NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, we all know Al Gore runs around in a private jet and lives in a mansion while giving talks about carbon emissions and global warming. I did not know the UK had someone who is as big if not bigger hypocrite.

This guy has many mansions and he will be taking 16,000 mile journey in a charter jet with a staff of 14. The jet is capable of seating 29 but if it were in airline configuration could hold 134 passengers. The trip also cost 300,000 Pounds. :(

The purpose of this trip "part of his crusade against global warming."

Who is this British Al Gore? Why none other than Bonnie Prince Charley.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145127/The-Prince-hypocrites-Charles-embarks-16-000-mile-green-crusade--aboard-private-jet.html

Never trust women named Bonnie. *nod*

Royals wasting millions of pounds and acting irresponsibly!?!/1

oh wait nevermind:
Aides insist it is impossible for the prince to complete the ten-day official visit using scheduled flights as he will undertake almost 40 engagements.

I hate Prince Charles. Crappy views on most things.

Edit: not that taking an interest in global warming is crappy. But it probably comes from a crappy place.

Hope he tries to block something when he becomes King and we abolish the monarchy.

Royals wasting millions of pounds and acting irresponsibly!?!/1

oh wait nevermind:

Yes, and that alone makes it alright for him to pollute more than his fair share! Because he's making speeches about how we people without the mansions and private jets are polluting too much. Yea...that's perfectly acceptable.

Man, I never realized just how much carbon this guy is dumping into the air to promote a reduction in carbon emissions. Look at what I found:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Prince+Charles+global+warming+tour&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Flying and yachting all over the world. Carbon offsets my ass. What does he do plant a few trees or plan then cancel some trips, or just pay a ransom to the Eco-terrorists?

Then he's not the UK's Al Gore is he? Why must people like you always resort to such childish comparisons? It's no better than the morons who compared Bush to Hitler. Perspective -- look into it.

What does he do plant a few trees or plan then cancel some trips, or just pay a ransom to the Eco-terrorists?

Grows a few organic vegetables in Cornwall, complains that nanobots will destroy the world, that's about it on the environmental side.

Man, I never realized just how much carbon this guy is dumping into the air to promote a reduction in carbon emissions. Look at what I found:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Prince+Charles+global+warming+tour&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Flying and yachting all over the world. Carbon offsets my ass. What does he do plant a few trees or plan then cancel some trips, or just pay a ransom to the Eco-terrorists?

He probably pays someone else to pollute less. It's like you being a fat ass, and instead of doing the work yourself, you pay another fat ass to go on a diet for you. So the second fat ass actually loses weight, while you, the original fat ass, get to stuff your face with ice cream.

Then he's not the UK's Al Gore is he? Why must people like you always resort to such childish comparisons? It's no better than the morons who compared Bush to Hitler. Perspective -- look into it.

Both are lying hypocrites who produce a ridiculous amount of CO2.

Yes, and that alone makes it alright for him to pollute more than his fair share! Because he's making speeches about how we people without the mansions and private jets are polluting too much. Yea...that's perfectly acceptable.

but...but...but they won't listen to "we people" but they will listen to Charlie and Al. :(

oh wait nevermind:

waaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaah, its not true!!! the royals are eeeeeeeevil!

but...but...but they won't listen to "we people" but they will listen to Charlie and Al. :(

I'm thinking it must be the hair....one thing you gotta hand to both men, is that they have great hair.

Both are lying hypocrites who produce a ridiculous amount of CO2.

Right. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

Then he's not the UK's Al Gore is he?

Sure he is. The both of them live in mansions and jet around the world in private jets while telling us to cut down on carbon emissions. They are both cut from the same elitist mold and preach the same gospel.

Then he's not the UK's Al Gore is he? Why must people like you always resort to such childish comparisons? It's no better than the morons who compared Bush to Hitler. Perspective -- look into it.

Well, you are talking about the same mentality that actually believes Hillary Clinton is a "communist".

