Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Al Gore Can Kiss My ....

A great line on the David Letterman show in a section called THE ACADEMY AWARDS RETROSPECTIVE. Cue a reporter out on the snowfilled streets of New York...

"So Al Gore won an Oscar for global warming. Well Al Gore can kiss my frozen ass."

So eloquent, and so concise. I particularly loved the scenes of all those celebrities swooning over Gore... having all arrived in their 7 litre stretch limos. Dontcha just love Hollywood hypocrisy?

37 comments:

pommygranate said...

Al Gore is such a hypocrite it is beyond belief that he can stand up and preach. Some inconvenient truths

Yak40 said...

Well said pommygranate, these hypocrites need exposure, whether it's AlBore or other Democrat millionaire "do as I say, not as I do" types like Pelosi et al.

Sabretache said...

Hollywood hypocrisy?

How about US hypocrisy? - They comprise 5% of the worlds population and use over 25% of its oil (70% of it imported) - and, of course 'The US way of life is non-negotiable'.

Goes a long way to explaining just what our involvement in the ME is all about doesn't it?

YAK40 -'Do as I say not as I do'? That's not a Democrat vice, it defines the USA's relationship to the rest of the world - and to a large extent our own too.

Mark said...

Yeah, almost as hypocritical as pedalling your pushbike around in front of a media pack, all the while being tailed by a car with a fresh shirt!

Anonymous said...

Al Gore a hypocrite? What about that Brit fellah who arrives for work on a bike whilst his briefcase follows in a limo? Cameron I think his name is.

nadders said...

15 year old daughter came home from school the other day, having just had the crap Gore film shown as part of her geography course

She was pretty pissed off as were most of her class mates

allan said...

If Al Gore is a hypocrite, what the hell does that make David Cameron?

Anonymous said...

:D

Anonymous said...

The difference is that al gore is a failed politician and his climate eco-babble view has no downside. If hes right then great, he makes plenty today out of it. if hes wrong he will be dead anyway and we will have wasted loads of money on his advice

david Cameron green nut-culet babble equally has no downside but he will have a few more important problems on his plate in 3 years time.


if I told you I had a brilliant new foreign policy idea that support of vegetarians, al gore, tony blair, cameron and tax hungry governments you would laugh at me.

He prob thinks a bloke with a beard on a cloud made the earth as well.

Nice to see rational debate is alive and well in USA.

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

I have never understood why so many Hollywood actors and actresses are liberal/green. It may be a legacy from the industry's roots in the New York garment industry. Or perhaps they are what Nick Cohen calls herbivores, munching away with their heads down and following the herd.

I guess it doesn't matter very much. Does anybody really care what these Hollywood types say about politics?

pommygranate said...

mark, anonymous and allen

Do you mean this?

pommygranate said...

Trumpeter

Does anybody really care what these Hollywood types say about politics?

Sadly they do.

Image is everything right now. Fortunately the Conservative party seem to have finally grasped this.

barnacle_bill said...

Me thinks you hath been drinking too much from the fountain of Neo-Conservatism since landing upon those foreign shores Iain.

Richard Dale said...

Sabretache

You might like to look up the definition of "hypocrisy". It actually has a defined meaningl you can't just make one up.

Henry Whitmarsh said...

If you instinctively dislike An Inconvenient Truth I STRONGLY recomomend that you take a look at Mine Your Own Business. It's a documentary which looks at the dark side of environmentalism as it tries to stop poor countries developing.

no longer anonymous said...

"How about US hypocrisy? - They comprise 5% of the worlds population and use over 25% of its oil (70% of it imported) - and, of course 'The US way of life is non-negotiable'."

Damn right it isn't. You can hardly expect them to give up wealth and freedom that they have earnt predominantly through innovation and trade. I for one will certainly not vote for any British Government that wants to confiscate half my wealth and send it to be squandered in Africa.

jafo said...

I don't know how true this is, but recently I read in the newspapers that a "green" charity invited Al Gore to come to London to speak at their seminar on global warming, but he wanted them to provide him with THREE first class air tickets AND pay a considerable sum for his valuable time, a cost of approx £85,000 for the charity. The charity couldn't afford it - he didn't come.

Obviously his desire to spread his message has a hefty price tag attached!

Anonymous said...

Ooh..Mr Dale even a sanctimonious boring old curmudgeonly git like me has to laugh at this. Hope you have packed an extra pair of Helly Hansen long johns and some Damart pants.

wrinkled weasel said...

Perception and reality in America is wider than the Grand Canyon.

mutleythedog said...

Al Gore is possibly the dullest man on the planet, he is a major source of "Global Boring" a new threat to the mental health of mankind.. We do need to take action to stop him now before the effects are irreversible and every country becomes Sweden, and every city is Brussels. The huge fees he commands are to pay the Boring tax imposed on Gore to reduce his travel rate, and help control Global Boring. Its good to see the US Government acting on this one....

Johnathan said...

"How about US hypocrisy? - They comprise 5% of the worlds population and use over 25% of its oil (70% of it imported) - and, of course 'The US way of life is non-negotiable'.'

The reasoning of this commenter is wrong. The US uses so much oil, even though it accounts for 5% of the world's headcount, because it is so much richer than most other nations. As China, India, Brazil, etc, get richer, their share of energy consumption will rise, and that of the US will drop. The US does not need to give up anything for this simple mathematical fact to come through.

