes being fraudulent... well, that certainly sucks. But it's not like Al Gore or David Suzuki are personally responsible for that; people will defraud when the possibility arises. That means that, like with many products in the marketplace, it's up to you, the consumer, to figure out whether what you're buying is a piece of crap.
    • mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@penumbra
      "because basically, everyone rejects the idea of actual legislative or voluntary change which directly results in less carbon being generated."
      I don't reject the idea. I want my government to force big businesses to invest money in saving our planet. I also support voluntary change, I've made a number of personal changes and am investing my own money in trying to reduce my families' environmental footprint.
      Direct carbon reductions are possible, it just costs money.
      The Government could tax businesses that produce a lot of carbon dioxide/monoxide/other unfriendly products, and then invest that money in programs that provide money to help businesses and individuals reduce their emissions.

      Companies won't invest in environmentally friendly production methods unless they are forced to by shareholders, consumers or governments.
  • batmanjr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Funny, Gore calls Canada's plan a fraud, just a few days after it is reported that his precious carbon trading market was also called a fraud. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
    • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1That's simple, it's a poltical move to discredit someone who embarrassed the conservatives. Lucky he wasn't a CIA agent.
  • CohibaVancouver, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14I'm getting a little tired of this hypocrite who flies to Canada on a private jet and then complains about our climate policies. If he was truly serious he'd've flown on a regularly scheduled commercial flight, which has a much smaller CO2 footprint per person.

    ...and don't give me the standard bunk about his buying 'carbon offsets' - They do nothing to actually reduce his carbon footprint.
  • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Calling a human being a fraud? my god, what is wrong with people. rhetoric like that is so pointless its better off unsaid
    • MrPotato, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No, it needs to be said loudly so that EVERYONE knows it. It's because nobody says anything anymore that our neighborhoods have gone to crap, our school systems, by and large, have gone in the crapper and we don't really have any representation in Congress anymore. When someone is a fraud, a hypocrite, or a left-wing or right-wing whack job, it MUST be said.
  • strax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16John Baird, Canada's Environment Minister, has well documented ties with Exxon. He is not credible.
    • toph2223, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9who cares what 'ties' somebody has???

      WHEN WILL YOU LEARN TO CRITICIZE POLICY AND NOT MOTIVATION???

      This is a typical tactic of the overall political climate in the US today and it disgusts me...
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10No, really, Baird is not credible. His retort to specific criticism is to increase the volume of his voice.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7 You have to concern yourself with someone's ties - it speaks to possible conflicts of interest don't cha know? Don't you think it is a good idea to know if your lawyer has ties with your prosecutor? Wouldn't you want to know if your doctor was getting kickbacks from a certain pharmacutical company? Clearly, conflicts of interest are seen as a potential serious problem - so then I ask why isn't the same transparency expected - nay DEMANDED from our public officials?

      His ties to big oil does disregard his views as being rational - or at least potentially diregards his views.


    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Conflict of Interest". It's real, check it out.

      Granted, you can also look at someone's policies to get a better indication of their outlook, but I've done that too, and they *are* essentially fraudulent.
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2John Baird may have ties with Exxon, but at least he's doing something for the environment while he has a chance. Not only is he doing more than Al Gore ever did, he's also done more in a year than the previous Liberal government did in 15 years.
  • AbsurdParadox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10I don't know a single person that believes in man made global warming, after having been presented with the facts. I also know rational people, however.
    • Kmack928, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3so thats what, your mom and dad? or as i like to call them, the basis of your thinking then, now, and ever after?

      ok maybe that was uncalled for...
    • dogstar0125, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6No you don't.
    • walkable, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ absurdparadox

      I believe that most of the effects of global warming are man-made. I would be willing to wager that most of the people in my state (California) do as well.

      I would love to see your facts and arguments. In fact, I'll provide you a forum to do so. You're free to write an intelligent article on my website (http://www.walkableneighborhoods.com/) and present the facts that show that indeed there is no causal relationship between man-made actions and global warming. Just let me know. I've never seen any arguments to lead me to believe otherwise, and believe me, I have always been cautiously skeptical about global warming.
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7And by "facts", of course, you mean "ExxonMobil-sponsored propaganda"...