Sure he is. The both of them live in mansions and jet around the world in private jets while telling us to cut down on carbon emissions. They are both cut from the same elitist mold and preach the same gospel.

*sigh*

The fact that you can't tell the difference between a house with a dozen rooms and Buckingham fucking Palace says one hell of a lot about your ability to properly assess reality.

Right. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

You gonna actually refute my argument then or what?

Well, you are talking about the same mentality that actually believes Hillary Clinton is a "communist".

You talkin about me boy. :D

*sigh*

The fact that you can't tell the difference between a house with a dozen rooms and Buckingham fucking Palace says one hell of a lot about your ability to properly assess reality.

The fact that you think Prince Charles lives in Buckingham fucking palace says one hell of a lot about your ability to properly assess reality.

The fact that you think Prince Charles lives in Buckingham fucking palace says one hell of a lot about your ability to properly assess reality.

A palace is a palace, a house is a house. There's a difference. Should I have said Balmoral? I don't know the name of the place in Wales -- primarily because I couldn't care less about the royals.

Comparing royalty, who've been pissing away resources since forever and a former senator is ludicrous. If you hate Al Gore, just say so and get on with life. Comparing him to any royal is fatuous and deliberately both inaccurate and inflammatory.

Both are lying hypocrites who produce a ridiculous amount of CO2.

and then at least make the attempt to do something about carbon off-setting. what exactly is the alleged hypocrisy?

Why, this once again disproves global climate change! We should turn up our air conditioning, open the windows and go run our cars in the driveway!



...




boring.

Should I have said Balmoral?

No. He doesn't live in a palace.

Comparing him to any royal is fatuous and deliberately both inaccurate and inflammatory.

In this case, it's a fair comparison. Both are claiming to be spreading their message, but acting completely contrary to their stated beliefs.

boring.
it's like they're phoning it in at this point, really

Both are claiming to be spreading their message, but acting completely contrary to their stated beliefs.

their stated beliefs being that we should ban air travel and live in tents?

No. He doesn't live in a palace.



In this case, it's a fair comparison. Both are claiming to be spreading their message, but acting completely contrary to their stated beliefs.

Even if that's true -- and it hasn't been for a while now -- it's a question of scale.

Also, by your logic, I should never listen to anyone preaching the benefits of any religion if they fail to live up to any tenet of it. Your contention isn't logical, it's vindictive. Just admit you don't like Gore instead of trying to make unfounded and adolescent comparisons. There are lots of famous people I don't like, but I wouldn't engage in character assassination just because I don't like them. Bush for example. I can only judge based on his actions and presentation. I don't know the man. He seems like a decent chap. However, his actions bespeak all kinds of things I don't agree with. That doesn't mean I'm going to flail my arms and whine about how he's like Hitler or Genghis Khan or something.

That doesn't mean I'm going to flail my arms and whine about how he's like Hitler or Genghis Khan or something.

Comparing one lying hypocrite to another isn't like comparing Bush to Hitler.

what exactly is the alleged hypocrisy?

The fact that Al Gore and Prince Charles are pumping out tons of carbon jetting all over the world while spouting the evils of carbon emissions. Kind of the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Hope he tries to block something when he becomes King and we abolish the monarchy.
I hope he just says "nah shine on being King I'm too old" and it goes to one of the kings with traditionally safer names. Charles = bad. However the monarchy = good.

The fact that Al Gore and Prince Charles are pumping out tons of carbon jetting all over the world while spouting the evils of carbon emissions. Kind of the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.
I dunno, if they cause a bunch of people to cut down then it pays off overall.

I dunno, if they cause a bunch of people to cut down then it pays off overall.

Assuming the AGW theory is correct.

However the monarchy = good.

No.

You gonna actually refute my argument then or what?

Your argument needs no refuting. It's just a baseless claim. Merely stating that someone is a "lying hypocrite" is not an argument.

