This article in USA Today details the hypocrisy of Al Gore. Gore lives in multiple mansions, owns petroleum stocks, and profits from a polluting zinc mine on his property. If he thinks our existence is threatened, you’d think he’d be leading the way for types of sacrifices he’s asking all the rest of us to make. My guess is that just one of his 10,000 square foot mansions consumes more energy than I (or most of us) consume in a single year. He reminds me of the actor character in Michael Creighton’s State of Fear, who calls for sacrifice and warns of the dangers of fossil fuels while jet-sets around the world and consumes more energy than most of the rest of us.
So, what do you think? Does Al Gore not believe the Global Warming bunk he peddles, or does he think he’s too good and important to make the types of sacrifices he demands of the rest of us?
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Personally I think it's better to err on the side of caution. So even if Mr. Gore doesn't believe the doomsday scenario he's been spreading, it would still be best to do his part. Leading by example...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think he's been tooting the horn too long for it to be a political ploy.
I think he's like most of us, in that his actions don't always line up with the ideals we cherish. I hope he does make an effort to remove some of the hypocrisies brought to light in the article. I also think that almost all wealthy people will have such hypocrisies, as their wealth is not often created by institutions we now think of as "decent".
I'm glad someone working for a think tank that clearly has an agenda antithetical to Gore's environmental policies got an op-ed published in USA Today though.
-Bok
Posted by Andrew W (Member # 4172) on :
I think he's just a hypocrite. Most rich people like that are.
Maybe he thinks he offsets it with 'good works' that eat up his contribution to climate change.
AW
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yeah, because if you can't argue against the facts and the science, tar and feather the people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Changing the topic because you can't argue the matter at hand appears to be an equal-opportunity tactic, Dan.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
My ultimate problem is that the article is written as completely hostile, instead of in a way that lead to people asking Gore why he had such holdings. THis article instead (to me) implies the reasons for his hypocrisy, and seems to me a weapon to make sure people shut out _everything_ Gore is saying, to completely discredit him.
After all, I AM a hybrid owner, and I am sympathetic to Anthropogenic Global Warming, but I bet my 401k has several oil and energy stocks in it. I bet IBM could be found to have done some nasty polluting of the Hudson (and may still), yet I own shares of the company... Heck, I even worked for them.
It would be even more interesting to create a dialogue where Gore might be more willing to explain himself with the nuance required. However, if the tone of the article is any indication, anything with nuance will be dissected in a semantic spat.
-Bok
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Bok, I think you miss the point. We all consume energy form fossil fuels, and if we own stock, we all own parts of companies with "unclean hands" from an environmental point of view. But Al Gore's hypocracy rises beyond the typical compromises we all must make to make a living and get by in the world. If he weren't such a hypocrite, he'd live in one moderate sized home, particiapte in energy conservation efforts sponsored by his local utility, and demand that the zinc-mining polluters on his land clean up thier act. The article reads unbalanced because Al Gore's hypocracy is so extreme, not because the article lacks "nuance."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Here's the big question: Does being a hypocrite make him wrong about global warming?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did owning slaves make Jefferson wrong about liberty and equality?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Perhaps, Mig. Or maybe there some reasons, including plain old ignorance, for some of the hypocrisies (though I find the jet emmissions argument out of place; so what if his publishing company pays for it as part of his deal, as opposed to him. Sounds like the work of a good contract negotiator). The author of that article has it all figured out, though... After all, his day job allows him to research into detail a politician's personal choices.
I hope he tries to fix some of them, but even then, so what? He'll be called a fruit, or too granola, for doing all these things.
I will add that his hypocrisies are only larger because he is rich, and therefore his money can magnify things. OIf course, were he to live more modestly, people would also point and say, "See, if that's what a rich guy has to do to be eco-concious, us regular guys are really going to have to suffer!"
-Bok
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Maybe his hypocrisies underly the fact that he doesn't believe his own BS?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
If that were the case, why would he be a more visible proponent [EDIT: today] of the same BS that he supported years ago as well. Particularly in light of the lost presidential election, where his stance was minimized to, presumably, reduce it's damage at the polls?
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Maybe his hypocrisies underly the fact that he doesn't believe his own BS?
Thats the direction I would lean in. Or he does not take it as seriously as he pretends to.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Maybe his hypocrisies underly the fact that he doesn't believe his own BS?
Which parts of his argument in An Inconvenient Truth strike you as BS, Pixiest?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Failing to live up to our own ideals is not limited to Al Gore. Again, do you think that Jefferson believed what he wrote despite falling far short of implementing it in his own life?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: If that were the case, why would he be a more visible proponent [EDIT: today] of the same BS that he supported years ago as well. Particularly in light of the lost presidential election, where his stance was minimized to, presumably, reduce it's damage at the polls?
-Bok
Since when does a politician need to believe what he supports? Global Warming gives Al Gore a convenient issue to keep him in the spotlight. I don't doubt that he believes the bunk he sells, but I think that his wealth should be irrelevant to the issue of sacrifice. What I mean is: His wealth shouldn't justify him having a larger "carbon footprint" than the rest of us. He shouldn't ask us to sacrifice if he's not willing to live like the rest of us. According to Gore, we're in a crisis situation; the survival of the Earth is at the crossroads; this is no time for half-measures. If you belive this dear Al, why do you insist on using your disproportionate share of the energy pie. Kyoto would have cost American jobs; and I think its a safe bet that the people who would have lost their jobs wouldn't have had a third home to fall back on after they lost thier first home.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
All good questions, that if asked a bit less accusingly/leadingly, would be very interested in reading what Gore said.
