Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Drudge)   Al Gore says cigarette smoking causes global warming   (libertypost.org) divider line 490
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

11302 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Sep 2006 at 4:11 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



490 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-09-29 07:33:47 PM  
Hasn't the bible proved that science doesn't exist?
 
2006-09-29 07:37:48 PM  
Yeah, well I'm a cigar smoker and they put out a lot more smoke than those little cigarettes.

Fark you Al Gore!! You can have my cigars when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!!!

/Half-joking.
//But I'm totally 'cereal' about it if he makes a move for my Cubans.
 
2006-09-29 07:44:10 PM  
the_god_nighi
"Bush's rabid anti-science and anti-intellectual stance has made it more divisive, not Gore"

I don't think I can agree with that. To think for one second that political divisivness starts with the Bush admistration ignores hundreds of years of political dicursive.

I think each party has a selective perception on science. Each party seems to be very particuar in being selective.

Examples of what I mean.

Dems - Lets ignore economists and ridicule supply side theory.

Reps - Lets ignore doctors and insist that 4 cells is a human being.

I think that for any politician, the further they can stay away from actual scientific/logical discussion of a policy the better. It seems to boil down to opportunity cost for the politician. Emotional appeals seem to create dedicated and reliable followers(voters) than long drawn out scientific/logical appeals.

In fact, Gore had this very problem. Let me remind youthat I don't like him one bit, but he is very astute and knowledgable. He often made the mistake of not using emotional rhetoric and thusly alienated his constituency during his earlier years. I think he has learned to not do this as much in later years.
 
2006-09-29 07:51:04 PM  
I find no transcript nowhere. The right wings blogs only out in citations things like "cigarette" to say that he really said the word cigarette in the speech but that they prefer not to tell us how and in what context.... Of course all right winger here have no idea of what he said. Can some Gore bashing ones can point me to a real transcript? No bulshiat like let's say: Bush said the other day that he enjoy "being a pedophile" since he is 25.
 
2006-09-29 07:52:32 PM  
Next time I see Mr. Internet I am gonna blow cigar smoke in his face!
 
2006-09-29 07:56:48 PM  
2006-09-29 07:44:10 PMkurtu5

I think each party has a selective perception on science. Each party seems to be very particuar in being selective.

Examples of what I mean.

Dems - Lets ignore economists and ridicule supply side theory.

Reps - Lets ignore doctors and insist that 4 cells is a human being.


Wow, is that why we had so many nobel prize winning economists who endorsed Kerry in the last election? Because democrats tend to ignore them?

There's a big difference between disagreeing with actual science, and disagreeing with a highly disputed economic policy that has been empirically denied by reality.
 
2006-09-29 07:56:57 PM  
2006-09-29 07:51:04 PMIllfindsomething
I find no transcript nowhere. The right wings blogs only out in citations things like "cigarette" to say that he really said the word cigarette in the speech but that they prefer not to tell us how and in what context.


Somebody's probably already said this above, but there's strong evidence that Tobacco companies are funding anti-global-warming groups. Perhaps he was commenting on that and it was taken out of context.
 
2006-09-29 07:57:55 PM  
Isn't he the one who invented the Koran?
 
2006-09-29 07:59:08 PM  
kurtu5

Dems - Lets ignore economists and ridicule supply side theory.

It's sorta hard to take something seriously when the guy who came up with it even admitted that it was a folly after he saw how "well" it worked in the real world.
 
2006-09-29 08:00:34 PM  
Heh. Just made my first directly on-topic comment of the thread, and now I have to go.

That just about sums up my usual Fark experience.
 
2006-09-29 08:02:38 PM  
www.laurietobyedison.com
kurtu5 is right!


www.pirate-women.com
His arguments are cartoonish!


www.digitalinblue.net
Um, I think we are the pirates the farkers want to see!



members.tripod.com
Darrrrnit!! I am the real pirate. Go back to yerr arrmchairrrrrrrrrs!
 
2006-09-29 08:03:25 PM  
Shouldn't smoking be carbon neutral, since the plants fix carbon from the atmosphere and, in the process of burning said plants, that same carbon is again released?

It's not like they make them out of oil. Although they might as well, because they're toxic as hell.
 
2006-09-29 08:07:15 PM  
Try and stop me from smoking AL!

i59.photobucket.com
 
2006-09-29 08:11:43 PM  
Actually, I'm pretty serial that global warming is caused by those goddamn reindeer pulling Old Saint Nick's sleigh.

Let's nuke the North Pole!

/It's the only way to be sure.
//I'm totally super serial, guys.
///MANBEARPIG lives up there!
 
