John Stossel Presents a Debate Against Global Warming

"It's a shame because this world is deteriorating before our eyes and all politically partisan hacks want to do is trash the science simply because they don't want to have to change the status quo way of doing things."
^There's a huge difference between trashing science, and being skeptical of the data presented and examining it for accuracy

@dabne

"Current.com is more about sleaze, sex, and biased liberal views"

Sure.
Like Microsoft Surveys The Competition.
Or Burma Now - Spies, Suspicion, and Empty Monasteries.
How many items did you look at?

At least once you should know what you are talking about. It would be fresh air.

"not because I'm getting any "real" news. "

That's because in your world the real news is that Gore showed up in a limo at the Oscar -- not because that really happened but because FOX told you that it happened.

"It makes me feel even sorrier for Gore, two lost presidential elections and now this?"

Funny. You seem to be more obsessed with those presidential elections than Gore himself. Can't you move on or what? It's 2007 not 2000 or 1988.

You don't feel sorry for him. You envy him because he is rich and successful and you are not. Your post about how a limo is a class distinction even if it's a Prius makes that clear.

@plusaf

"you've described the traditional "liberal solution to everything:........ the government is the only solution." ..."

Huh? I didn't say anything like that. Stop making things up.
I said just the opposite.

"He knows if there ever will be a low-carbon economy the market not the government will create it."

"so creating a VC group that invests in what? "

In green technologies.
Apparently you didn't click on that link and read the article.

Here it is again:

According to Doerr, by 2009 more than a third of Kleiner's latest fund, which was raised in 2006 and totals $600 million, will be invested in technologies that aim to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

http://tinyurl.com/2fbleq

Lesson: before asking questions you should do some research.

"working to pass laws to force the "free market" to do "what's right"? "

What? Did you lose it?
Venture capitalists invest money in companies which have a promising product or service. Then if the product/service is successful they take a profit. If the product.service fails because of lack of demand they lose money.
The whole process is the blood of free market capitalism. Without venture capitalists, for example, you couldn't post on this site now.

"sorry, that's liberal stuff, not free-market.."

Except that's not what this VC firm is doing therefore you are attacking a strawman.

"if VCs are investing in businesses to help them come to market faster, well....... ya don't need the government involved in that at all,"

Of course not. And who the hell said you need
government involved in that?
Did you actually pay attention to what I wrote?

And would you please answer my question?

You said:
"for whom the only solution to all problems is conservation, rather than increasing supply. "

Exactly who are you talking about?
Who said the "only solution to all problems is conservation"?

@plusaf

What do you want with the Vostok ice core data?
We know about the glacial-interglacial cycle, thank you.
Do you assume the IPCC scientists don't? You really think they didn't look at orbital forcing?
How arrogant!

We know that the warming trend over the last 150 years cannot be explained by the Milankovich cycles.

The rate of warming during previous warmer interglacial periods is estimated from polar ice cores to 1.5 °C per millennium, without abrupt changes. Climate change expected for the 21st century should however be at least 10 times faster.

To cite this article: V. Masson-Delmotte et al., C. R. Geoscience 337 (2005).
http://tinyurl.com/2995pr

The study used temperatures around the world taken during the last century. Scientists concluded that these data showed the Earth has been warming at the remarkably rapid rate of approximately 0.36° Fahrenheit (0.2° Celsius) per decade for the past 30 years.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/

A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C
between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age
was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The
much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect
the global mean temperature.

Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.

http://tinyurl.com/29lxve

@plusaf

"why was Greenland once an agricultural area"

Don't exaggerate. Greenland was not an agricultural area. Certain parts of Greenland were agricultural areas. Just like today.

Greenland Agriculture - products
http://www.indexmundi.com/greenland/agriculture_products.html

Because of these conditions, the economic life of this area is also very different from the rest of Greenland, with sheep farming and agriculture playing an important part.

http://www.greenland-guide.gl/reg-south.htm

"why were grapes once grown in southern England? "

Once?

Well...

http://www.englishwineproducers.com/

English vineyards again?.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/english-vineyards-again/

"why were there huts in mountain passes at high altitudes in Switzerland hundreds or more years ago, which have been under ice since then"
Hundreds or more years ago? What does that mean?
Hundreds or thousands of years ago?
Strange you don't even know when this happened but at the same time you are absolutely sure it happened.
If what you say is in fact true it could only happen during the MWP, between the 10th and 14th century.
Now I'd like to know which mountain passes you talk about so we can verify whether they are in fact under ice today.

Also, it would be a good first step if you stopped confusing local or regional climates with global climate. There is no evidence that the MWP was a global phenomenon.
Today however there is evidence that global mean temperatures are higher than they were before the industrial age.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

But more importantly why do you think anyone ever said that Earth's climate has been stable for billions of years before humans started burning fossil fuels?

Just another straw man.

dabne, what is a "real issue" news item to you? I agree that CurrentTV looks more like a Liberal site but it does not try and shut out the right or libertarian views . I just think those voices do not come here often. What is a "real issue" news item to you?

you'll be here.

Just bringing a fair and balanced opinion to the table.

To stephenthomson I say, If you believe this website will succeed when it's about pulling and posting "other stupid sources," that's crazy.

Current.com is more about sleaze, sex, and biased liberal views, than any "real issue" news. Be original, right now you're just a garbage pit. I'm here because I'm trying to add balance, not because I'm getting any "real" news. I was much more interested in current.tv than this mess. It makes me feel even sorrier for Gore, two lost presidential elections and now this?

crob... "The farmers in the Grain Belt are experiencing terrible droughts. " ........................ they did in the 30's too.... have you read or seen "The Grapes of Wrath"? .............. why were there midwest droughts in the 30s??????