As for Kyoto costing jobs, perhaps. but it also would have been a huge incentive to invest in new technologies/industries that could have hired them right back... Unless those at the top of the energy food chain really are as selfish as some suggest, and would lay off workers, while sitting on their wealth, rather than try and reinvest in the new energy economy that might get them rich.
-Bok
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Failing to live up to our own ideals is not limited to Al Gore. Again, do you think that Jefferson believed what he wrote despite falling far short of implementing it in his own life?
Yes, but we're viewing Jefferson's actions through a two century lens. His actions were much less hypocritical at the time. When black people got redefined as being human years later, then his actions appear hypocritical.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
If that's the case, come back in 200 years and complain about Gore's hypocrisy. I would say his is not nearly as hypocritical, given his times.
-Bok
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I thought that the accusations might be overblown because Gore was paying extra for green energy. But according to the article, "According to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes." You'd think he'd have done that after several years on his current campaign.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think you missed my point. Was Jefferson's ownership of slaves seen by a significant number people living during Jefferson's time as hypocracy? If not, then it's not really a valid comparison to Gore now, since most people on this thread have acknowledged the hypocracy of his actions.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Which current campaign, the movie? It's only been out since the beginning of the year, no? Or you mean all the back in the 80s and 90s? When they might not have had the option?
I don't want to apologize for the guy, but I guess I am. So I'll stop.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BQT, sure, there were even abolishionists back then, and the slavery issue was in the minds of all the founding fathers, when pounding out the 3/5ths law and the like.
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And Jefferson himself spoke often about the evils of slavery. He actively tried to legislate against it - while owning slaves himself.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: If that's the case, come back in 200 years and complain about Gore's hypocrisy. I would say his is not nearly as hypocritical, given his times.
-Bok
I don't think we'll need to wait 20 years. Warming and cooling of the Earth is cyclical. It's no warmer now than it was in the 30s. I think we'll start seeing a cooling trend within the next 10 to 20, if it hasn't started already. I read - I think it was in the London Telegraph -an article that pointed out how the warming trended ended in '98. In a few years we'll start hearing about the coming Ice Age - just like we were warned in the '70's. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Ice Age scare will also be blamed on Global Warming. Fact is very little is being done to rollback CO2. Not even the nations that have signed Kyoto are close to meeting its targets. In a few years the threat will have proven itself to be a hollow one, the world will start to cool without a CO2 reduction and Al Gore's Hypocracy will have proved equaly harmless in the overall scheme.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Mig- Can I hold you to that prediction? if offered a serious wager, what would be the maximum you'd bet that the earth will start to cool within, say, 20 years?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Mig- Can I hold you to that prediction? if offered a serious wager, what would be the maximum you'd bet that the earth will start to cool within, say, 20 years?
I'd bet everything I own on it. But weather is so unpredictable long term. Global temps may have started cooling 8 years ago, and we could start another warming trend in 20 years. We had cool periods in the 20s and 70s with warm periods in the 30s and the current period for late 80s-90s. cycles of roughly 50 years, so its a safe bet that the next 20 will see a down ward trend in temperturers. Remember also the difficulty of calculating average global temperture. The supposed increase within the last 100 years is will within the roughly 3 degree F margin error.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Hypocrites can certainly be right. So can penitent people who screwed up.
On the other hand, if Gore -- hypocrite or not -- has all this hard evidence that humanity is responsible for global warming, and it's going to be catastrophic, why *isn't* he reining in his lifestyle? He can't be such a monster that he doesn't give a damn if billions die from global floods and crop failures, can he? He must not be too much more worried about it than I am -- that is, he has the same opinion of his claims that I do. This would be a good argument for not listening to him. (I don't mean listening to him, and then believing the opposite! Just to get our info from elsewhere.)
Recommended reading, on a related subject: Do As I Say, Not As I Do.
[ August 10, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The point is, as it says at the end of the article, a matter of credibility, not hypocrisy. Gore is a smart man. Why isn't he doing everything he can to publicly live by his suggestions?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I still wouldnt respect him (Gore)if he made the switch now, It would be hard for me to believe he had done it as a way to demonstrate his beliefs so much as a way to appease his retractors.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A future ice age is one of the things predicted as a possible end result of global climate change. But that depends on how much cool water is dumped how quickly into the ocean. If, like in "Day After Tomorrow" that fan that heats Europe shuts down, you might just see something like a mini-ice age in some of the northern hemisphere, even as other parts of the world heat up. doesn't have to be an ice age for Europe to look like Siberia. Kind of cheap for you to say "next thing you know they'll blame the ice age on global warming too!" Saying it like that, especially since it's out there as a possibility, doesn't make it untrue, or any more crazy sounding.
The things that he does in his personal life don't effect how I view the message he's trying to send, as much as it might effect my opinion of the man. As for Jefferson, he got it from BOTH sides of the aisle (so to speak). Abolitionists were angry at him for not freeing his slaves immediately and trying to have it both ways, whereas slaveholders saw him as a traitor, and a thorn in their sides.