Assuming the AGW theory is correct.
OK, let's assume it isn't correct. You've still then got a load of people generally cutting down on consumption and hence waste. Waste = landfill, where you get toxins going into the soil, recycled, which still takes a lot of energy, or burnt, which is a waste of Things and also causes pretty nasty air pollution.

No.
Monarchy = economic benefit with barely anything bad at all. "Oh no they're extra privelaged or not democratic or something" - oh well.

Comparing one lying hypocrite to another isn't like comparing Bush to Hitler.

How is Al Gore a liar?

I hope he just says "nah shine on being King I'm too old" and it goes to one of the kings with traditionally safer names. Charles = bad. However the monarchy = good.

Whatever floats your boat man. We got rid of our King about 233 years ago and haven't regretted doing so, but if you want to keep yours have a nut. :fluffle:

The fact that Al Gore and Prince Charles are pumping out tons of carbon jetting all over the world while spouting the evils of carbon emissions. Kind of the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

You mean like every other leader? Heavens.

The fact that Al Gore and Prince Charles are pumping out tons of carbon jetting all over the world while spouting the evils of carbon emissions. Kind of the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

well, given that what matters is not the amount emitted but the amount in the atmosphere (and oceans), we could in principle all fly everywhere in private jets spewing ridiculous piles of carbon emissions provided we did enough offsets and captures to make up for it. most of us just can't afford to do it.

and since i highly doubt that the fucking prince of england has come out swinging for some egalitarian eco-communism, i still fail to see the alleged hypocrisy. you guys do know what hypocrisy is, right?

Whatever floats your boat man. We got rid of our King about 233 years ago and haven't regretted doing so, but if you want to keep yours have a nut.
Ah of course, because the monarchy hasn't changed one iota since that time -_-

You gonna actually refute my argument then or what?

What argument? How is "nyah, nyah, hypocrite" any kind of argument? Make an argument, and I'll gladly refute it. You've posited nothing but childish name calling.

In this case, it's a fair comparison. Both are claiming to be spreading their message, but acting completely contrary to their stated beliefs.

A matter of degree. Scale. Palaces (plural) versus one house, which has since been remodeled. He's got the money to travel by jet, and I'm pretty sure Gore has never actually come down on anyone for traveling by even private jets. So the comparison is fucked. Unless you're advocating we go communist or something. Why do you hate capitalism? See? I can get petty, too.

"Completely contrary"? No. Perhaps "mildly contrary" in Gore's case, and he's addressed his home. Look, you don't like Gore -- we get that. What exactly do you seek to achieve by flailing about? THAT is where your "argument" needs to be drawn. He's a hypocrite, you keep blathering, well, what should be done? Where is your argument?

"Completely contrary"? No. Perhaps "mildly contrary" in Gore's case, and he's addressed his home. Look, you don't like Gore -- we get that. What exactly do you seek to achieve by flailing about? THAT is where your "argument" needs to be drawn. He's a hypocrite, you keep blathering, well, what should be done? Where is your argument?

It's the New Mitanni Argument. Poisoning the Water Table, as opposed to just the Well. "The most prominent speakers on Global Climate Change are hypocrites, therefore Global Climate Change either does not exist or is nowhere near a serious a problem as they claim it is."

It's the New Mitanni Argument. Poisoning the Water Table, as opposed to just the Well. "The most prominent speakers on Global Climate Change are hypocrites, therefore Global Climate Change either does not exist or is nowhere near a serious a problem as they claim it is."

I see. So Ted Haggard's antics means the Pope is gay. Got it.

What a simple, but very fucked-up world that must be to inhabit. *shudders*

Give me my nuance.

You mean like every other leader? Heavens.

I think it is time to bring in Webster.
Both Gore and Charles believe that carbon emissions are bad for the environment and a major cause of global warming. The tell us we should reduce our carbon footprint. That is what they believe and preach.