Again the point isn't WHAT is causing the droughts, we need to figure out what GOVERNMENT ACTION we will need to take to address the problem. Sitting on our hands and doing nothing isn't a great solution. Shrugging our shoulders as the crops wilt isn't exactly leadership. Again, simply muttering over and over again how much you hate Al Gore isn't helping with the very real droughts.

oh please. when the caps are gone in less than 30 years, if you're still around, are you going to say it wasn't our fault? it was just time for them to go?

and another thing Smorrisey, in the details section of your Bio here on Current you say "arguing just for argument's sake" is one of the things your involved with. hmmm....... so if you like to do that....can others do that too? if you are arguing for argument's sake is that not a waste of time? Is that not insane? Do you you need to find something better to do with your time. Crap....am I arguing with you just for argument's sake? DUoH!@ :)

twodee, agreed. Current.com is about voicing your opinion. too many people dont even know how anymore. since 9/11, people have been silenced either coercively or psychologically, and subdued into believing that speaking out is either heresy or just plain dangerous.

:) I am not asking you to keep it to yourself. Just hopoing you could fill in a bit more detail as to why you just told these people they are insane and should go find something better to do. If just sounds a bit like you want them to shut up. There is that option to just not read the noise and move along. No?

smorrisey? dialogue is a bad thing?

Also, it doesn’t actually matter what the exact cause of the climate change is – the droughts are already here and getting worse! If you were in a burning house – does it really matter at that moment what specifically started the blaze? No. Obviously what’s important is what your reaction is. The farmers in the Grain Belt are experiencing terrible droughts. Critical fresh water and irrigation sources within the US are dropping --- and we need to figure out how to conserve the water we have! Should we freeze the housing boom in Las Vegas because that is a waste of water resources? Should we be taking steps to figure out a way to “stockpile” rainfall in the wetter parts of the country to assist farmers who have crops wilting in the drought areas? Again, debating how the warming (and subsequent water shortages) occurred isn’t as important as taking action to deal with the consequences. The water shortages could be caused by Martians or Al Gore or the Illuminati or climate change – but that isn’t really as important as developing PLANS for how to deal with the results of the warming. The Conservatives can rant about how they hate Al Gore all day long – but saying “I Hate Al Gore!” doesn’t do a thing to help a farmer going bankrupt because of the droughts.

Here's why the "Al Gore Is A Hypocrite!" line of "reasoning" makes no sense whatsoever. If your doctor smoked -- and then told you that smoking was bad for your health, would you seriously continue smoking on the grounds that the person giving you advice is a hypocrite? Ah! Doesn't make much sense does it? Also, Al Gore never said that the solution to climate change was to destroy all cars. That's just creative fiction written by Karl Rove. Nor did Al Gore say that all airplanes should be destroyed. Again, that's just what the fiction writers at the Crawford Ranch have written. What Al Gore DID say was that the government should immediately raise industrial pollution standards -- requiring aging, outdated or poorly run factories to upgrade their emission scrubbers and/or reduce their amount of toxins they discharge into our drinking water. Uh, you do realize this doesn't "hurt" your lifestyle in any way, right? I would hope this would finally put the whole "Al Gore is a hypocrite!" neocon theory to bed but (sigh) we all know they won't let it go.

Dabne, evidently this site attracts more than just liberal-minded people.
And i'm sure in 2 years, you'll still be here.

@VoyagerFilms

He started with
"Gore is a hypocrite because he showed up in a Limo"
and ended up with
"Gore is a hypocrite because even if he showed up in a Prius he still showed up in a limo and I hate rich people especially rich liberals as I work hard and they don't".

Makes sense.

We're on your side Stardate. dabne feeds on the negative, the conflict. Since he's not empowered from within, his motivation comes as a reaction to others - from what is outside himself.

No meaningful perspective comes from this, and no logic can be attributed - it simply seeks to justify itself, that's about all.

@dabne

"Here is a collection of stardate's biased, liberal, paranoid, personal attacks towards me, enjoy."

Talk about personal attacks.
More whining will not make you convincing. One doesn't have to be biased, liberal, paranoid to know that you lied. It's enough to know that Gore didn't show up in a limo at the Oscar. That's it. Nothing biased, liberal or paranoid about that.

"My favorite line of stardate's is when I am quoted as saying, "I just think it wasn't the right message to send when he is out trying to raise awareness for the planet."

And his or her reply is...

"No that's not what you thought.""

It is my favorite line, too. As I know it's true even while you are too coward to admit it.

""For the record, I never said gas guzzler. read above." But stardate is so honest, he could never lie.""

As you can see in that citation itself I said you suggested he was a hypocrite for using a gas guzzler at the Oscar.
You didn't use that phrase as you assumed that everyone knows a Limo is a gas guzzler. If it was not your whole argument that Gore is a hypocrite would collapse.

Or what kind of Limo were you talking about? Certainly not an ecolimo as you said this later:

"How the hell is anyone supposed to know what kind of emissions the damn limo is shooting into the air."

Well, those who knew that it was a Prius could know "what kind of emissions it was shooting into the air."

And why did you say this:

Limo's are what we should all be cruising around in to save the environment.

Why on earth would you have said that if you had not
thought Gore was in a gas guzzler Limo?
Cruising around in a Prius is actually a way to reduce CO2 emission as opposed to cruising around in gas guzzler SUV's or Limos.

And if you actually knew and meant to say that Gore was in a Prius not a gas guzzler limo then why do you keep dodging this question:

Did Gore show up in an environmentally friendly car? Yes or no?

Not that it's the only question you dodge but answer this first.

Here is a collection of stardate's biased, liberal, paranoid, personal attacks towards me, enjoy. Oh, and count the number of times he or she uses the word lie or liar.

--------------------------------------

You simply lie about him. You lie about him simply because you are a right wing ideologue and that's what you makes you feel good.

If you want to poke fun of him at least do it by telling the truth. Not making things up or spreading lies you heard from some idiot in the right wing media.

No matter how you define prefect and no matter whether you or anyone thinks Gore is perfect you still lied when you suggested he was a hypocrite for using a gas guzzler at the Oscar.

-------------"For the record, I never said gas guzzler. read above." But stardate is so honest, he could never lie."------------------

You now understand all of this. It's not that you are that stupid. You just keep lying because you are too coward to admit that you were caught lying.