He's spent too much of his life learning about and preaching about Global climate change for it to just be a ploy, I believe that much. And I hope he keeps up with the message, though I'd also hope he'd try and clean up his personal life too, he certainly has the money too. But I don't really fault him for owning multiple homes. That's less wealth, and more politics (hand in hand?). Most politicians and activists and what not own a home in their home state and a residence in the Washington area. For Congressmen, they HAVE to, whether they can afford to or not. Besides, if you all had tons of money, you wouldn't own more than one place? I would. I'd have a beach house on Lake Michigan, one in Hawaii, a nice place in Detroit and Bloomington, IN, and maybe a townhouse in Boston or something.
I think part of this is anti-wealth as much as it is anti-hypocrisy. But I think Jefferson is the best example to use. His personal life doesn't demean the message.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
He can own twenty homes if he wants. It's the mine, the oil stocks, and the failure to green power the homes that stood out for me.
The message hasn't been demeaned for people who already believe in it. But he'll have more of an uphill battle convincing the undecided that he's right if he doesn't appear to live by his own admonitions. And this is a guy used to living in the public eye, who should know very well the power of opinion.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
quote: Here's the big question: Does being a hypocrite make him wrong about global warming?
And here is a little answer: No, but it does not help his credibility much. And it makes people question his motives.
quote: what would be the maximum you'd bet that the earth will start to cool within, say, 20 years?
Oh, I’d say about in two more months. That’s when the pipes in my solar water heater will start to freeze and rupture if I don’t get them winterized in time.
Al Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit” was published in 1992. So his environmental convictions (or lip service - take your pick) is nothing new. One would think that it sure has taken him a long time to start, as his office spokesman said,
quote: looking into making the switch at both homes
But then again, it is hideously expensive to convert a house to use “green” technologies. But folks like Al Gore and Barbra Streisand are just the type of folks who could afford it. (Yo Al, I sure would like to install a wind generator on my property and some solar voltaic cells on my roof. How about giving me a grant.)
On the one hand, there are those who say that environmentalism is the last gasp of Socialism. I’m not sure I totally believe that but I do sometimes question the motives of guys like Al Gore.
But on the other hand I think that we have to have the kind of opposition provided by the environmental movement to help keep big business in check. Because I’m pretty well convinced that corporations will rape, pillage, and pollute the earth unless they are forced to do otherwise. Being good neighbors is not in the nature of the big business beast.
But on the other foot (I only have two hands), if Al Gore is part of the big business beast, (what, with his mine and stuff) then the question of motive comes up again.
But then on the second foot, if you are not part of the big buisness game, how do you get rich enough to then be able to go around and do great works for the benifit of mankind.
I’m just not sure what to believe anymore.
As for 200 years ago and the slavery issue. Well, John and Abigail Adams were outspoken abolitionists as was a good friend of theirs there is Mass.. But John and Abigail definitely were not hypocrites about it. They were once given a young slave woman as a gift and they immediately manumitted her. But their friend and fellow abolitionist owned a slave or several.
So it is possible to be an activist and have integrity too. It was even possible 200 years ago.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:I'd bet everything I own on it.
Mig. Since you live in Florida, you already have.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Whoops, I guess it's that time again. Can't pick on the science anymore? Burden of proof getting too heavy? Attack the messenger.
It's always fun to gripe and moan about rich people's thoroughly lavish excesses. I do it all the time. Nominally, it's a liberal thing, but now we can all join in!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In my experience, issues like this are almost always solely determined by how much the person liked and respected the guy prior to information about contradiction or hypocrisy, and not really on how much that person is interested in consistency of belief.
Just a for example...exactly how much hand-wringing and excusing would there be if there were a revelation that President Bush in fact worshipped at a mosque or a synagogue every few weekends? And not just went to visit, but actually prayed to Muslim and Jewish deities?
Somehow, I don't think there'd be as much concern with "paying attention to his message." He'd get flamed, and rightly so.
It's the same with Al Gore. He talks a good game about "the inconvenient problem", and wants to enact legislation to deal with it...but why are we supposed to trust his sincerity on that, when he's not prepared to do what he can now? And I don't mean doing things like being famous and making speeches and being a household name and environmentalist darling, either.
If you examine the way he (apparently) actually lives, I know a good half-dozen people who give a damn about the environment and the future of the Earth's climate a whole lot more than Al Gore, and that's just off the top of my head.
I think it's frankly laughable that somehow the focus should be on 'the message' when one of 'the message's' premier advocates is outed as such a glaring hypocrite. But not very surprising, because it happens on both sides.
It is tiresome, though, when people behave as though it were somehow a trademarked monopoly of the opposition. And when people behave as though somehow the top-tier liberal spokespeople aren't also generally filthy rich and so far removed from the experiences and lifestyles of 'the common man' as to make them as absurd and annoying as the people they skewer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I think it's frankly laughable that somehow the focus should be on 'the message' when one of 'the message's' premier advocates is outed as such a glaring hypocrite.
I guess the rationale for staying focused on the message is that hypocrisy doesn't make someone's expressed opinions wrong. It doesn't even indicate that they're likely to be wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's entirely a statement made about the person, not about his opinions.