2006-09-29 08:15:15 PM  
Postal Blowfish: People will say anything to be right about this horseshiat. The INTERNET did not go online in 1969. The INTERNET descended from the systems that began around that timeframe.

The term Internet to describe those systems was popular before Gore took office, and *long* before he took an interest in them. But, hey, if you want to complain that the INTERNET being used at that time, and being called the INTERNET, wasn't *really* the INTERNET but some imposter going by the same name, be my guest. His phrasing was sloppy and self-serving, and he deserved to be called on it.

/Is there some strange bug in your keyboard that forces it to capitalize INTERNET every time you type it?
 
2006-09-29 08:16:06 PM  
the_god_nighi
"Bush's rabid anti-science and anti-intellectual stance has made it more divisive, not Gore"

I don't think I can agree with that. To think for one second that political divisivness starts with the Bush admistration ignores hundreds of years of political dicursive.

I think each party has a selective perception on science. Each party seems to be very particuar in being selective.

Examples of what I mean.


Murkanen - Lets use a straw man as demonstrate that an supply side theory is wrong because it was tested in a non controlled environment.

schrodinger - Lets not make any argument here as simply state that supply side theory "has been empirically denied by reality"

Reps - Lets ignore doctors and insist that 4 cells is a human being.


/Side note for those insterested in an example I chose, to illustrated that people are selective. I am sure those prolife proponents may wish to take me to tak on the 4 cell thing. That was an example that I made so you could pull me off topic. But what the hell, start calling me a baby killer or something.


Wikipedia exceprt about how great a failure this theory is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side
"
Criticism

Critics of supply-side economics pointed to the lack of academic credentials by movement leaders such as Jude Wanniski and Robert Bartley to imply that the theories were bankrupt. Mundell in his Nobel Prize lecture countered that the success of price stability was proof that the supply-side revolution had worked. The continuing debate over supply-side policies tends to focus on the massive federal and current account deficits that have accumulated in the U.S. since 1980, although the Laffer Curve only predicts revenue increases and has nothing to do with government spending.

After the emergence of supply-side economics, several economists using supply-side theory began advocating a flat-tax system. While generally associated with conservative politics, such as former Presidential candidate Steve Forbes, flat-tax systems based on Value-Added Taxes have been proposed by liberal economists and by at least one Democratic Presidential Candidate.

The paradigm of a tax system which rewards investment over consumption was accepted across the political spectrum, and no plan not rooted in supply-side economic theories has been advanced in the United States since 1982 (with the exception of the Clinton tax cuts of 1993) which had any serious chance of passage into law. In 1986, a tax overhaul, described by Mundell as "the completion of the supply-side revolution" was drafted. It included increases in payroll taxes, decreases in top marginal rates, and increases in capital gains taxes. Combined with the mortgage interest deduction and the regressive effects of state taxation - it produces closer to a flat-tax effect. Proponents, such as Mundell and Laffer, point to the dramatic rise in the stock market as a sign that the tax overhaul was effective, although they note that the hike in capital gains may be more trouble than it was worth.
"


/Now quit replying to me so I can get around to my weekend.
 
2006-09-29 08:17:11 PM  
bdub77: Oh ok you're always right just because you say so. We'll ignore the history of our country and the billions of people around the world who elect their officials via popular vote.

When, in our country's history, was the President elected by a national popular vote? I mean, I bow to your superior historical knowledge, and don't wish to "ignore the history of our country", so I'd be pleased as punch if you would enlighten me. When, in our nation's history, was the President elected by a national popular vote?
 
2006-09-29 08:19:56 PM  
Murkanen: It's sorta hard to take something seriously when the guy who came up with it even admitted that it was a folly after he saw how "well" it worked in the real world.

Well, the GDP *did* go way up, and after-cut taxes *were* higher than pre-cut taxes, so I'd say it worked pretty "well". What measure were you using?

/Now if only spending had been cut as well, instead of rising faster than the tax receipts...
 
2006-09-29 08:21:48 PM  
kurtu5: But what the hell, start calling me a baby killer or something.

I think that term is forever reserved for LBJ. :)

/Life begins when the tumor metastisizes.
 
2006-09-29 08:22:23 PM  
Sloth_DC If you ever elected to go to college you may be more informed.

Oh wait, Sloth_DC, that was not meant to be directed at you but some one else.
 
2006-09-29 08:24:20 PM  
kurtu5: Sloth_DC If you ever elected to go to college you may be more informed.

Oh wait, Sloth_DC, that was not meant to be directed at you but some one else.