-----------------------

My favorite line of stardate's is when I am quoted as saying, "I just think it wasn't the right message to send when he is out trying to raise awareness for the planet."

And his or her reply is...

"No that's not what you thought."

Classic. Please tell me more about my own thoughts.

@plusaf

""Former President Clinton is taller than Danny DeVito. What is the other side to that argument? " ???? ................... of course there is another side to the argument: the same side i rail against here!........ it goes like this: "well, i found several sources who say that president clinton MAY NOT be taller than danny devito..... they've done some studies and they say there's a lot of doubt about that ALLEGED FACT, and that if you were smart enough to REALLY UNDERSTAND the issues, and furthermore, if you had the brains to understand what "TALLER" can be defined as, well.... you'd agree with me that devito "is" taller than president clinton""

I.e. you call something the other side of that argument which has nothing to do with reality. That was my point. Stossel's "other side" is exactly like that.
Just because someone says something, like, for example, that Devito is taller than Clinton, it will not be a true -- unless you think there are no facts just opinions. Therefore it should not be accepted as just another side to an argument. It should be treated as a falsehood.
When Stossel says that 20th century rise of CO2 concentration is the result of natural warming he does not present the other side to the argument that the rise has been due to human activity. He merely says something that is as untrue as the assertion that
the Sun revolves around the Earth or Devito is taller than Clinton.

"Gorite kool-aid drinkers and the ultralibs for whom anything related to business is = evil "

Not that I like when liberals bash corporations, they are as stupid as conservatives who bash the government without even knowing what the government agencies actually do, but you seem to confuse those liberals with Gore. Current itself is a business. Gore is a businessman and a pretty successful one. Even when it comes to climate change he wants the business sector to play a huge role. He knows if there ever will be a low-carbon economt the market not the government will create it. So he may hate many things but business is certainly not one of them. Or you want to educate John Doerr and Bill Joy about free market capitalism? Those guys know much more about Gore than you even will and if he was anti-business this couldn't have happened:

Al Gore's next act: Planet-saving VC

The recovering politician is teaming with a legendary venture capitalist and bigtime moneyman to make over the $6 trillion global energy business. A Fortune exclusive

http://tinyurl.com/2fbleq

"for whom the only solution to all problems is conservation, rather than increasing supply. "

Exactly who are you talking about?

@dabne

"To be honest, I can't believe how sad this site is, really. It will not last 2 more years."

Current is now more than 2 years old. If your theory was valid none of us could be here now. Or you think in the last two years Current was more like FOX and it changed only after you showed up?

"Look, I poke fun at your beloved Al Gore, well, because he's easy to poke fun at. He lost two runs at the presidency. "

1. How is that a reason to poke fun of someone?
Reagan lost two runs at the presidency. When he did were you laughing at him?

2. Bill Clinton won the presidency twice. And you guys poke fun of him all the time.

3. Facts have nothing to do with love. You don't have to love someone to know if he is smeared.

4. You don't just poke fun of him. You lie about him. You do it simply because you are a right wing ideologue so trashing people who are not right wing ideologues makes you feel good.

5. I don't care whether he lost he presidency or not as politics is not center of the universe and I don't consider being president such a big deal. The office itself has become a joke. You won't be better than anyone else just because you are president. But whether he won or lost any election has nothing to do with what car he used at the Oscar. And that's what you were talking about. Once again you changed your story and dodged this question:

Did Gore show up in an environmentally friendly car? Yes or no?
Are you too coward to answer that?

If you want to poke fun of him at least do it by telling the truth. Not making things up or spreading lies you heard from some idiot in the right wing media.

"Yet George Bush was elected president of the United States, um...twice."

He was not elected in 2000 by the voters but even if he had been so what? What's your point with this?
That if someone somehow becomes president he is automatically less ridiculous than everyone else?
Does that mean that you are more ridiculous than Bush? As far as I know you are not president, either.

"Sure, he has done great things for the country, but he isn't perfect. "

No matter how you define perfection and no matter whether you or anyone thinks Gore is perfect you still lied when you suggested he was a hypocrite for using a gas guzzler at the Oscar. That's the bottom line of your performace on this thread.

"Look, Al Gore showed up in a limo. I just think it wasn't the right message to send when he is out trying to raise awareness for the planet."

No that's not what you thought. And no, Gore didn't show up in a Limo. (If you have evidence to the contrary share it with us.)
You thought that Gore showed up in a gas guzzler Limo. And you wanted everyone here to believe that, too. You didn't have a clue that he was in fact in a Prius not a limo.

Now you know it so tell me how does showing up in a Prius send the wrong message when someone is an environmentalist? It sends just the right message. People should replace their gas guzzling cars with less polluting ones, like the Prius, for example.

You now understand all of this. It's not that you are that stupid. You just keep lying because you are too coward to admit that you were caught lying.

"Green or no Green it's a class distinction. "

Huh? What does class distinction have to do with CO2 emission? And exactly how is a Prius a
class distinction?

"Until he gets back in the working man's world with us peasants and out of he and Leo's limo's I will continue to poke fun at him as well as George."

And I will poke fun of you. Do you know how much Gore works? No you don't. Then how can you judge whether you work more than he does? You can't. Nevertheless, he has always been a workhorse. Noone ever accused him of being lazy.

You are just another arrogant whiner who thinks his own financial situation makes him some kind of moral authority over those who achieved much more.

To be honest, I can't believe how sad this site is, really. It will not last 2 more years. It's original concept was great but this new format is silly and only leads to meaningless unproductive posts like these. Fox is no doubt set up to attract a conservative thinking mind. We conservatives can admit that. But this whole current.com is set up to attract only liberals, and the fact that nobody here can admit that is flat loco.

The problem with you guys as well as Fox News is that you slam everything that comes from the other side. Fox News viewers are dumb and dumber, that's classic. And you even have studies to prove it, classic. You have a study to prove my family is dumb, that is really getting somewhere.