But this is America. And not even Hatrack is above an inability to separate the message from the messanger.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
My take: frankly, to the extent that the main points are true, shame on him.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
What does this
quote:Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.
Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
have to do with global warming?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, it's a link between global climate change and the greater cause of environmentalism.
The multiple houses thing is a possible good hit, though if he isn't occupying those homes, they aren't really using up a ton of energy are they? Or maybe any at all.
The oil thing, even if that particular company is polluting, isn't necessarily bad. Billions of dollars in research and investment are coming from oil companies like BP (first that came to mind), they aren't 100% antithetical to the cause.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It's also a misleading comparison. Zinc mines, to my knowledge, have nothing to do with global warming. If Gore really is a climate change boogyman who doesn't believe the things he's saying, why does the author need to drag in unrelated examples to make his case?
The oil stock is, at least, semi-related to the issue at hand. I haven't yet seen Inconvenient Truth, so I don't know what he says about/against Occidental. Again, though, I don't know what "Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas" has to do with global warming.
I can see the need for someone of Gore's - or Bush or anyone else in high-level politics - stature to own and occupy more than one house at different times. That's not unreasonable. A 10,000 sq ft home, I think, is excessive, but then again, I have no idea to what use he puts it. If he's constantly hosting numerous guests, then I don't see the problem. If he just happens to enjoy casual strolls throught blindingly lit mansions, then yes, there's clearly some hypocracy there.
Speaking of lighting, the non-green energy use is dissapointing. I hope he remedies that soon. (On a side note, I wonder if Washington offers that kind of thing)
As a side note, I don't hear anyone complaigning that Bill Gates is a hypocrit. If his foundation is truly interested in helping to "reduce inequities" around the world, why does he live in an obscenely huge mansion? He shouldn't be able to solicit donations from anyone poorer than he is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think it's frankly laughable that somehow the focus should be on 'the message' when one of 'the message's' premier advocates is outed as such a glaring hypocrite.
This is an Ad Homenim attack the logical fallacy of which has been established for over 2 millenia. Gore's character has absolutely no connection to the validity of Global Climate change.
Global Climate change theory is founded on decades of research by thousands of scientist from every part of the globe, and not a film by Al Gore.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Could you please point out where exactly I said, "Global climate change theory is flawed because Al Gore is a blaring hypocrite?"
I am talking about this particular issue. People are behaving as though it's not important that Al Gore is a hypocrite who would not be so forgiving if he wasn't someone who was espousing a message they already liked in the first place, Rabbit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And this is exactly what I'm talking about, actually. Because Al Gore has a good message, people get irritated when you ppint out he's a freaking hypocrite.
Why? Strong proponents of global climate change theory should be even more upset and annoyed at Gore than I am, not defending him because he's got a good message and-at least towards me-certainly not acting as though I'm saying throw out the message with the messenger.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Rakeesh, are you seriously arguing that others in this thread, starting with the first post, aren't trying to use charges of hypocracy on Gore's part to dismiss the idea of global climate change?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Noemon, why shouldn't people argue in this thread that Gore's actions are in direct opposition to his stance on global warming? If he is so admanant that we all have to change our lives or else the planet will be unlivable in 10 years shouldn't he be doing what he can to save us? I think Gore's Inconvenient Truth is that he doesn't want to be Inconvenienced in his own life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, I'm not Noemon. I think I've taken pains to speak only for myself, here. I don't particularly care what other people, with ideological axes to grind, want to think.
I thought I was trying to point out that the way to advance one's agenda isn't to just blithely dismiss things like that because the guy supports Cause X, because so long as you do, the opposition will just keep on hammering at it...and winning-that particular argument, anyway.
No, the best thing to do is drop it like it's hot and disavow Gore as a hypocrite. But...unfortunately that's really not very possible, because I expect that even a cursory examination of other top political environmentalists will reveal the same sort of...contradictions...as it has in Al Gore's case.
It's easy to support a cause when doing so gets you famous, and you don't really have to sacrifice your standard of living to do so. It's a shame, really, because Gore harms the cause of environmentalists everywhere by his flagrant disregard for his own ideas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still not seeing where Gore exhibits "flagrant disregard" for his own ideas. Last I heard, he's been relying on the carbon trade market -- a "solution" for his higher personal energy use which is not inconsistent with his position.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, I'm not Noemon. I think I've taken pains to speak only for myself, here. I don't particularly care what other people, with ideological axes to grind, want to think.
I went back and reread what you'd written in the post I was responding to, and was flabbergasted to see that it what you'd actually said wasn't at all what I'd read you as saying. That's what I get for hurridly checking posts and responding to something while I'm getting ready in the morning. Sorry about that. For what it's worth, what I thought you were saying struck me as being incredibly out of character for you.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Noemon, why shouldn't people argue in this thread that Gore's actions are in direct opposition to his stance on global warming? If he is so admanant that we all have to change our lives or else the planet will be unlivable in 10 years shouldn't he be doing what he can to save us? I think Gore's Inconvenient Truth is that he doesn't want to be Inconvenienced in his own life.
Man. I must have been smoking crack as I was getting ready this morning; I completely misread this post as well. I'm glad that I didn't have time to respond to it before heading to work.