Talking about how wrong it is for the US to use x or y percent of a resource is utterly meaningless without taking account of the economic dynamics that brought that state about in the first place, such as markets, stable property rights - in short, capitalism.

Sabretache said...

Johnathan.

Do a little, rudimentary research on 'Peak Oil'. Then maybe you'll understand my point rather than your false interpretation of it. If resources were infinite, you'd have a point. As it is North Sea Oil, for example, will be exhausted in 10-15 years time and global oil production will be well past it's peak. In other words, it is simply not possible for the rest of the world to achieve current US levels of oil consumption. But you can bet your sweet life the US (or anyone else for that matter) will not be reigning in the excesses of its 'happy-motoring', hydro-carbon based, suburban lifestyle any time soon . That's why the ME is important to them (and us) - and that's where the hypocrisy lies.

In fact it is the impending peak in global oil production that is the real epoch-changing issue right now - NOT global warming. Nobody talks about it but, at Privy Council level (and its equivalent in the US and elsewhere) foreign policy and geo-political aims are totally dominated by it.

Anonymous said...

No shortage of petrobucks for the astroturfing fraternity by the look of it. You've made a Faustian pact my friends!

no longer anonymous said...

"But you can bet your sweet life the US (or anyone else for that matter) will not be reigning in the excesses of its 'happy-motoring', hydro-carbon based, suburban lifestyle any time soon."

Correct, we won't. As well as the oil is there we might as well enjoy it while we can.

Richard Dale said...

Sabretache

You're still wrong about the meaning of hypocrisy. Since we are talking about hypocrisy, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion! Please look the word up, it's a fairly simple one really.

jafo

Not to mention the fuel used to carry 3 first-class seats.

Richard Dale said...

Looking for further info I found a blog post (wizbangblog.com look for 26 February). Apparently if we want to reduce carbon footprints we should follow Bush rather than Gore.

Interesting to note that the President's private residence is less than twice the size of an average US home (4000 sq ft compared to 2300 sq ft). Most importantly of course it is about as environmentally sound as it could be, using many different criteria not just the ridiculous obsession with carbon.

Andrew Ian said...

And simply consider all that faux hot air being eminating by the gobs of those so-called stars surely that is harming the enviroment as well.

Neil Craig said...

Peak oil has been put back by another couple of generations, at least, by the fact that the Israelis have developer technology to mkae shale oil useable as $17 a barrel.

This is the umpteenth time it has ben put back by technological improvement since it was first predicted, in the 1850s, that oil would disappear when all the whales had been hunted.

Anonymous said...

"Well Al Gore can kiss my frozen ass.""

you may be able to convert him politically, Iain, I am not too sure about altering his sexual proclivities!

Adam said...

The limos, I believe, were 'green'. Which I guess just means that they were hybrids.

Richard Dale said...

Hybrids don't make that much difference. Jeremy Clarkson managed 48 mpg in a Prius, IIRC, and I used to get better out of an old Rover diesel. In fact if whole life environmental impact including build costs are taken into account then the Toyota is actually less environmetally friendly than many 4x4s.

JosephintheBracknell said...

Al Gore is a dork. The inconvenient truth about his film is that it's not truth.

Michael Evilcorn said...

Just imagine how much jet fuel Al Gore needs to fly his super fat butt all over the planet.

Adam said...

I don't know the truth about the Gore house thing, but I do know that Drudge, who has been leading the 'Gore hypocrisy/lunacy' charge for ages, can't, in general, be trusted to be honest or admit mistakes. Anyhow, Gore is having a go back at Drudge: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

No idea what the actual facts are, myself. Neither Drudge and his ilk, nor Gore and his supporters, have much motive to tell the truth about Gore's carbon footprint unless it suits them.

Richard Dale: the comparison in this case would be between a petrol engined car and a hybrid. As I understand it, the bigger issue is whether the production of hybrids has a bigger carbon footprint than the savings from using them, ie, what mileage you have to drive before you get better than even. I believe that Caliifornia has some pollution restrictions on diesel-engined vehicles which tend to reduce the fuel economy, too.

Richard Dale said...

Well if you include production emissions I believe that the Prius is only beaten by supercars in carbon output; it's up there with the Hummer H2. I'm not a big fan of carbon as an environmental indicator, but many are, especially Gore.

There is some very clean diesel technlogy noow, and in any case for people who really believe the man-made global warming myth surely the first campaign in California is to allow diesel cars - stop protecting the local environmnet at the expense of the global environment. The whole issue is the hypocrisy of current campaigns. It is therefore fair to compare the hybrids with a diesel. Also to compare their hybrid limos with, say, a petrol or diesel Jag they could perfectly well have arrived in!

Adam said...

Production emissions, then, become part of the question of how far you have to drive to do better than an equivalent conventionally-engined car.

The point about diessl restrictions in CA is that the Oscars took place in CA.

Dave said...

Oh Ian. "So eloquent, and so concise". It was a joke, not a coherent argument that the scientific concensus on global warming is wrong.
You're getting as bizarre as Mel Phillips on this one. Perhaps we should come up with a name for right wingers who label winter as "evidence" there's no such thing as climate change... perhaps "Earthbats" ?