Look, I poke fun at your beloved Al Gore, well, because he's easy to poke fun at. He lost two runs at the presidency. Sure, he has done great things for the country, but he isn't perfect. Neither is George Bush perfect, he's far from it. And all day long he gets hammered for it. Yet George Bush was elected president of the United States, um...twice. Of course he's easy to poke fun at, he's got several faults, but he has had his great moments as well.

Look, Al Gore showed up in a limo. I just think it wasn't the right message to send when he is out trying to raise awareness for the planet. Green or no Green it's a class distinction. Until he gets back in the working man's world with us peasants and out of he and Leo's limo's I will continue to poke fun at him as well as George. Yet poking fun at Bush on this site is so unoriginal.

@dabne

"I said Gore showed up in a limo. I think that is a truth. "

No, that is not the truth and you know it.
In reality, this is what you said:

"I thought it was even cooler when he showed up to the awards show in a Limo. It was at that moment it all made total sense to me. Limo's are what we should all be cruising around in to save the environment."

As it is now obvious, you didn't see that moment. You didn't see Gore's car. You didn't know that it was a Limo. You didn't have any evidence. You just recycled a right wing talking point either the liars at FOX or the liars at some other wingnut media outlet supplied.

1.You meant Gore showed up in a Limo i.e. the only type of limousine you, who was clueless about EcoLimo's cars, knew: a long gas guzzler. A Toyota Prius cannot possible be like that.
2.You meant that Gore was a hypocrite because he showed up in a gas guzzler Limo.
3.You meant noone should take Gore seriously since he is a hypocrite.
That was your message. Not, as you're now trying to pretend, an objective, dispassionate observation.

Your message was based on a big fat lie.

Then you pretended you merely critized Gore for bad PR. What a bad visual message! -- you complained.
When you learned that a black Toyota Prius doesn't even look like a limo, hence there was nothing wrong with the visual message you changed your story again. Now suddenly you forgot how you started this whole mess. The sarcastic comment about how we, by cruising around in a limos, would save the environment.

Give up.

"It's interesting how you continue to call me a liar. "

It's not so interesting as you continue to lie.
First you lied about Gore, then about your intentions.

But here's your opportunity to tell the truth.
Don't dodge the question:

Did Gore show up in an environmentally friendly car? Yes or no?

"And as far as the Fox news viewers being dumber and knowing less comment from stephenthomson, that's just hilarious. "

Well, on "knowing less":

Did you know what car Gore had at the Oscar? No. You knew much less than necessary to be honest. Why? Because you only watch FOX instead of doing your own research looking at several indepenent non-biased sources. This is exactly why FOX viewers still think that Saddam had WMD in 2002. You guys will believe anything that makes you feel good. In your biased universe emotions always rule over facts.

On 'being dumber':

You didn't understand a simple analogy. That's quite dumb.
And when you lose an argument you always say "hilarious".
That's even dumber.

Can't you come up with something hilariously new?

I said Gore showed up in a limo. I think that is a truth. It's interesting how you continue to call me a liar. And as far as the Fox news viewers being dumber and knowing less comment from stephenthomson, that's just hilarious. Exactly what I would expect from a Current staffer.

"Dude, Gore showed up in a limo, hilarious. "

Haha, you know you lost this. You are digging yourself deeper and deeper.
Dude, Gore showed up in a Toyota Prius. Any problem with that?
You really don't understand the difference between a gas guzzling limo and a Prius?

"And again Fox is the leading cable news channel in the United States"

Broken record. Who the hell denied that? What I said was that the majority of Americans do NOT watch FOX News -- contrary to what you said. That's a fact like it or not. Only a small minority of Americans actually watch it, a few million in a country of 300 million, and even if most American watched it they still lie about Gore and you buy everything they invent not because they tell the truth but because you want to believe what they say simply because that's what makes you feel good. For ideologues only emotions matter, facts are irrelevant.
The problem with FOX is not the size of their audience but that they are dishonest. Get it? They could have 40 million viewers or 1 billion that would not make them more credible.

Telling others that Gore went to the Oscar ceremony in
a Prius would not serve your and FOX's agenda. In fact it would directly contradict your 'Gore is a hypocrite' narrative. Therefore you will lie and tell others that Gore used a gas guzzler limo. And when you are caught you simply change the story and say it was bad PR to go there in a limo -- as if that word alone would make a car a big polluting limousine -- after all the viewers just can't tell the difference between a Prius and a traditional limo.
Who do you want to fool with this bullshit?

And just what is your point with this soundbite, anyway? That FOX is "the leading cable news channel in the United States" therefore everyone should believe everything they say?

"Tell me which cable news channel has more viewers?"

Actually, as I noted on the other thread CNN still remains the leader in unique viewers according to the very Wiki entry you quoted,
while another declares:

In terms of cumulative (Cume) Nielsen ratings or "unique viewers", CNN rates as America's number one cable news source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN

But you are still beating a dead horse. It doesn't matter how many people watch it. Hitler was followed by millions and he was still an asshole, to say the least. What matters is that they are liars just like you. That's the issue we were talking about on the other thread.

Now, don't try to change the subject. On this thread you accused Gore of
showing up at the Oscar in a Limo -- meaning not an ecolimo like that Toyota Prius but a big polluting car. Which is why you added:

"Limo's are what we should all be cruising around in to save the environment."

You didn't care that he in fact used one of the most eco friendly cars currently available on the market. You had the opportunity to learn that and you just didn't care because you wanted to believe that Gore didn't walk the walk.

So, do you admit now that he showed up in an environmentally friendly car? Yes or no?

Dude, Gore showed up in a limo, hilarious. And again Fox is the leading cable news channel in the United States. And if you can't admit that you are a liar. Tell me which cable news channel has more viewers?

@dabne

"
Former President Clinton is taller than Danny DeVito.If you don't say that Bill Clinton is older than Brad Pritt he will still be taller than Danny DeVito.

WTF?

Dude, please share whatever you're smoking."