      Look at the *real* science, talk to *real* scientists, and you'll see that AGW is unfortunately very highly probable. Too probable to risk doing nothing.
  • sfedak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11At least Canada is doing something, which is more than what we're doing. And while I hear Prime Minister Harper is considered fairly conservative (and a royal *****!) by Canadian standards, that's still pretty liberal and whatnot by US standards. Here in Maryland, people complain endlessly and protest the rising energy costs, while keeping energy inefficient air conditioners and two cars per family. I wonder why energy costs are rising? Maybe it's just my outsider's perception, but Canada seems to be doing a better job of the entire environmental crap than we are. I highly doubt our government would be so brash as to even set a deadline.
    • johnmccreath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@sfedak

      So you feel that our PM is an ass based on what? Opinions on digg? Opinions in newspapers? I for one like to form my opinions based on facts and actions of individuals, rather that what others (i.e. 17 y/o high school studends on Digg) feel.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm kind of with sfedak. Harper is duping the Canadian public with silence. Granted he's not a really bad prime minister in some ways, but most of the actual policies he approves run counter to what I feel will actually help people in this country; and his silent treatment is letting him get away with murder, giving the newspapers nothing to write about.

      Although, we have to be held partially responsible too, for forgetting what he did last night when it's not headline news again this afternoon.
    • sfedak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@johnmccreath
      Well, my sister does live and work in Winnipeg, and was largely upset when he took over for Paul Martin - especially since she couldn't vote, as a foreign national. Let's not forget his stance on Trudeau's NEP program and same-sex marriages, which tends to be in the minority among the Canadian people, by my observation.

      And, FYI, I'm a 26 year old female paralegal, not the usual 17 year old male internet poster with under-informed opinions.
  • Bhatch514, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews04270701.asp

    I go with David
  • tgorjanc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Reminds me of what Reagan said in the 80s:

    "We'll stop sending you acid rain as soon as you stop sending us cold weather"
  • Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Holy crap! If that isn't a huge case of the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is! Must be afraid of stealing money away from Gore Enterprises.... global warming is good for Gore's pocket and Canada wants to cash in!
  • Bhatch514, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2i am with david on this one

    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews04270701.asp
  • liberaldigger, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6If the Goracle said that "The planet has a fever", you must believe him.

    The Goracle invented the internet back in 1992 in the garage of his Tennessee mansion.

    Just be a good Democrat and believe what he has to say.

    BTW The Goracle also created the "Cleveland Steamer". He dumped on Tipper's chest one cold night in Cleveland whilst listening to SOD back in the 80's. The Goracle was proud of that moment but Tipper blamed the music for his actions and she invented the ratings system for music.

    We owe the Gores alot... They have given us soo much, the least we can do is back back and buy some carbon credits for the Goracle's new pyramid scheme(I mean non profit company....)
    • nighttrain2007, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I detect sarcasm in your post and a disbelief in the sayings of the Goracle. We must believe in Gore for he is a scientist (well he plays one in his movie doesn't he?) and don't you know that government knows best? As for his fatass wife and her ratings system for some reason I haven't detected her rantings for many years on 'music'. Wonder why that is (other than the fact that listeners of metal generally vote for one party and listeners of rap vote for another party)?

      I will leave work this afternoon and head immediately to my nearest carbon credit center (one run by a Gore company preferably) to purchase carbon credits and do my 'part' for global warming, cooling, dimming, or whatever the current 'crisis' happens to be by that time
    • ThisistheEdge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1dugg simply for "Gore invented the Cleveland Steamer"
      LMAO
  • LeeVal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Even if it is fraud, there still doing more then america
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So Canada will be the last one in the coffin. It doesn't matter who does the most if no one does enough.
  • valentine76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Harper wants to be George so bad. Canada is known for not giving it's all in regards to kyoto, this is just another prime example that things haven't changed and probably won't for a long time. And to all you Gore bashers, at least he's getting this message to the public and it's probably the most important one of our lifetimes. David Suzuki has been trying to get this same message out for decades, too bad he wasn't the vice president of the USA or maybe people would have taken him a little more seriously 30 years ago. It's an old story, Canada has let us down once again, lets get rid of this old blood.
  • JoeyJermiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ok I personally believe there is truth in both sides about global warming. I do believe we do pollute to much but at the same time the change in weather can also be a trend in the earths weather system. But to say Canada should be the moral leader of the world is stupid. Currently we recycle everything from cardboard, glass, plastic, paper we have fairly strict emission testing on all vehicles. What has the states actually implemented? On any given day in Canada a short drive and you will find recycling bins outside waiting to be picked up, it has become a normal habit among us Canadians. You very seldom see trash littering our streets or water systems because we are taught to respect our surrounding's. I have been to the states numerous times and I have seen way more trash laying around way worst then I have ever seen here in Canada. And the thing that bothers me the most about the trips i have taken is I have only ever seen one recycling bin and that was in universal studios. It angers me that while us Canadians make these sacrifices to help our environment it all becomes null and void when our neighbors don't do *****. So Mr Gore if you read this which i highly doubt how about you get your own country up to snuff first before you condemn us and our attempts to help the environment.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Um... decent points in general, but Al Gore isn't ignoring his own country's problems, he's equally hard on both of us. Actually, probably much harder on the US.