Webster says

hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


Both Gore and Charles run around the world in private jets which pump a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Both of them live in huge house which consume more energy than the average home.

Both Gore and Charles meet the #2 definition for the word hypocrite. If they truly believed what they are spouting they should set the example, move into smaller homes, and find other less carbon emitting methods of getting their message out. Flying in a commercial aircraft would be a good start.

Ah of course, because the monarchy hasn't changed one iota since that time -_-

I have nothing against or for the monarchy. If you want to keep yours that's OK with me. I happen to prefer no monarchy. Hell, we have enough people in Washington DC that believe they are Royals. :)

Both Gore and Charles believe that carbon emissions are bad for the environment

no they don't. or at least they presumably don't, because doing so would be stupid, what with all the breathing and such.

The tell us we should reduce our carbon footprint.

and can you name some of the various ways they say we could do that?

I think it is time to bring in Webster.
Uhu... myself, I think it's time to bring in some common sense.

I don't honestly care if you believe in global warming being caused by humans or not, my reasons for people generally cutting down even without that over their heads are a few posts back. Them flying about by plane to tell a load of people why and how they can and should cut down isn't really hypocrisy.

If Charles did it all by boat, he'd die of old age by the time his world tour was over, and they reasons for them not doing it by commecial airliner are pretty clearly explained - the times didn't go. That and they're both pretty famous types who probably have work to do between speeches, and would rather not be mobbed by people on a plane.

provided we did enough offsets and captures to make up for it. most of us just can't afford to do it.

Could you please explain to me just what a carbon offset is and how they work? I seriously don't know, other than paying someone to plant a few trees which may or may not be true.

and can you name some of the various ways they say we could do that?

Not making 16,000 mile trips by plane.

Not making 16,000 mile trips by plane.

is that the only way they recommend?

Uhu... myself, I think it's time to bring in some common sense.

If Charles did it all by

Television. Internet. Radio. Teleconferencing. Newspapers...

is that the only way they recommend?

Living in a smaller house that uses less energy.

How is Al Gore a liar?

An Inconvenient Truth was banned in UK schools because of all the rubbish that's in it.

Television. Internet. Radio. Teleconferencing. Newspapers...
Do not have the same effect as speaking to a bunch of people in person. If you watch someone on TV saying "aye be decent sorts and cut down on the waste" you can take it or leave it and you can just swap over. If you get someone 50ft from you speaking to a large group of people it's slightly different.

An Inconvenient Truth was banned in UK schools because of all the rubbish that's in it.
"all the rubbish" - err no, more "because it was based on an unproven theory". Not quite the same. Rubbish suggests "proveably wrong"

An Inconvenient Truth was banned in UK schools because of all the rubbish that's in it.

No it wasn't.

Article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7025119.stm)

Could you please explain to me just what a carbon offset is and how they work? I seriously don't know, other than paying someone to plant a few trees which may or may not be true.

a carbon offset is basically a way to pay some money either to some one else to not emit as much (in a cap and trade sort of system, for example), or to fund some carbon-emission reducing project such as reforestation, renewable energy, energy efficiency upgrades, or other such things. eventually it will presumably involve direct industrial carbon capture as well.

the essential idea is that individual emissions don't matter, just the aggregate amount that is added to the atmosphere. thus particular individuals can emit as much carbon as their heart desires, provided that as much is saved from being emitted or sequestered back out elsewhere.

"all the rubbish" - err no, more "because it was based on an unproven theory". Not quite the same. Rubbish suggests "proveably wrong"

So Charles who probably agrees with it is running around the world and contributing to pollution based on an unproven theory?

a carbon offset is basically a way to pay some money either to some one else to not emit as much (in a cap and trade sort of system, for example), or to fund some carbon-emission reducing project such as reforestation, renewable energy, energy efficiency upgrades, or other such things. eventually it will presumably involve direct industrial carbon capture as well.

the essential idea is that individual emissions don't matter, just the aggregate amount that is added to the atmosphere. thus particular individuals can emit as much carbon as their heart desires, provided that as much is saved from being emitted or sequestered back out elsewhere.

