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. 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.

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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5090&en=51c46d7689bee520&ex=1296190800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

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

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.

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/t...

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

Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy

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.

"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.

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.

@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-wg...

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.

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.

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?

@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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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 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

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

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.

supasteve... please look at the graph i uploaded, above.... "if the earth wasn't warmed because of us, who warmed it? especially with such temp changes over only 30 years" ???? 30 years isn't a flyspeck's fart in the history of the earth. and after 4.5 billion years or so, the co2 effects of our industrial age isn't even a hundred years of that, let alone 30.... out of billions.... the graph shows changes over 400,000 years.... and if y'all would take off your blinders, you'd be able to see and admit that there are cycles there!!!! pretty darned regular-looking cycles!!! LONG before the first automobile or steel plant started spewing what you're blaming for temperature changes!!!! .......... and the recent changes of some fractions of degrees PALES before the 8-10 degree drops over thousands of years!!!! and notice how fast the temperature rises at the ends of the cooling periods??? 8-10 degrees' change on a darned fast slope......... and then it levels out and DROPS, time after time.......... and we're PASSED the last peak!!!! don't you get it??? we're more likely to risk being in an ice age next than a permanent-melt condition! what do you think would happen then??? most of the population of the earth... maybe 8-10 billion by then.... would try to pack into the only warm enough, livable-enough "temperate" zones on earth......... around the equator!!!!!! you can be that most of the folks living there now [actually, THEN] won't be the most thrilled at the prospect of a few billion new neighbors............... enjoy that thought.

@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 whil