      Anyone who can do something, should do something, regardless of what country he or she is coming from or speaking to.
    • JoeyJermiah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0He may be working on both countries but before condemning our efforts he should at least get his home country on our level first.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why? As others have stated before, it's not a country-specific issue. "Every little bit helps" applies here. And he's no more in control of his own country than he is of Canada.
  • jtsnyc47, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1We've industrialized our nation, so to any of you other developing/dependent on fossil fuel production/consumption countries that can't step and fetch for Al's policies will eventually have your asses sanctioned within 10 years. So to all of you developing countries, you can either a. cost yourselves trillions playing by Al's rules or b. enjoy life in the bronze age.

    If I were Al, I'd stick to where my Passport claims I'm from first, then advise other countries on their policies.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ooh, that's great. 'We won the economic game, to hell with you other poor sods.' Would you feel the same if you lived in a developing country?

      Also, 'damn sanctions, screwing people out of a job'. What about 'damn lack of breathable atmosphere, screwing people out of a survivable habitat?' Think a tad further into the future. It's important.
  • loker269, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7One of the things that came out of this was the Canadian Flick Off campaign...trying to get more Canadians to be energy concious...unfortunately they curved the L in flick too much BUT it is to our benefit! :)

    http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8680/tobrotenflick2f93bcbrs9.jpg

    http://www.flickoff.org/

    SO PLEASE EVERYONE GO FLICK OFF!!
    • SteelFrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know who designed that logo, but he should be [insert typical violent repercussion here]. How can you miss something so blatant?
      [EDIT] My bad. Thought the program was from a federal/government fund, not a private party. Chances are it's intentional then.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@steelfrog:

      I don't get the logic... why is the government more likely to swear publicly? In my experience, it runs the other way around.
    • loker269, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it is run by a private group but it is supported by the Ministry Of Environment (along with some private entities.)
    • tmbrwolf19, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The LI = U on purpose... just look at the www.flickoff.org website...

      ARE WE FLICKED?
      WHO NEEDS TO FLICK OFF?
      GO FLICK YOURSELF!

      Yeah, there is no way they didn't know what they were doing with that one. (Its supported by Richard Branson btw)
    • SteelFrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I don't get the logic... why is the government more likely to swear publicly? In my experience, it runs the other way around."

      That's what I meant. Having now re-read myself, it did sound a bit backwards. My bad.
  • mojibyrd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5The only fraud is this jack ass gore trying to promote his global warming myth with idiots such as cheryl crowe wanting us to wipe our asses with a leaf...what next we should all time share on bicycles and at least two people have to ride before you can turn a wheel...give me a ***** break this global warming myth is going to be the biggest tax grab of em all and just a front to enforce other artificial b.s. to limit freedoms...they are all ready talking about taxing on the number of miles you drive instead of taxing a gallon of gas...surprise surpirse
    • shieldss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Tax grab, tax grab... see 'snatch'."

      -Hedy Lamarr. Oops...that's Hedly
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hm.. I agree that the tax should be on fuel gallons rather than miles driven, as it's more directly associated with the potential cause of the problem.

      Why do you believe that global warming is *****? I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm curious to hear your reasons to believe this.
    • shieldss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess no one has watched Blazing Saddles in awhile.
  • usercc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Al Gore looks at Canada for moral leadership? I've never noticed morality having anything to do with Canada. I think morality is looked down upon in Canada just like it is in the American Democrat Party.
    Al Gore is delusional as well as a fraud and has not a moral bone in his body.
    • LeoXIV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i guess morality lives in Crawford, TX.
  • shieldss, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Digg poster calls Gore's Climate plan a fraud.
  • alpha_male76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If Harper had any Nads he would appoint Dr. David Suzuki as the environment minister. Or at least a special liaison to the Environment Minister. That would be a very expensive situation for the Canadian people, but it would really get them on side.

    - and if it didn't get them on side, they could start hating Dr.Suzuki. At least that would shut him up.
  • datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I just started a carbon credit business online. I am offering carbon credits in the $1000, $5000, and $10,000 denominations. If you believe this will help the environment in any legitimate way please show me your support and go to:

    www.youmustnothaveabrainatalltothinkcarboncreditswilldoadamthing.com
    • BobsYourUncle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You misspelled damn.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, it should be "damned", but folks who would buy into the carbon credits scam are too stupid to know that.