There is no reason at all that people shouldn't be making that argument. To the degree that the allegations in the article are true, I'm quite dissappointed in Gore. I'm interested in hearing his response to the allegations, though.
Tom, does Gore's use of the carbon trade market cover all of his energy use, or just the energy use applied toward the promotion of the film?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Don't worry about it, Noemon-I'd be the last person to complain about someone else reading what wasn't there in a hurry (although in this thread I almost want to-it'd be deliciously funny). Thanks for the compliment as well
Oh, and it occurrs to me...the number of his homes does have an impact on global climate change because even if he doesn't live there, he certainly doesn't need all of those homes...and unless they were built with mules and manual labor, a lot of greenhouse gasses were surely expelled into the atmosphere building his many homes.
That's aside from the fact that they add to the human footprint in the area unnecessarily, further pushing back natural habitats, and a host of other factors.
Al Gore's environmentalist philosophy would appear to be, "Do as I say, not as I do," or, "Hey, I'm not as bad as those guys."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Neomon, you shouldn't smoke, it's bad for you! I honestly don't think Gore needs to respond because people who believe in him won't really care, the press certainly will not care, so this will 'story' will fade pretty quickly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm still not seeing where Gore exhibits "flagrant disregard" for his own ideas. Last I heard, he's been relying on the carbon trade market -- a "solution" for his higher personal energy use which is not inconsistent with his position.
I'm not particularly fond of the types of attacks being made against Gore here, but his mantra is sustainability and carbon neutrality. The only reason what he's doing will work is because a whole lot of people aren't doing what is needed to work (according to his premises).
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
The number and size of the homes Gore has is relevant not because of the energy expended in constructing the homes, but in the energy needed to maintain the homes, to keep them heated in the winter and cool in the summer, lights, etc. A 10,000 square foot home uses a heck of a lot more fossil fuels and is responsible for more so-called green house gases than a modest 2,000 sq. foot home. Arent Al and Tipper empty nesters? Haven't their kids already left the mansion for their own palacial estates? If Gore beleives his spiel, you'd think he heed his own advise. I love what DarkKnight wrote earlier, "I think Gore's Inconvenient Truth is that he doesn't want to be Inconvenienced in his own life." How can he think that the situation is so dire that he doesn't take more drastic measures. In the end I put this down to simple liberal hypocrasy. Liberals like Gore like to tell the rest of us what's best for us, but their enlightened advise is never good enough for them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you don't really know he keeps the homes air conditioned and heated and supplied with water throughout the year, do you? I know several snowbirds, and they generally don't do those things with their winter homes.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Rakeesh, you have to keep homes in places like Tenn or Virginia heated/cooled to some extent in order to maintain them. Especially homes of that size. You also don't just turn off all of the power.
Let's not just focus on Al Gore, the article points out that Howard Dean and the DNC also don't particiapte in energy savings measures offer by the Wash. DC utility. Also curious about how you excuse Gore's profiting off of a pollluting zinc mine on his property?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Haven't you been paying attention, Mig?
I don't excuse them.
Hypocrisy does not preclude belief on behalf of a spokesperson, it just precludes personal dedication. It also has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not their cause is justified and correct or not.
quote:So, what do you think? Does Al Gore not believe the Global Warming bunk he peddles...
Seeing as how you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a credible scientist in a related field who feels there is at least something to global climate change theories, I'd say it's not 'bunk', not by a long shot.
Find me a credible scientist who, using scientified and reviewed methods has laid serious debunks to global climate change theory who hasn't been rebutted at least to an extent, Mig. I dare you. You can't do it. Global climate change isn't just 'bunk'. I don't know if it's an accurate reflection of reality or not-I have some reservations-but you can't just blithely dismiss it.
Certainly not because one of its prominent spokespeople is a jackass. Now that's bunk.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Liberals like Gore like to tell the rest of us what's best for us, but their enlightened advise is never good enough for them.
As though this kind of thing weren't common to everyone at the top of the ladder, man.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks for the history lesson Samuel Bush, kmbboots, and Bok. I stand corrected, it is a valid analogy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Liberals like Gore like to tell the rest of us what's best for us, but their enlightened advise is never good enough for them.
Welcome to the lifestyles of nigh unto all political elites. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, does Gore's use of the carbon trade market cover all of his energy use, or just the energy use applied toward the promotion of the film?
I remember Gore advocating and discussing his use of the carbon market at least two and probably three years ago, specifically related to the ownership of multiple residences; he mentioned that he'd heard of it recently (at the time) and had jumped aboard without reservation because it seemed like a brilliant idea. I have no idea how much of his income actually goes to the market, or whether his carbon credits come anywhere close to a zero net emission lifestyle, but it seems silly to say "why isn't Gore living in a lightless cave when he cares about the environment" when one of his personal crusades is all about finding ways to live practically in the modern world without excessively polluting it. Gore's not about a complete withdrawal from civilization, nor a monastic, ascetic lifestyle; that kind of self-denial has never been his schtick, and he's never suggested (to my knowledge) that we as humans should turn our PCs into plowshares.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Does it occur to anyone that someone who is invested in the oil industry stands to lose a portion of his investment if carbon emission standards damage the oil industry?
It seems to me that the owner of such stock who is willing to take such a loss is anything but a hypocrite.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I don't really believe in global warming being caused by humans. But for crying out loud!