WTF? Dude, you can't understand something as simple as this analogy?
It doesn't matter. Binary minds usually can't understand metaphors and analogies. I won't repeat the whole argument here. Read my full correspondence with EvilVet then you may understand what all this means.

"And bro, just admit that Gore made a mistake by showing up in a limo. Seriously, was that the right visual message to be sending when the world is watching? "

Huh? Mistake?
That was precisely the right message.
He showed up in a black Toyota Prius Hybrid. One of the models in EcoLimo's fleet.

Here's how that car looks like:

http://www.eco-limo.com/images/toyotapruis.gif

And here's EcoLimo's fleet:

http://www.eco-limo.com/fleet.html

They are called eco-limos but they don't look like traditional limousines.

Gore was using EcoLimo's services.

http://tinyurl.com/2w6xu7

I can confirm that Al Gore did arrive in a black Prius. I saw VP Gore and two other black Prius arriving at the event via Highland Avenue. As a Prius owner myself, it made my heart sing seeing those beautiful Prius serving as limos. There were several Prius used by attendees this year… a good sign!

http://tinyurl.com/326fpq

Did you actually see what happened or FOX told you something and once again you believed their story without asking any question?

"How the hell is anyone supposed to know what kind of emissions the damn limo is shooting into the air."

Gee, indeed how? For example by doing some research like I did instead of spreading lies on the internets like you do.

Just think about it: how do you know that traditional limos are not eco friendly? You were born with that knowledge or what? You learned that at some point in your life, didn't you?
You see? It's that simple. If you learn you will know. You should watch less FOX and spend more time educating yourself about green cars and then you will not confuse a black Toyota Prius with a black Mercedes-Benz S600 Pullman, or whatever car you think Gore was sitting in.

I knew that he showed up in a hybrid. Hey, even your fellow wingnut whiner knew it:

And while you watch the reruns of Al Gore collecting that Oscar, remember that he rode on to the scene conspicuously in a Toyota Prius, while Toyota is having record breaking profits and American auto makers are laying people off.

http://thedailynaysayer.com/?m=200703

If you are ignorant and don't have a clue about EcoLimo's cars or what Gore actually did that's your mistake not his.
And your ignorance does not legitimize your efforts to smear him.

You came here to prove Gore is a hypocrite after all he arrived in a big fat polluting car and instead you managed to prove you don't know anything about eco-limos or Gore for that matter. What a joke.

Now what will you say? That showing up in a Prius was just PR and when the world is not watching he actually travels in gas-guzzling limos?

Stardate said,

Former President Clinton is taller than Danny DeVito.If you don't say that Bill Clinton is older than Brad Pritt he will still be taller than Danny DeVito.

WTF?

Dude, please share whatever you're smoking.

And bro, just admit that Gore made a mistake by showing up in a limo. Seriously, was that the right visual message to be sending when the world is watching? How the hell is anyone supposed to know what kind of emissions the damn limo is shooting into the air.

you wanna know what grinds my gears? john stossel grinds my gears (family guy) ha ha.... an inconvenient truth is a DOCUMENTARY not an opinionated piece ...and its an inconvenient TRUTH not theory ...if the earth wasn't warmed because of us, who warmed it? especially with such temp changes over only 30 years ....stossel is probably getting paid by exon mobile just like everyone else on tv that talks about this.. i know its wrong to say it but people are naive and think our government is perfect when they basically all steal in their own ways

the debate is over, even if the debate shouldnt be over. we need to get off our addiction to oil no ifs ands or buts the end period where can stossel debate this if anyone did they would be quite uneducated

@EvilVet

"ok, if you are going to pull certain facts that build your agenda you will make your point and be perceieved to be correct. but you are omitting 99.99% of the rest of the entire problem that has already been documented."

1. How can you know it's 99.99% without knowing what that 99.99% is? What if I say that you omit 82,56%? Or 75,25%? Can you verify it without knowing everything anyone ever said or wrote about that problem?
You in fact don't know whether Gore or the IPCC for that matter omitted 99.99% of the rest of the entire problem (climate change) that has already been documented.

2. If you don't say that Bill Clinton is older than Brad Pritt he will still be taller than Danny DeVito. You don't have to reveal every single thing you know about a subject to be right about the things you do reveal.

"you dropped the earth spinning as a simple statement to back your stance that there are things that can be absolute. and i, like many other would also do, said it's not that simple. it's not just spinning around, there's more involved."

I didn't say it's just spinning around. Those are your words not mine. I said the Earth revolves around the Sun and there is no two sides to that argument. By contrast you claimed "there are ALWAYS at least two sides to an argument. "
So I ask again: what is the other side?

This?

"more like the earth isn't a perfect sphere, revolving in a perfect zero degree spin, in a less than perfect elliptical orbit around the sun."

This does not deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
By contrast Stossel denies that human activity has caused the increase of CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.
In the first case we don't have two opposing arguments. They are complementary. Both are true.
The second case, however, features two diametrically opposing views, like yes and no. Both simply cannot be true unless you think there are no facts just opinions and the mere existence of an opinion will make it the truth.

"al gore gave some points that are biased in his movie, there is some disagreement to them."

If I tell you that al Qaeda terrorists attacked the WTC I won't be biased just because there are people who disagree with that statement.

And if anyone had wanted to include everything anyone ever said or wrote about Earth's climate or even just Earth's climate in the last 150 years he should have made an everlasting movie -- which is of course impossible.

"just as john stossel is just trying to create a opposite slant to push his story, and scare people into watching his show."

No, not "just as". What Stossel has done and what Gore has done are not even similar.
Certainly not more than one who says the Earth is flat and another who says the Earth is spherical.

"whether you believe we are destroying the earth or not, i don't give a flying fuck. i don't care if we are, i don't care if we aren't. i don't care if it's warmer."

Yes that's what this is all about in your universe. Thanks for finally admitting it.
But that has nothing to do with whether Stossel lies or not.

The Muslim scholars who held to the round earth theory used it in an impeccably Islamic manner, to calculate the distance and direction from any given point on the earth to Makkah (Mecca).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
....