      DSG,
      Maybe you should actually put up that site and see how much money you can make.
    • shieldss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He didn't misspell it, the URL was taken. :)
  • fungible, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1B-b-b-b-but Clinton....
  • ginnipig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Isn't Calgary the CLEANEST city in the world, and Ottawa 4th, Vancouver and Montreal 10th, Toronto 21st...... That’s basically all the major cities in Canada in the top 25!..... I don't see DC on that list at all.... y don't you criticize your own country fist DOUCH BAG!
    http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/16/worlds-cleanest-cities-biz-logistics-cx_rm_0416cleanest_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=15000
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"cleanest" != "environmentally friendly"
  • despr8t, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5This Gore ***** is gonna suck all you idiot enviro whackos into voting for him when he announces his candidacy.
    He'll be the Idiot King and you will be his loyal idiot subjects....WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Azio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The Conservative government will never adopt a sensible environmental policy, not while there's billions of dollars to be made from our natural resources. Meanwhile the opposition seems content to score cheap political points by wasting Parliament's time with obstructive, partisan legislation. Opposition needs to band together and demand a cutoff date for making Canada a fossil-fuel free country. We've wasted far too much time on this issue already. The time for action is now. Canada needs to ***** or get off the pot.
    • HomerS1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If a relatively small economy like Canada's with a relatively small carbon footprint, and a very eco-friendly population is having trouble meeting Kyoto targets, imagine how politically impossible it is for other, larger economies to meet these targets.

      Kyoto was a pipe-dream. I'll bet not one country actually reduces its carbon emissions to the 1990 levels outlined in the treaty. Some may claim to have done so by fictitious trading of emissions with some other country that did NOT actually reduce emissions either. So in the end, we have the same level of greenhouse emissions as we would have had w/o Kyoto and have only succeeded in having a transfer of $ from a rich western European country to some 3rd world country.

      Meanwhile China and India's industries are growing like gangbusters and bringing a coal-fired electric plant online every week as they are exempt from Kyoto.
  • veersite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Gore should run for prime minister of Canada!!!!!!!!!

    (...and maybe we could get rid of him down here in the States!)

    Crazy-idea-but-it-just-might-work.
  • QuantumLo0p, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1We can only hope, veersite!

    Gore could be much more credible if he:
    1) Would hold China to the same pollution standards as the rest of the world.
    2) Would get a personality transplant.

    Wait, there is a big problem here. He is not able to go against China because of huge campaign contributions he received from them. Although you would think China could be a bit more understanding because of the military secrets they were given during the Clinton administration. Go figure.

    It looks like our only hope is a personality transplant.
  • 8270369, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yankee go home. Sick of people from dysfunctional nations parachuting into Canada and griping about national policy. It's as bad as when Bono was banging his anti-Canada drums. Gee, it's a good thing us "colonials" have these Americans and Europeans to set us straight, because Canada is just such a monstrous mess compared with their clean air, crime-free, peaceful, high standard-of-living utopias.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow. I understand some of where you're coming from (nothing pisses me off more than listening to Bush hint darkly that he might have to 'fix' our democracy if we can't vote in a majority next time), but these people aren't spokespeople for their home countries, they're speaking their *own* minds.

      Furthermore, the way I see it, anything helpful is helpful. Yeah, they have to clean up too, but so do we; I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to comment on our conduct. Similarly, we get to comment on theirs.
  • TheKoopaBros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Good for him, Baird is a freaking idiot. Just like most of Harper's ministers. >_>
  • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Why can conservatives not argue, only deflect and slander? The subject is Canada's new environmental laws. Can anybody engage with that idea? No, you evidently can't. Instead you spew -- and the verb is accurate here -- a bunch of irrelevancies taken from the right-wing bogus fact factory. SO WHAT if the Crawford and the Gore farm are different in their use of energy? There's a matter of when they were built, and the standards in place during those times. The Crawford "ranch" -- actually just a house, it grows nothing but brush -- was a campaign gift in the late '90s from wealthy donors. It was time for the wealthy scion of the old Connecticut family to get some cow ***** on his Oxford suits.

    But Gore's farm could be the best place in the world for energy efficiency. He could be producing his electricity out of sheep farts, and how would that change the FACT of Canada's environmental laws?

    You've been carefully schooled in propaganda. That's it. This is why our politics is such a cesspool, and by the way, it's also why Bush is at 28% in the polls.
    • ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ever tried having a rational conversation about 'global warming' with a liberal? You're a convenient hypocrite. The subject is: AL GORE'S COMMENTS.
  • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm not about to trust what a former FBI hitman says about Canada. Gore is a murdering, corrupt banker backed bupkiss who will do anything to please his masters by helping institute a carbon tax that will go directly into the coffers of the private Federal Reserve, just like 94.6% of our income tax.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hm... really? I didn't think the Federal Reserve was private, just divorced from the government for political reasons (we don't want the President dipping into national funds).