Does anyone need any more convincing that we humans are destroying everything around us?
Edit:
Who cares what Gore does? The big business and government who is fighting Gore has no interest but their own paycheck. Personally, if Gore had won the 2000 election, I doubt he would be touting global warming and would act much like the current administration.
But who cares! Why on earth are we still using gasoline cars?!?!?
[ August 15, 2006, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Why on earth are we still using gasoline cars?!?!?
Who's "we"? I ride a bicycle. (There, I've used up my smugness quota for the month.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Who cares what Gore does? The big business and government who is fighting Gore has no interest but their own paycheck. Personally, if Gore had won the 2000 election, I doubt he would be touting global warming and would act much like the current administration.
What do you base that on? I think that's a baseless assumption.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It seems to me that the owner of such stock who is willing to take such a loss is anything but a hypocrite.
So let me get this straight...it's acceptable to profit from something believed to be harmful now if in the future, your profits from that venture will be harmed by the work you're doing now?
Puh-leeze.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think a better argument, is that oil companies spend BILLIONS every year on renewable energy research and production.
Therefore, I don't think owning oil stocks are inherently antithetical to what he is preaching.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So let me get this straight...it's acceptable to profit from something believed to be harmful now if in the future, your profits from that venture will be harmed by the work you're doing now?
Who says he's profiting? He owns the stock. If his work forces the value of the stock downward, he doesn't profit, he loses. In the meantime, as a stockholder, he has more say in whether the company works toward environmental solutions.
Gore also invested heavily in Molten Metals Technologies because it sounded like a real solution to hazardous waste problems. The fact that it was a fraud is irrelevant.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: Who cares what Gore does? The big business and government who is fighting Gore has no interest but their own paycheck. Personally, if Gore had won the 2000 election, I doubt he would be touting global warming and would act much like the current administration.
What do you base that on? I think that's a baseless assumption.
I don't trust politicians from either party. I am working on a theory: people in power don't want to change anything and will do anything to maintain the status quo. It is only the people not in power who try to enact change. And many times their motivation to enact change is only to change the status quo so they can get in power. Beyond the theory, I think this is what the people in power believe about the people out of power. They don't trust anyone's motive. They believe if the they cave in and starte behaving enviromentally responsible, the opposition wins because that would mean they were wrong and the opposition was right.
Just a baseless theory that isn't well organized right now.
My point about this thread is who cares what Gore does? Even if global warming is a bunch of balony, it wont kill anyone to be more responsible. We know we are causing polution, spending non-renewable energy, and dumping money into the Middle East. I would love to hear someone argue that those things are good.....
If you were driving 100 MPH, but someone in another car was honking at you to stop because they said they knew about a bridge that was collapsed, but you couldn't see it, what harm would it do to stop? I think we wont stop because we don't like the messenger, don't want to be told what to do, don't want to feel in debt to the messenger, stopping might mean the messenger could get in front of us, and we don't want to stop anyway, going 100 MPH is fun.
Considering what could be at stake, why aren't we at least considering doing something? Get rid of gas cars? The easiest thing. Why aren't we doing it?
Forget about what could be at stake, no one can argue that it isn't good. I've heard so many arguments that it would be too hard to switch. But now that I know about GM's electric car line, I know that we easily have the means to switch to electric, not even hybrid, but full blown electric.
But why aren't we doing it?!?! GM totally demolished their electric car fleet once the California laws were relaxed! They wont even give us the option of owning an electric car!!!!!!!!!! Why isn't anyone else mad about this?
(I'm not mad at anyone here , just pissed at the obvious market manipulation by big business that destroyed the progression from gas to electric cars. I better go chill out.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:what harm would it do to stop?
Here's the problem. I believe that the Greenhouse Effect is real, and that global warming is a reality.
But in your analogy, the car we're driving represents our economy. What harm, indeed?
Posted by Sevenar (Member # 9660) on :
I think the biggest mistake the filmmakers made was to have a politician narrate the movie.
Science is not about politics.
Science is not about popularity.
Scientists, on the other hand, are as human as the rest of us. Personal biases are bound to creep in. Biases on the part of the grant providers creep in as well. Yes, scientists are supposed to be as coldly impartial as a freight train, but if you lay down the rails for them, that's the way they go.* Peer review is supposed to act as a check and balance, but what if the peers uniformly hold one position?
There are legitimate scientific questions over the validity of the global-warming hypothesis--and there should be. The modern mercury thermometer was invented in the early 1700s, and since mass production came much later, it's not likely that any of them could boast a repeatable 1-degree precision. We only have a century and a half or so of recorded temperature data, natural indicators like tree trunks and ice cores can only give broad generalizations as to climate, and pretty much anything mankind can do to the planet has already been done a thousand times over via natural polluting events like volcanism. It's perfectly acceptable for science to say "we don't know, but if our model is correct, this should be the outcome." It's completely unacceptable for a politician to say "global warming is a FACT, and it's all your fault."
Just my two cents, Sevenar
* apologies to Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay, I swiped that line from an episode of Yes, Minister. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the biggest mistake the filmmakers made was to have a politician narrate the movie.
IIRC, Gore wrote the book first. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
For anyone that didn't see the movie, Gore explains that his college professor has been doing research on greenhouse gases since 1957. Gore studied the issue in college in the 60's, and he outlines initiatives he has been working on since the 70's.