A spherical earth is recognized in the Shatapatha Brahmana (ca. 7th-6th century BC) and the Aitareya Brahmana composed around the same time, and in a later Sanskrit commentary Vishnu Purana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

"We are humans. We don't know everything. "

Really? Then why did you write this with all the confidence of an out of control denier sitting on the caps lock?

PEOPLE. WE ARE NOT CAUSING THE EARTH TO GET WARMER! It's a natural cycle that the earth has been in for ever. Warmer, colder, warmer, colder.

Even while you tell us we cannot possibly know what is causing climate change as we are just humans and "there could be a million, one million, factors into why things are they way they are" you do know that the process is not anthropogenic. Do you also know that you just contradicted yourself?

"here could be a million, one million, factors into why things are they way they are. "

What are those "one million factors" behind 380 ppm CO2?

If all you can say I am human therefore I cannot know then thanks I will listen to those who do know it
much like I know that the Earth is not flat.

"What makes me made is that Al Gore won an Oscar for a film, "

Gore didn't win an Oscar the producers did. He was the subject of the movie not the director.

"that wasn't really that good. As a film maker, there was nothing special about his film.""

There was. It was unusual and unique. And that's difficult to achieve when so many movies have been made. I'd like to see your unusual movie.

"And he is now some sort of hero because of this."

Not because of this. But because he has been right for decades, has been relentlessly trashed and ridiculed by those who were wrong and still he has not given it up even while the whole thing earned him nothing. Indeed, politically it was a suicide.

That's something you couldn't do because you, like most people, don't have the necessary emotional and intellectual strength.

It was a much less bloody fight but for similar reasons he is a hero in another field, too:

Mr. Gore had been instrumental in introducing legislation, beginning in 1988, to finance what he originally called a “national data highway.”

“Our corporations are not taking advantage of high-performance computing to enhance their productivity,” Mr. Gore, then a senator, said in an interview at the time. “With greater access to supercomputers, virtually every business in America could achieve tremendous gains.”

Ultimately, in 1991, his bill to create a National Research and Education Network did pass. Funded by the National Science Foundation, it was instrumental in upgrading the speed of the academic and scientific network backbone leading up to the commercialized Internet.

“He is a hero in this field,” said Lawrence H. Landweber, a computer scientist at the University of Wisconsin who in 1980 made the pioneering decision to use the basic TCP/IP Internet protocol for CSNET, an academic network that preceded NSFnet and laid the foundation for “internetworking.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/business/
09stream.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=business&oref=slogin

Foresight is rare among humans. Foresight with the strength to keep on going despite neglect and ridicule is even rarer.

@trevorw

"All scientific theories concluded based on the evidence said the world was flat. "

Comparing science in the 16th century to science in the 21th century is idiotic. For one thing 500 years ago few people dealt with science in any way, most couldn't even read and write. The tools which one could use to observe the Earth and analyze the data were toys compared to sophisticated systems today, like satellites and computers.

But you are also factually wrong. Not all scientific theories concluded that the Earth was flat.

...the Greek geographer Strabo reported about 10 BC that sailors knew of the sphericity of the earth because of the disappearance of the hulls of distant ships below the horizon and that this idea was known as early as the 7th or 8th century BC by the poet Homer.

By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical became increasingly important in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[8] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.
He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.

In late antiquity such widely read encyclopedists as Macrobius (4th c.) and Martianus Capella (5th c.) discussed the circumference of the sphere of the Earth, its central position in the universe, the difference of the seasons in northern and southern hemispheres, and many other geographical details.[17] In his commentary on Cicero's Dream of Scipio, Macrobius described the Earth as a globe of insignificant size in comparison to the remainder of the cosmos.

...

...the dominant textbooks of the Early Middle Ages supported the sphericity of the Earth.

...

Many Muslim scholars declared a mutual agreement (Ijma) that celestial bodies are round, among them Ibn Hazm (d. 1069), Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1200), and Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328).[39] Ibn Taymiya said, "Celestial bodies are round—as it is the statement of astronomers and mathematicians—it is likewise the statement of the scholars of Islam". Abul-Hasan ibn al-Manaadi, Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm, and Abul-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi have said that the Muslim scholars are in agreement that all celestial bodies are round.

@trevorw: it's not like Gore won the Oscar for best feature or best director... there are other criteria for assessing the important contribution a film can make to our society.

@EvilVet: scare tactics or not, I hope you were not meaning the bit below:

"[...] whether you believe we are destroying the earth or not, i don't give a flying fuck. i don't care if we are, i don't care if we aren't."

have you ever felt any sense of responsibility towards the stuff around you, or maybe even just towards your children or those of your peers?

I'm 100% with you that we could move towards solar energy or renewables if only out of pure common sense. But don't go postal on the "scare tactics" agenda. There are definitely two sides to _that_ argument. I for one think that Al Gore or Leonardo Di Caprio for that matter are trying to offer more than a fearful vision of a doomed future. To the contrary, they are offering hopeful visions of a species and civilization rising up to the challenge they're confronted to.
You could also realize that there is no advantage for them in keeping people afraid with "scare tactics". They are not the government, and would gain nothing from it. You're confusing scare tactics with the genuine sense of urgency that people express when they feel like they're talking to a wall.

@dabne

"My three favorite filmmakers are Spielberg, Lucas, and Gore."

Except Gore is not and never has been a filmmaker.
AIT was directed by Davis Guggenheim and produced by Lawrence Bender and Scott Z. Burns. They, not Gore, got the Oscar.

"I was so glad to finally see he won an oscar after so many years of toiling in the film industry. "

1. He didn't win an Oscar. The producers did.

2. It was not an Lifetime Achivement Award but an award for the Best Documentary of 2006.

"I thought it was even cooler when he showed up to the awards show in a Limo."

Even if you eliminated every single limo that wouldn't do a damn thing about Earth's climate, there are simply not enough of them out there, but there is a little factor you deniers don't seem to understand:

it's not the car but the emission which matters.