Thanks, carbon offsets are what I thought they are.

Hmm! So how can I get someone to pay me not to fly, buy a hybrid vehicle, and grow a vegetable garden? If I'm skeptical of carbon offsets I am.

Thanks, carbon offsets are what I thought they are.

Hmm! So how can I get someone to pay me not to fly, buy a hybrid vehicle, and grow a vegetable garden

start a company? though since the good ones offer more tangible carbon offsets, you'll probably have a tough time attracting much business.

I think it is time to bring in Webster.
Both Gore and Charles believe that carbon emissions are bad for the environment and a major cause of global warming. The tell us we should reduce our carbon footprint. That is what they believe and preach.

Webster says

hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


Both Gore and Charles run around the world in private jets which pump a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Both of them live in huge house which consume more energy than the average home.

Both Gore and Charles meet the #2 definition for the word hypocrite. If they truly believed what they are spouting they should set the example, move into smaller homes, and find other less carbon emitting methods of getting their message out. Flying in a commercial aircraft would be a good start.
And if their actions - flying around and meeting people face to face - lead to a massive reduction of carbon emissions, is he still a hypocrite? Then he'd be acting in concert with his stated beliefs and feelings.

Oh, and your "mansion" claim has been dealt with several times before, even before you started claiming that Clinton is a communist.

An Inconvenient Truth was banned in UK schools because of all the rubbish that's in it.

Yes, and school boards never make biased, emotional or even just plain wrong decisions. Ever. Also, so what? Also your post =/= Gore is a liar.

You've missed again.

Yes, and school boards never make biased, emotional or even just plain wrong decisions.

Actually, an English high court judge (who's job is to be impartial) ruled that there were several serious errors in that video, IIRC.

I think it is time to bring in Webster.
Both Gore and Charles believe that carbon emissions are bad for the environment and a major cause of global warming. The tell us we should reduce our carbon footprint. That is what they believe and preach.

Webster says

hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


Both Gore and Charles run around the world in private jets which pump a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Both of them live in huge house which consume more energy than the average home.

Both Gore and Charles meet the #2 definition for the word hypocrite. If they truly believed what they are spouting they should set the example, move into smaller homes, and find other less carbon emitting methods of getting their message out. Flying in a commercial aircraft would be a good start.

I'm sorry, but did anyone here actually debate the fact that Gore is a hypocrite? I know I didn't. He's taken steps to remodel his home, but he still flies by private jet because he can afford it, and he's never told anyone not to.

So I've addressed your ranting on about hypocrisy repeatedly. How about you answer my counter that it's a matter of degree. Any royal versus Al Gore is going to out-waste the senator by an order of magnitude.

That leaves me to -- YET AGAIN -- wonder what your point is. You bandy about and name-call. What do you want? Would you like Gore executed? He's not a senator anymore, so censure is out. What do you want? Or are you going to admit that you just don't like him and wish more people thought like you did, so you keep prattling on in the hope that others will beat the same old dead horse?

Are you really that starved for attention?

Actually, an English high court judge (who's job is to be impartial) ruled that there were several serious errors in that video, IIRC.

That's fine. So what? That doesn't make Gore a liar, and your point has been shown false already, anyway.

One flap of his ears can cause a tropical storm that devastates the Brazilian rainforest.

That's fine. So what?

So it's not really appropriate to show his videos in a classroom, they are hardly impartial assessments of the issue anyway.


and your point has been shown false already, anyway.

Which point?

Actually, an English high court judge (who's job is to be impartial) ruled that there were several serious errors in that video, IIRC.

didn't they actually rule that there were some places where there might be legitimate disagreement that would need addressing if shown in schools, rather than that there were any actual errors?