Also, for all the complaints about how Gore was "wooden" during the 2000 campaign, if you see the movie you'll see a man who is very different from that image. He's genuinely passionate about this issue, and it shows in his personality as he presents the information. It appears teaching about the greenhouse effect is a better fit than politics.
He also addresses some of the issues associated with his family's wealth, such as how they stopped farming tobacco when they discovered how harmful it is. And bear in mind that a major part of his message is that rather than fatalistically accepting that the world is doomed and there's no solution, we can make changes without losing the lifestyle we enjoy.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:IIRC, Gore wrote the book first.
Not quite. The movie is based on a lecture that Gore has been working on and refining for years, even decades. From that lecture he wrote the book, but the movie is basically a documentary of the lecture.
In any case, it isn't an issue of inserting Gore into a movie that should be narrated by a scientist. Gore wrote the material based on his own academic investigation of the issue.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I believe his family stopped farming tobacco when his sister was diagnosed with lung cancer (and, ultimately, died of it).
Added: At least, that's what I remember from the movie.
[ August 15, 2006, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
His family didn't stop tobacco farming until years after his sister died. In fact, years after his sister died, it was a standard part of his stump speeches to brag about his hands-on tobacco farming and about how proud he was of being a tobacco farmer. Hypocrisy is nothing new to Al Gore, he's been practicing it long before he took up the Global Warming mantra.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Hypocrisy is nothing new to Al Gore, he's been practicing it long before he took up the Global Warming mantra.
So, to clarify, your basic approach here is to stuff your fingers in your ears while walking backwards, chanting "Al Gore is a hypocrite! I just know he is!" Seems ineffective, but what do I know?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Thank you, I think it can be effective.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Hypocrisy is nothing new to Al Gore, he's been practicing it long before he took up the Global Warming mantra.
So, to clarify, your basic approach here is to stuff your fingers in your ears while walking backwards, chanting "Al Gore is a hypocrite! I just know he is!" Seems ineffective, but what do I know?
It does actually seem to me that Mig gave a fine example of Gore hypocrisy predating the global warming thing. You're taking that quote out of context in a rather malicious manner.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You mean back before we were sure that smoking caused lung cancer?
There's still a huge debate over the dangers of second hand smoke. Just like there's a huge debate over whether or not global climate change exists.
One of the things I like so much about his is that he changes his mind when new information presents itself. He's not stuck in one mind like Bush is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: If his work forces the value of the stock downward, he doesn't profit, he loses. In the meantime, as a stockholder, he has more say in whether the company works toward environmental solutions.
One cannot help but wonder if you'd be so charitable in your opinion of other politicians-even those not in office-who owned shares in companies whose work you considered harmful.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody able to find a firm date on when Gore stopped growing tobacco? I googled for it briefly, but wasn't able to find it. Looks like his sister died of lung cancer in 1984.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:what harm would it do to stop?
Here's the problem. I believe that the Greenhouse Effect is real, and that global warming is a reality.
But in your analogy, the car we're driving represents our economy. What harm, indeed?
A point in the trailer of the electric car movie is that there is so much more money to be made from gasoline and that is a major reason why the electric cars are no longer being manufactured and are instead being demolished.
Our economy will work just fine with electric cars. Maybe less profit for oil companies. But the economy certainly wont halt. But if the economy demands that we burn all the gas we can, then we need serious economic reform.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Our economy will work just fine with electric cars. Maybe less profit for oil companies. But the economy certainly wont halt.
Are you planning to make exceptions for long-haul diesel trucks?
And do you seriously believe that switching to electric automobiles will make a significant dent in CO2 emissions? In order to reduce CO2 emissions enough, we're looking at serious economic impact.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:One cannot help but wonder if you'd be so charitable in your opinion of other politicians-even those not in office-who owned shares in companies whose work you considered harmful.
You'll have to clarify. I don't recall criticizing any politician for their investment choices. Or are you somehow claiming that I would accuse Cheney of hypocrisy for handing out no-bid contracts to Halliburton?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Are you planning to make exceptions for long-haul diesel trucks?
And do you seriously believe that switching to electric automobiles will make a significant dent in CO2 emissions? In order to reduce CO2 emissions enough, we're looking at serious economic impact.
I realize the question was not directed at me, but yes, I do believe that switching to EV's will make a significant dent in C02 emissions.
As for the long haul trucks, sure, if no one can come up with an equivalent technology (although we're really hurting ourselves by not using trains to their full extent) we can make an exception for them.
Speaking as someone whose previous career wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for the emission restrictions, changing from one technology to another doesn't hurt the economy. In fact, it's the mature technologies that tend to cause the economy to stagnate. Steel and glass, for example are dead-end industries, while composites and plastics are driving new industries. The automotive industry is similarly stagnant, which is why the viable ev's are coming out of silicon valley instead of Detroit.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Our economy will work just fine with electric cars. Maybe less profit for oil companies. But the economy certainly wont halt.
Are you planning to make exceptions for long-haul diesel trucks?
And do you seriously believe that switching to electric automobiles will make a significant dent in CO2 emissions? In order to reduce CO2 emissions enough, we're looking at serious economic impact.