Just by saying that a car is a limo you said absolutely nothing about its emission.

Hybrids used to take Sting and other celebrities to the red carpet. Now, hybrid limos are taking regular folks to the airport.

http://www.hybridcars.com/fleets/hybrid-limousines.html

http://www.greencarlimo.com/

Ecolimo biodiesel/hybrid limo service gives green rides, but does it cancel out Hummers?

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/17/
ecolimo-biodiesel-hybrid-limo-service-gives-green-rides-but/

As usual, you are lying. Gore in fact didn't go to the award ceremony in a gas guzzler as you suggest.

In his black tux, the man known to his most fervent fans as "The Goracle" will arrive by hybrid eco-limo and, surrounded by fellow Hollywood greenies Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/02/24/AR2007022401586.html

Now what will you say? That ecolimos are what we should all be cruising around in to save the environment?

Well, hell yes. Go and buy one.

If you want to trash Gore at least come up with something that actually happened. And not just in your alternative universe of right wing talking points.

My three favorite filmmakers are Spielberg, Lucas, and Gore. I have always loved Gore's films, he's great. I was so glad to finally see he won an oscar after so many years of toiling in the film industry. I thought it was even cooler when he showed up to the awards show in a Limo. It was at that moment it all made total sense to me. Limo's are what we should all be cruising around in to save the environment.

I too am a late starting independent film maker - I like to think all my prior experiences will further contribute to what I create in this medium, but I liked an Inconvenient Truth.

More power to ya trevorw.

As a former scientist, I can say that all the science is subject to criticism. 500 years ago, everyone believed the world was flat. There was tons of "evidence" to prove so. All scientific theories concluded based on the evidence said the world was flat. Then all of a sudden...they found out there were wrong. We are humans. We don't know everything. We make conclusions about things but sometimes we are wrong. There could be a million, one million, factors into why things are they way they are. What makes me made is that Al Gore won an Oscar for a film, that wasn't really that good. As a film maker, there was nothing special about his film. And he is now some sort of hero because of this.

Anyway. I believe in recycling my cans and bottles. I drive a car that gets really good gas mileage. I turn off the lights when I'm not using them. I like breathing clean air and saving money.

ok, if you are going to pull certain facts that build your agenda you will make your point and be perceieved to be correct. but you are omitting 99.99% of the rest of the entire problem that has already been documented. this space isn't big enough for all the facts (and all the facts are still not even documented yet, as scientists do not know the ENTIRE reason but are making educated guesses) al gore gave some points that are biased in his movie, there is some disagreement to them. just as john stossel is just trying to create a opposite slant to push his story, and scare people into watching his show. fear sells. so i point it out again, that i deny both of their fear tactics, and instead offer up the solution of just making the air smell better, whether you believe we are destroying the earth or not, i don't give a flying fuck. i don't care if we are, i don't care if we aren't. i don't care if it's warmer. i think it's productive to just move on to new sources of fuel just for the fun of innovation, and prettier skies, and fresher air. you dropped the earth spinning as a simple statement to back your stance that there are things that can be absolute. and i, like many other would also do, said it's not that simple. it's not just spinning around, there's more involved. to say the big bang was just a giant explosion is also an understatement. complex issues aren't explained in soundbites, or 2 hour movies. my point is to move on beyond who says this, or who says that. everyone has an agenda, like people who don't believe we walked on the moon. good for everyone...we have the technology that is certainly affordable to make change. what is the worst that can happen? the sun stops shining? the wind stops blowing? oil will run out, and even if it didn't it can still spill out and fowl up the seas. if a windmill breaks down, what ocean does that fowl up? you could go into a whole different argument and claim that not buying oil will ruin the middle east economy, and cause a giant void that would bring on more war. that's another bridge for a later date. we could build enough solar collectors in the sahara desert that could power the entire world, but who would make money off that?

@EvilVet

"jesus stardate. the point is, it's not that simple. "

Jesus EvilVet that's not what you said.
You said this:

"there are ALWAYS at least two sides to an argument. i hate when it becomes only one view"

And if you think noone should oversimplify anything then you shouldn't write things like this:

"al gore's movie is as flawed as john stossel's report. neither is making everyone ditch gas, or demanding nuclear power plants, or wind mills... just bitch and moan that gas is $3.50 a gallon..."

"hat anyone can take anything and make a claim for their agenda. "

They can but there is a way to tell the difference between facts and opinion. And if you think there is no way to do that you must think there are no facts at all, just opinions.

There are things which are quite simple and also true. Like this, for example:
The global stratospheric aerosol concentrations in 2005 were at their lowest values since satellite measurements began in about 1980.

Since you ALWAYS want to hear at least two different views what's the other side to this argument?

"there will never be a 100% agreement on any of this shit. "

Exactly what do you call "any of this shit"? Sounds rather oversimplified.

Yes there are people who believe Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks. But just because they believe that it will not be true.

"so instead of splitting hairs FOREVER like your apt to do."

You just split hairs when you wrote this to prove that there is somehow two sides to the argument that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

"more like the earth isn't a perfect sphere, revolving in a perfect zero degree spin, in a less than perfect elliptical orbit around the sun."

"everyone should just get off their ass and build a windmill or productive. "

Too bad one cannot do anything with this "advice" as everyone, i.e. every single human being, obviously could not and will not build a windmill.

"there is always a counterpoint. always."

Always? OK, then what is the counterpoint to this:
Former President Clinton is taller than Danny DeVito.

I think you should stop exaggerating and use words like ALWAYS and EVERYONE more carefully.

"i don't need a report telling me it'd the pollution, or the polarity of the poles shifting, or solar flares to get me to build a solar house, it just makes sense to store energy that's constantly radiating us."

That's fine but that was not the issue here but whether Stossel's argument was factual or not.

The 20/20 piece is a propaganda piece to say the least.

It's clear the intention was to plant a seed of doubt as no valid facts were offered up. The use of the children - or should I say John Stossel exploited those kids? And, the children appeared scripted to me.