Say what?
 
2006-09-29 08:25:12 PM  
Actually life the sperm and eggs are alive too. But this is not an abortion debate is it?

/Prochoice. :)

/Prefer that the choice is protection more than abortion.

/Oh wait, since I am prochoice, then i cant call you prolife, you "antichoicer" :)
 
2006-09-29 08:25:42 PM  
Bah, my drafting classroom put off more heat every day than 100 cigarettes combind back in summer. Wonder when he'll discover how much heat the average computer server puts off...
 
2006-09-29 08:27:03 PM  
elected college..... electoral college.... trying word play.

/Not succeeding on my proxy comment towards bdub77.
 
2006-09-29 08:27:40 PM  
kurtu5: /Oh wait, since I am prochoice, then i cant call you prolife, you "antichoicer" :)

With whom are you debatin?

/Prochoice :)
//Thought the metastizing line was dead obvious sarcasm...
 
2006-09-29 08:28:59 PM  
Sloth, just ignore me, you wrote tumor and I read blastosphere.
 
2006-09-29 08:33:23 PM  
Sloth_DC: When, in our country's history, was the President elected by a national popular vote? I mean, I bow to your superior historical knowledge, and don't wish to "ignore the history of our country", so I'd be pleased as punch if you would enlighten me. When, in our nation's history, was the President elected by a national popular vote?

I'm not referring to the presidency but to fact that every elected official besides the president in this country is elected by popular vote. I'm sure that sand in your vagina is really chafing right about now.
 
2006-09-29 08:44:16 PM  
Jesus its a hair split fest in here.

bdub77 I think if Sloth were more verbose, he may have initially said, "I think that when you mention 'popular vote' is non imaginary, it is apparent that you think 'popular vote' is a constitutionaly recognzed measure of the progress in determining who will be the next president, and I think you are wrong."

Sloth_DC Don't you hate splitting hairs? I guess I am not the only one misreading things tonight and for that I am happy.
 
2006-09-29 08:47:47 PM  
DIAPI (Die in a polar icecap)

Die in a polar incursion
 
2006-09-29 08:53:24 PM  
Vetinari: There are three major components of the Earth's orbit about the sun that contribute to changes in our climate. First, the Earth's spin on its axis is wobbly, much like a spinning top that starts to wobble after it slows down. This wobble amounts to a variation of up to 23.5 degrees to either side of the axis. The amount of tilt in the Earth's rotation affects the amount of sunlight striking the different parts of the globe. The greater the tilt, the stronger the difference in seasons (i.e., more tilt equals sharper differences between summer and winter temperatures). The range of motion in the tilt (from left-of-center to right-of-center and back again) takes place over a period of 41,000 years. As a result of a wobble in the Earth's spin, the position of the Earth on its elliptical path changes, relative to the time of year. This phenomenon is called the precession of equinoxes. The cycle of equinox precession takes 23,000 years to complete.... Finally, the shape of Earth's orbit also changes. At one extreme, the orbit is more circular, so that each season receives about the same amount of insolation. At the other extreme, the orbital ellipse is stretched longer, exaggerating the differences between seasons. The eccentricity of Earth's orbit also proceeds through a long cycle, which takes 100,000 years. Major glacial events in the Quaternary have coincided when the phases of axial tilt, precession of equinoxes and eccentricity of orbit are all lined up to give the northern hemisphere the least amount of summer insolation.

You do know that whole hypothesis that the ice age cycles are directly tied to Earth's orbital variation in that way is highly disputed and there are major variations that it currently just kind of handwaves over, right?
 
2006-09-29 08:54:36 PM  
kurtu5: I think if Sloth were more verbose, he may have initially said, "I think that when you mention 'popular vote' is non imaginary, it is apparent that you think 'popular vote' is a constitutionaly recognzed measure of the progress in determining who will be the next president, and I think you are wrong."

Hey I'll be the first to admit it's completely off topic. I just like to bait people like Sloth_DCwho only deal in absolute statements like this and won't bother themselves to see why saying sh*t like 'popular vote doesn't exist' is a condescending, trollish thing to say until you paint them into a very specific corner, which he has now very effectively done.
 
2006-09-29 08:54:48 PM  
Be nice to Mr. Gore, he is your next president. The fool! Anyone who wants to be the next prez is an idiot. All the tough choices that the current idiot could not make will have to be made.

Pull outta Iraq, refight the war against AQ and the Taliban. Pay down debt, cut spending...say sorry to France and Europe.

...admit Saddam was better than the current situation...admit that the Constitution is a good document...admit that ...

oh God...who would want to be Prez?
 