They can show it as long as they address the controversial parts with some clarifying information about how they are not proven.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

Beadry Branson says I. I feel Prince Phillip at leats deserves immunity on the basis of general excellence.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between a house with a dozen rooms and Buckingham fucking Palace says one hell of a lot about your ability to properly assess reality.

Except the Prince of Wales doesn't live in Buckingham Palace.

He actually lives in Clarence House.

*sigh*

The fact that you can't tell the difference between a house with a dozen rooms and Buckingham fucking Palace says one hell of a lot about your ability to properly assess reality.
or indeed his ability to properly assess realty.

Let alone his equating Gore to Charles as both being from the same 'elitist' mold. Ever-so-slight difference in family background between the two. Only one's from a genuine, generations-old, elitist family (not that I'm saying this is a good thing, just pointing out).

you guys do know what hypocrisy is, right?
sure we do. It's a large water-dwelling mammal in Africa. Looks like a wino but without the horn.

I hope he just says "nah shine on being King I'm too old" and it goes to one of the kings with traditionally safer names. Charles = bad. However the monarchy = good.
but what if worse comes to worse, William dies without an heir and Harry ascends the thone? Imagine that gingernut with the toilet brush hairdo and Prince Philipesque sense of tact being your king. It'd be like the US having GWB as president for life!

Actually, an English high court judge (who's job is to be impartial) ruled that there were several serious errors in that video, IIRC.
Actually, you should really do some research before making claims.
A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains nine scientific "errors".
Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.
He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film from secondary schools.
The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.
Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.
These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

I bolded bits which are quite relevant. Specifically that he was ruling against a decision by a school NOT to show it. Second that he actually supported the film. And third, that the errors weren't wrong per se, but weren't supported by scientific consensus. Hyperbole and supposition, maybe, but not lies.

The article doesn't say the nine errors, but it does give three of them:

Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".
- nasty, nasty Mr Gore using 'soon' in it's geological term and not in it's generally-accepted term. what a hypocrite!

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
- oohh, what a liar Mr Gore is! He said the snow's gone cause of GW but general scientific consensus is, 'yeah. probably due to GW but we're not sure'.

Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."
Again, what a terrible liar Gore is! He said the polar bear drowned cause of no ice, but it drowned cause of a storm and no ice!

Considering the films over 2 hours long, and these are 3 of only 9 errors an - as you readily point out - impartial High court judge can find, it's hardly what any person can claim is proof of Gore's 'hyprocrisy' and 'lies'.
Well, any reasonable person.

I actually kind of like Prince Charles... I'm going to keep it a secret, though, as I plan to visit the UK one day

Except the Prince of Wales doesn't live in Buckingham Palace.

He actually lives in Clarence House.

*facepalm*

The fact that the man COULD hang out in any NUMBER of palaces (or insanely well-appointed homes) is more the point. But hey, nitpick all you like.

but it drowned cause of a storm and no ice!

I'll try and find the article, but the woman who took the photo said the polar bear was only a mile from land, and in no distress.

EDIT: Found one: http://www.newswithviews.com/Williams/carole7.htm
According to Ms. Bryd, when she took the picture, the mother bear and its cub didn’t appear to be in any danger and Denis Simard seems to have backpedaled when quoted by Ontario’s National Post as saying that you “have to keep in mind that the bears aren’t in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground for 15 minutes. You know what I mean? This is a perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die with a coke in their hands. But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim.”

Well, we all know Al Gore runs around in a private jet and lives in a mansion while giving talks about carbon emissions and global warming. I did not know the UK had someone who is as big if not bigger hypocrite.

This guy has many mansions and he will be taking 16,000 mile journey in a charter jet with a staff of 14. The jet is capable of seating 29 but if it were in airline configuration could hold 134 passengers. The trip also cost 300,000 Pounds. :(

The purpose of this trip "part of his crusade against global warming."