With so much money hanging in the balance with nuclear, oil and coal remaining as the world's source of energy, isn't it in the interests of the nuclear, oil and coal industries to want things to remain the same? - that is the money flowing into their pockets?

jesus stardate. the point is, it's not that simple. simply put. that anyone can take anything and make a claim for their agenda. there is always a counterpoint. always. you will always find someone to disagree. there will never be a 100% agreement on any of this shit. so instead of splitting hairs FOREVER like your apt to do. everyone should just get off their ass and build a windmill or productive. instead of waiting to blame what causes what. i don't need a report telling me it'd the pollution, or the polarity of the poles shifting, or solar flares to get me to build a solar house, it just makes sense to store energy that's constantly radiating us.

@EvilVet

"more like the earth isn't a perfect sphere, revolving in a perfect zero degree spin, in a less than perfect elliptical orbit around the sun."

And how is that "two sides to an argument"?
Should we say that the Earth is a perfect sphere?
You know, just to present the other side, too.

Your point doesn't address what I said, anyway.
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth, the Earth revolves around the Sun and there is no "other side" to that argument.

Let's take another example:
Former President Clinton is taller than Danny DeVito.
What is the other side to that argument?

What about this one:
For the 1995 to 2005 decade, the
growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere was 1.9 ppm yr–1 and the CO2 RF increased by 20%: this is the largest change observed or inferred for any decade in at least the last 200 years.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

In a world where "there are ALWAYS at least two sides to an argument" there cannot be facts just opinions.

"neither is making everyone ditch gas, or demanding nuclear power plants, or wind mills... just bitch and moan that gas is $3.50 a gallon..."

Yes Gore doesn't do anything but make people bitch and moan that gas is $3.50 a gallon.
Talk about simple catch phrases and soundbites.
You just managed to oversimplify about 30 years of activity into a bold face lie.

"al gore's movie is as flawed as john stossel's report. "

No it's not. Not even close. Stossel denies the very basics of modern climate science, like that 20th century rise of CO2 concentration has been due to human activity not some kind of natural force. There are no "two sides" to that argument, either.
And that's hardly the same as claiming that Lake Chad would be much bigger today without anthropogenic climate change or that higher SSTs make cyclones more destructive.

"plus the kids will have to have terror sweats at night the same way we did about the cold war nuking us out of history.."

I didn't have terror sweats at night during the cold war and I don't have terror sweats at night today. If you do the problem is in your department.

If someone had told you on Sept 10, 2001 that al Qaeda terrorists could kill thousands in New York and Washington in the near future you would have screamed I'm sick to death of scare tactics and you would have demanded to hear an opposing view.

Catastrophies do happen. You may choose to ignore threats just because that's what makes you feel good. But that will not eliminate those threats.

more like the earth isn't a perfect sphere, revolving in a perfect zero degree spin, in a less than perfect elliptical orbit around the sun. keeping it a simple catch phrase doesn't fix things in a debate, it just makes it easy for people to pick out soundbites they want to bend to fit for their opinion as "fact". these are how conspiracy theories evolve into ridiculous claims that are totally removed from the point. al gore's movie is as flawed as john stossel's report. neither is making everyone ditch gas, or demanding nuclear power plants, or wind mills... just bitch and moan that gas is $3.50 a gallon...even if you don't believe it's getting hotter, build solar power plants even if it just makes the air smell better...or the sky more blue
plus the kids will have to have terror sweats at night the same way we did about the cold war nuking us out of history...just teach em how to build clean tech generators. without terror.

"there are ALWAYS at least two sides to an argument. i hate when it becomes only one view. "

Of course. Like the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Sun revolves around the Earth at the same time.

i'm sick to death of scare tactics. the republicans scared us with nuclear (or nukular) horrible death for everyone in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. now the dems are scaring us with warming in the 90's, 00's, and 10's. enough already. there are ALWAYS at least two sides to an argument. i hate when it becomes only one view. yes we are getting warmer, yes i believe we are doing it. but let's get this rolling and build wind generators and solar panels like crazy mad. even if it doesn't fix anything, it's unlimited power, it's clean. how can anyone not love that? why would anyone PREFER to dig up oil, and coal? it's nasty shit.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm

Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy

Been there done that.
Same old discredited talking points.

The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-c...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8137646/

Link regarding Phillip Cooney, who resigned the White House after it being discovered he had changed reports regarding the corrolation betweeen GHG emissions and global warming... I think he took a job with EXXON after that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5090&en=51...

James Hanson of NASA speaks on being silenced by the Bush administration.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41#src36
Also, Tim Ball and John Christy are listed as members of the Heartland Institute (funny how they always leave that out of these interviews) which yes, according to this link receives support from EXXON.

Is this the same Tim Ball who in 2006 also questioned the science behind CFCs and the ozone layer by claiming that, "CFCs were never a problem.... it's only because the sun is changing?" And please, he drives a 1992 car and lives in a leaky apartment? Give ME a break.

It's a shame because this world is deteriorating before our eyes and all politically partisan hacks want to do is trash the science simply because they don't want to have to change the status quo way of doing things. The evidence is overwhelming that population growth at the current pace on this planet cannot be sustained by the amount of resources we have left for too much longer, especially in light of prolonged and severe droughts, deforestation, water shortages, and extrene weather events. Therefore, whatever your so called position on the causes of "Global Warming" might be even if in complete antithesis to the scientific data because of political or religious leaning, solutions will still have to be forthcoming to avoid global catastrophe and wars over water and other resources as other species are also being affected by this. All of this talk isn't really doing any good towards the solutions we need to sustain this planet for ours and the next generation. Of course, those who only have a partisan poltical grudge to appease won't see it that way... just trash Al Gore and the science because he is receiving his Nobel Peace Prize. This goes so far even beyond Al Gore now to a consciousness we must reach to save this planet from US. I then doubt that John Stossel of all people would ever think to understand that since he makes a living out of doing just the opposite.