2006-09-29 08:55:58 PM  
Would this be the same Drudge report that has not one link to the CNN story about Bush seeking protection for himself from war crimes ... but a link to this "developing" story and something about wigs for babies?

Sweet Jebus on a pogo stick, this isn't a red herring, it's throbbing neon fuchia herring.

Drudge: the official channel changer of the GOP.
 
2006-09-29 08:58:35 PM  
Sloth_DC
Go back to college and take some science courses. "Theory" and "Law" don't mean what you think they mean.

/Oh, and turn off your damn computer - Electromagentism is "just" a Theory.


I am just pointing out that the science commuity is far from calling global warming a fact.

the_god_ninti

No you can't. You can't find three that haven't been paid a lot of money by the oil industry. If you want to give it a shot I will be happy to shoot them all down.


Consider this :

Richard Lindzen, Dean of meteorology at MIT:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/24/gb.01.html (pops)

I guess you can call the head of metorology at MIT a hack if you like
 
2006-09-29 09:02:46 PM  
Sloth_DC: His phrasing was sloppy and self-serving, and he deserved to be called on it.


Tubes! You got your internets through a tube! Senator Stevens knows.
 
2006-09-29 09:08:42 PM  
rob.d: oh God...who would want to be Prez?

I'll take a whack at it. First thing I'd do is get legislation introduced to cut Congresscritters' pay to the median income of the people in the districts they live in. Round-trip travel (coach class airfare, their choice of airline) and lodging in DC during session will be provided but actual paychecks would be that median income figure.

And every measure they send me before that one gets an automatic veto. They can override it if they wish, but I won't put my name on it.
 
2006-09-29 09:12:34 PM  
kurtu5, you've watched Jurassic Park too many times, and obviously have zero understanding of science. It is undeniable that we as a species are having an effect on our environment that if left unchecked will be disastrous by any definition.

Yes, over millions of years our planet has endured the kind of serious catastrophes that you mention, all of which would obviously not make the planet disappear. All of which would certainly have destroyed all of humanity, if not all life, had it existed at the time.

But, go ahead, be a facetious jackass. If we don't take action, We (humanity) will eventually render the planet virtually uninhabitable for us (humans).

Yes, the planet will still be here, dumbass. There may even be lower forms of life that survive such as cockroaches and Matt Drudge, but WE will still have lost our place here.

And yes, for the farking millionth time Gore never said he "invented" the internet, but he rightly has pointed out that none of you assholes would be here posting on the internet as we now know it without him. Why is that so hard for you farking idiots to admit?

Love him or hate him, if you think we'd all be here on fark if not for him, you are wrong.
 
2006-09-29 09:19:01 PM  
2006-09-29 07:09:19 PM dougske
Gore's mouth is causing global warming.
.......................................
So is his fat stank farting wifes ass..LOL.
 
2006-09-29 09:25:21 PM  
The fascists are lying to you again.
Al Gore never, ever said that.

That is all.
 
2006-09-29 09:25:37 PM  
bdub77

Well you have to be honest, we all do this. I will often miss one small phrase in a large argument that I present, and someone else will gravitate to it.

I think alot of us commenters, will then go off that phrase in a reply and only of clarifying it make an additional comment with new gravitation point. Rinse repeat ya know?
 
2006-09-29 09:28:20 PM  
Actually, you're rather misinformed. The Internet as we know it didn't come into existence until 1983 with the introduction of TCP/IP and dns. Even then it was still limited entirely to the Government and some schools. In 1988 Gore sponsored the National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network).In 1992 Gore cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 which opened the Internet to commercial traffic. The same year the WWW was released by CERN (via Snopes and the history of the internet)

Without those two bills, the Internet as we know it would not exist.

Gore has the blood of millions of innocent kittens on his hands.....
 
2006-09-29 09:31:53 PM  
al gore has given his global warming lecture how many times? i am sure a farker has seen it. does gore make wild ass statements like this? or did u fall asleep?
 
2006-09-29 09:36:57 PM  
2006-09-29 08:16:06 PMkurtu5

Wikipedia exceprt about how great a failure this theory is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side


A Trojan Horse

Stronger critiques of supply-side economics dismiss the entire project as a complete failure which is a trojan horse for reducing marginal tax rates on upper income brackets. These critiques are found in Sameul Bowles' work, which argues that real productivity fell under supply-side taxation regimes on a unit-worker basis. Paul Krugman of MIT called supply-side economics "Peddling Prosperity" and dismissed it as being unworthy of serious economists in a 1994 book written for the general audience. Since Krugman's early work was in international currency areas, the very theory for which Mundell received his Nobel Prize, his criticism was drawn in specifically sharp terms.