Who is this British Al Gore? Why none other than Bonnie Prince Charley.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145127/The-Prince-hypocrites-Charles-embarks-16-000-mile-green-crusade--aboard-private-jet.html
He's a right Charlie :p

I hate Prince Charles. Crappy views on most things.

Edit: not that taking an interest in global warming is crappy. But it probably comes from a crappy place.

Hope he tries to block something when he becomes King and we abolish the monarchy.
Vivre l'Republic! Out with the Gluttonberg-Slackwitz or whatever :p

So....Al Gore's Kenyan father really did make him British?

*facepalm*

The fact that the man COULD hang out in any NUMBER of palaces (or insanely well-appointed homes) is more the point. But hey, nitpick all you like.

LMAO

Dude, why do you get so aggro over tiny things like this?

So you made a mistake no need to get all snippy about it. lol

sure we do. It's a large water-dwelling mammal in Africa. Looks like a wino but without the horn.


but what if worse comes to worse, William dies without an heir and Harry ascends the thone? Imagine that gingernut with the toilet brush hairdo and Prince Philipesque sense of tact being your king. It'd be like the US having GWB as president for life!

Curiously, wikipedia has compiled an inordinately long list for the line of succession. Some of the candidates are hilarious.

sure we do. It's a large water-dwelling mammal in Africa. Looks like a wino but without the horn.

ROFLMAO! :D I didn't know winos had horns.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1986l.jpg

Curiously, wikipedia has compiled an inordinately long list for the line of succession. Some of the candidates are hilarious.

The list will no doubt change significantly once Catholics c.s. are allowed back on though ;)

I'll try and find the article, but the woman who took the photo said the polar bear was only a mile from land, and in no distress.

EDIT: Found one: http://www.newswithviews.com/Williams/carole7.htm

Very good article on how Al Gore and the Eco-terrorists are manipulating things. So, Al Gore owns a company that sells carbon offsets. Good think for him the company is in the UK, that way the US won't prosecute him for running such a scam.

The list will no doubt change significantly once Catholics c.s. are allowed back on though ;)

Hopefully. That prohibition should have repealed many moons ago.

I don't think there is much wrong with old Charlie boy, I quite like him.

Surely, the question is how much extra flying he does as a result of his climate change activities.

Anyway, that Al Gore and Charles Windsor are hypocrites doesn't mean that climate change isn't happening or that humans aren't responsible for it. The OP is just a red herring.

(And I'm a republican - not in the American sense, mind you.)

Wasn't the "Al Gore is a Hypocrite" thing debunked like...2 years ago when it first came out on the net? I believe it was along the lines that he might use more energy and spend more on it, but a lot of what he spends on energy comes in the form of clean energy. I don't know about the royalty though. They may or may not do the same thing.

LMAO

Dude, why do you get so aggro over tiny things like this?

So you made a mistake no need to get all snippy about it. lol

Because it wasn't a mistake, it was a metaphor. I have no idea where Charles lives, and I don't care. I know that he COULD hang out at Buckingham or Balmoral if he so desired, so where's the point in saying "nyah, nyah, your whole point is wrong because Charles doesn't actually live there, ha ha ha?" What kind of horseshit deflection is that?

I'm making a point, somebody deliberately misses the point because of the metaphor and then oh-so-calm-and-clever you comes along and says "duuuuuude relaaaaaax". I don't enjoy being deliberately misinterpreted, and I enjoy even less being poked about it by someone who can't be arsed to spell "aggravated". I'll react however I like. Now can you stick to the topic or are we to have a debate now over more niggling shit. Remember, you brought it up.

And before you continue, I don't give a shit if I'm overreacting in the first place because it's NSG, for fuck's sake. The better question might be why do you have to prance like a magpie about the nature of posts rather than the content of them?

The better question might be why do you have to prance like a magpie about the nature of posts rather than the content of them?