      I guess the alternative might be earmarking the funds for a particular purpose, which to me would be greatly superior.
  • banderwocky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1baird is harpers little bitch that he lets loose to do his biding. his background is big business, not environmentalism, or humanity for that matter.

    the conservative agenda is
    1) to become more american.
    2) to get rich doing it no mater what the cost.
    3) to continue to NOT regulate polluting industry at the expense of ...well..out health and lives.

    They need to be removed from their minority government or start to LISTEN to the Canadian people.
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By "to continue to NOT regulate polluting industry", you mean, by regulating industry to cut pollutants that cause smog and respiratory illnesses by 50% or more in the next 7 years?

      Did you even read the regulations being proposed?
  • GoatmealCrisp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a good thing Mr. Gore is making his thoughts on this plan clear right out of the gay this time, lest the Conservatives try to claim his support like the last time. John Baird trying to debate Al Gore on the science of global warming is like Paris Hilton trolling for a physics throw down with Einstein. Time for the Tories to admit defeat on this one and start striving for the happy realistic medium between the Kyoto protocol our friends in the Liberal party made unattainable and the pollution holiday they had in mind.
  • tenrec, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Gore is recruiting and training a cadre of young people to travel the country showing his movie and preaching his environmental doctrine. Yet, he does not take the time to correct the scientific errors and exaggerations in his movie. One way to become fabulously rich is to found a cult. Gore is well on his way.
    • penumbra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5His scientific errors and exaggerations are not easily pointed at, as far as I can tell; I have looked at several of the recent scientific reports, and I'm not seeing clear contradictions or exaggerations. His movie is certainly a blend between the most conservative estimates on the severity of climate change, and the more alarming ones, although I think it actually leans more towards the conservative than the alarming.

      It's important to note that the job of Al Gore and the job of the scientists are different. The scientists' job is to produce absolute, provable fact; to that end, they cannot reasonably say anything that they can't show at least a strong statistical correlation for, and therefore must by necessity be conservative. Al Gore's job is to try to make the picture of climate change visible, easily comprehensible, and realistic. It's hard to know how well Al Gore is doing his job on the realistic front, but he seems to be echoing the personal, unpublished views of almost all of the scientists who wrote the conservative scientific papers, based on their personal endorsements of his work.

      I don't think scientists are always right, mind you; I am skeptical of the position of the majority of scientists on several key issues. But usually I base my disagreements of this nature on convenience and lack of evidence. For example, string theory is very convenient, and fundamentally untestable. I don't really buy it.

      On the other hand, the climate change issue isn't particularly convenient for the scientists, or anyone for that matter; if the pleas of the environmental scientists were followed, even most of *them* would be out of a job due to the temporary decrease in free wealth. And yet, they still sing the same song. And there is statistical evidence, extensive evidence. So, on this issue, I don't see a really good reason to argue.
    • tenrec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"His scientific errors and exaggerations are not easily pointed at"

      Not true! Examples:

      Gore doctrine claims global warming have been and will result in more sever and frequent hurricanes.

      See NOOA report "Global Warming and Hurricanes" http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

      Gore doctrine claims ocean rise resulting from global warming will be 20 Feet. Latest UN report says 7 to 23 Inches.
    • tenrec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming."

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=us&sid=afIESX3LdgnQ

  • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm certainly glad that Al Gore has nothing to do with my choice in computers...oh wait
  • SilverBlade2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Canadian climate plan IS a fraud. The polluting companies have to pay a 'carbon tax' for every ton of greenhouse gases they produce, but they will just pass that cost onto the consumer. There is NO incentive for the industries to cut back. Any 'Carbon tax' will just be paid by the consumer.

    Instead of a carbon tax, it should be "reduce emissions, or shut down to install technology to reduce them" There should be no middle ground, no carbon tax at all.
    • 17to85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh yeah that'll work great, then you'll get your wish and you'll have a real reason to vote the liberals back in, a policy like that would the economy. Be realistic, if you force a company to install new and more expensive technology (and it is more expensive, if it wasn't they'd be using it already) they'll just pass the buck onto consumers anyway. It's really a typical mentality when it comes to the public views on climate change. "Do something, just don't expect me to pay for it"
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dug down for wrong category. Political bickering and name calling is absolutely not science. People really interested in this nonsense will check one of the political categories.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.