These criticisms point to the explosion in deficits and the conversion of price volatility to currency volatility as proofs that supply-side economics does not work. Supply-side defenders counter that the theory was never designed to consider government spending, and therefore cannot be blamed for this outcome. They also counter that tax revenues and the economy grew under supply-side policy, as predicted and that the Laffer Curve worked as advertised.

In 2003, the Wall Street Journal declared the debate over supply-side economics to have ended "with a whimper" after extensive modelling performed by the Congressional Budget Office failed to support supply-side policies. [11] It was also suggested that Dan Crippen may have lost his chance at reappointment as head of the CBO for failing to support supply-side inspired dynamic scoring.


Interesting.
 
2006-09-29 09:42:04 PM  
2006-09-29 09:31:53 PMSlothB77

al gore has given his global warming lecture how many times? i am sure a farker has seen it. does gore make wild ass statements like this? or did u fall asleep?


My guess is that Al Gore made an analogue between how cigarette companies used to deny their products cause cancer to oil companies now denying that that their products cause global warming.

Drudge then half assed listen to the phrases "cigarettes... cause... global... warming" and pretended that Al Gore said it together.
 
2006-09-29 09:44:59 PM  
so...does anybody think AlGore is running in 2008?

Anybody gonna vote for him?
 
2006-09-29 09:51:42 PM  
bdub77

I'm not referring to the presidency but to fact that every elected official besides the president in this country is elected by popular vote. I'm sure that sand in your vagina is really chafing right about now.


And do you remember why the President shares that distinction with the Vice President? In short, so that even the smallest of states had an opportunity to interact in the vote without their numbers being so insignificant as to render them "unheard".

As others have been trying to point out, with about 200 million Americans being eligible to vote, and having nowhere near a majority of them at the polls, there will be NO president elected by popular vote until voting becomes compulsory.

/the electoral college will likely stand so long as there are states (Wyoming, for example 509,294 as of 2005 census) with less residents in their entire state than many major ciities...

(Palm Bay, Florida, hardly a budding metropolis, has at least 101,119 by itself)
 
2006-09-29 09:52:39 PM  
so...does anybody think AlGore is running in 2008?

Matt Drudge apparently does. And so do a lot of the GOP. Hence the smear campaign.

Anybody gonna vote for him?

Probably 51% of the population or more, yeah.
 
2006-09-29 09:55:09 PM  
FredGarvin

"But, go ahead, be a facetious jackass. If we don't take action, We (humanity) will eventually render the planet virtually uninhabitable for us (humans)."

Well I was dead serious when I responded to your alarmist rhetoric. In no way was my comment in jest or intended to be humorous.

I have to call bullshiat on your alarmist words and emotional appeals.

We inhabit nearly every available ecosystem on this globe. Even the whole concept of global nuclear war was not an extermination threat to the species. But I don't want to debate you over strontium-90 cancer rates and birth rate because it is obvious that I have zero understanding of the science involved. What I am getting at is your are going to the far extreme by using such expansive terminology.

Maybe we should be talking about what the quality of life will be like? Or what economic impacts occur by region. Or how much would a global warming event affects biodiversity; either positive or negative. But, no, you make blanket statements that we will loose the planet, render it uninhabitable or what ever. What hubris for such an primitive lot that we are.

I don't think the planet will become uninhabitable unless we get fairly adavanced and start dropping Kupier belt objects onto it purposely. The fate of the Earth as a physical object is to be engulfed by the sun. So you may be right after a certain point, we may simply choose to completely dismantle it and convert it into star ships, mega structures or whatever; if our descendants are even still around.
 
2006-09-29 09:59:15 PM  
bdub77: I'm not referring to the presidency but to fact that every elected official besides the president in this country is elected by popular vote.

Well, they are now. The switch to electing Senators by popular vote is pretty recent - and not very successful, in my opinion.
 
2006-09-29 10:00:27 PM  
Oh and FredGarvin when you say,

"And yes, for the farking millionth time Gore never said he "invented" the internet, but he rightly has pointed out that none of you assholes would be here posting on the internet as we now know it without him. Why is that so hard for you farking idiots to admit?"

I really don't give any credibilty to that notion. The notion that without Gore, us assholes would not have the internet. He was on a committee. Committees are not a single person deciding to give government technology to the public domain. And it may very well be that the decision would have happened without Gore on that committee.
 
Displayed 50 of 490 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report