By pretending that the point of your argument was where Charles lived, they can feel that by continually 'correcting' you on that 'point,' they are scoring some major points and are in fact just lounging about, verbally, in celebration of 'victory.' Your role, of course, is to feel humiliated at having 'lost' and been 'proven wrong' so soundly.

Why are you ignoring the script? They wrote the part just for you. You're not playing fair.

but what if worse comes to worse, William dies without an heir and Harry ascends the thone? Imagine that gingernut with the toilet brush hairdo and Prince Philipesque sense of tact being your king. It'd be like the US having GWB as president for life!
Yeah but no. He used his pal's nickname and it got reported in the press as flagrant racism (not really the case) and had some teething troubles being responsible which seem to have been sorted out. That, combined with him not being too much of a pussy to fight a war, and having very limited executive power makes it a bit different. Just a bit, though.

Because it wasn't a mistake, it was a metaphor. I have no idea where Charles lives, and I don't care. I know that he COULD hang out at Buckingham or Balmoral if he so desired, so where's the point in saying "nyah, nyah, your whole point is wrong because Charles doesn't actually live there, ha ha ha?" What kind of horseshit deflection is that?

I'm making a point, somebody deliberately misses the point because of the metaphor and then oh-so-calm-and-clever you comes along and says "duuuuuude relaaaaaax". I don't enjoy being deliberately misinterpreted, and I enjoy even less being poked about it by someone who can't be arsed to spell "aggravated". I'll react however I like. Now can you stick to the topic or are we to have a debate now over more niggling shit. Remember, you brought it up.

And before you continue, I don't give a shit if I'm overreacting in the first place because it's NSG, for fuck's sake. The better question might be why do you have to prance like a magpie about the nature of posts rather than the content of them?

Ok, now I really am LMAO.

I didn't miss your point and was saying because of that mistake your entire point is wrong. I was simply pointing out that he doesn't live not can he simply "hang out" at Buckingham Palace, so yeah dude you made a mistake..

As for using the term aggro instead of aggravated, I am sure you have heard of the term know as slang? Yeah, well that's what I was using.

Why? Because I love to prance and dance around cause that's more of a Milhouse thing. So yeah duuuude relaaaaaax.

Ok, now I really am LMAO.

I didn't miss your point and was saying because of that mistake your entire point is wrong. I was simply pointing out that he doesn't live not can he simply "hang out" at Buckingham Palace, so yeah dude you made a mistake..

As for using the term aggro instead of aggravated, I am sure you have heard of the term know as slang? Yeah, well that's what I was using.

Why? Because I love to prance and dance around cause that's more of a Milhouse thing. So yeah duuuude relaaaaaax.

I'm grateful that I can bring so much levity and joy to your world, and sad that this is how you achieve such joy.

You're basically not contributing anything and instead choose to be a nattering fly-speck. Got it.

I have nothing against or for the monarchy. If you want to keep yours that's OK with me. I happen to prefer no monarchy. Hell, we have enough people in Washington DC that believe they are Royals. :)

No royalty in the US, but we definitely have an aristocracy.

I think it is time to bring in Webster.
Both Gore and Charles believe that carbon emissions are bad for the environment and a major cause of global warming. The tell us we should reduce our carbon footprint. That is what they believe and preach.

Webster says

hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


Both Gore and Charles run around the world in private jets which pump a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Both of them live in huge house which consume more energy than the average home.

Both Gore and Charles meet the #2 definition for the word hypocrite. If they truly believed what they are spouting they should set the example, move into smaller homes, and find other less carbon emitting methods of getting their message out. Flying in a commercial aircraft would be a good start.

Except, they aren't arguing that people shouldn't travel in private jets. They aren't arguing against taking steps necessary to the business you conduct. What they argue for is balancing it with efforts that offset your emissions to reduce your footprint, as you say. Al Gore is reducing his footprint. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly.

See, if you're going to go with an ad hominem attack, which, of course, is a fallacy, at least try, just try, to make it an accurate attack.