Global warming or not, it doesn't matter. We should be doing the things that would stop any possibility of global warming because it is the smart and responsible thing to do.
How fast we convert (big rigs going electric and EV's not making a dent) is hardly an issue when we can't even get started. Someone actually started the conversion process, and it was opposed so strongly it stopped. We should be outraged whether we believe in global warming or not.
What ticks me off is that it wasn't supply and demand that killed the electric car, it wasn't the infrastructure couldn't support it, it wasn't the economy, it was rich and powerful people who killed it so they can take more of our money. They have the power to change the world, and yet they choose to force us to use crap techology for a buck. That makes them scum of the earth in my opinion and I hope they go bankrupt. They don't deserve the power they have.
We should be driving electric cars because they are clean and responsible and mostly because they are COOL.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Woah there. If there were a magical power source to power every single one of these electric cars, then yes, I would say that switching all vehicles over to EVs would have a TREMENDOUS impact on the CO2 emissions of the world, and that's just switching over in the United States.
However, where will the energy come from to charge the cars? If it all comes from coal fired plants and oil burning plants, then you might as well stick with gasoline cars. All you are doing is shifting the load from one CO2 waster to another.
A better idea is plug in hybrids. These cars still have two engines, but can get upwards of 100 miles a gallon of gas, and have the potential to be far greater. It's old world fossil fuels greatly reduced, and without having to spend so much CO2 wasted energy from power plants. I think it's the perfect compromise, especially with renewable energy being so much on the rise in this nation.
But don't let the illusion of emission free cars fool you. It's the same story with hydrogen, for the moment. Creating liquid hydrogen uses the same, if not more, amount of CO2 than letting a regular combustion engine be on the road. Until we switch over to a fuel system that doesn't require the additional burning of fossil fuels, we aren't really solving the problem, we're just creating a more high tech problem for the next generation.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Yeah, I actually thought about that. I drove a Prius once and the sucker recharged itself when stopping and going downhill. It was so utterly cool. I would hope a full electric car did the same.
Anyway, I just want an electric car.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're forgetting that it isn't just regenerative breaking and such that recharges the batteries. Those things help, but the gasoline engine is actually recharging the batteries as well. Without it, you don't go without plugging in somewhere, and the faster you go with less stops, the more juice you need from the wall.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You'll have to clarify. I don't recall criticizing any politician for their investment choices. Or are you somehow claiming that I would accuse Cheney of hypocrisy for handing out no-bid contracts to Halliburton?
If you were to advocate Dick Cheney as a strong advocate for an objective government and defender of free enterprise, then that would be equivalent to your defense of Al Gore because his work will harm his stock portfolio in the future, while it profits now.
By the system of measure you're using, apparently it is acceptable to profit from something you believe to be harmful now if you plan to change it in the future.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Here's one more democrat global warming hypocrits: Illinois Senator Barack Obama. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm He warns against SUVs and global warming then drives off in an SUV, a GMC Envoy. His people claim its an alt-fuel (e85 ethanol) vehicle but it doesn't appear that that that make of SUV is e85 complaint. Other than Ed Biggly, Jr. and Larry David it doesn't seem that many of these people druming the global warming drums believe what they preach, or at least belive that it doesn't have to apply to them.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Of course, Mig, you could call them a hypocrit until they completely cut themselves off from the modern "carbon economy", and then you could point at them and see how they wanted us all to move back into unlit caves...
-Bok
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
What is the point of calling these people hypocrits?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Moral superiority.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If people cannot be living examples of the ideas they present, how can anybody validate the truth of anything anyone says?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ridiculous.
Bush fronts himself as a paragon of virtue, yet is known to have been a drunk driver. Yet he is still by and large trusted, mostly by the same people who villify Gore in the wya you're doing.
Second of all, who the speaker is, has nothing to do with what the speaker says, when he's championing a cause. You can validate the truth of what they are saying by looking at their words, and seeing if the facts back it up. Their personal lives have nothing do to with its validity.
Attacking the speakers in an attempt to discredit the issue is cheap, and in my mind, only serves to show how weak the factual argument of the attacker is. Not to mention it's just plain baseless and silly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Bush fronts himself as a paragon of virtue, yet is known to have been a drunk driver.
To be fair, it's mostly other people, not acting for him, who act as though he's a paragon of virtue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's true enough, mph, but I believe you and I both know Bush's actions and politics are calculated to achieve that end.
-----
Lyrhawn,
If this were an open hypocrisy on the part of someone advocating a policy you disagree with, can you honestly say you'd be so dismissive of it?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Bush fronts himself as a paragon of virtue, yet is known to have been a drunk driver.
I'm not sure what you base this on. He's never denied his past. He'd be a hypocrit if he was talking about the virtues of temprance and he was still a drunk. What makes men like Gore and Obama hypocrits is that that, to paraphrase you, front themselves as paragons of virtue on the environment, yet don't practice what they preach.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Bush fronts himself as a paragon of virtue, yet is known to have been a drunk driver. Yet he is still by and large trusted, mostly by the same people who villify Gore in the wya you're doing.
What has this got to do with anything? First quote where Bush says to the effect, "I am the paragon of virtue." Even if you can do that it merely demonstrates that there are other hypocrites besdies Al Gore.
quote:Second of all, who the speaker is, has nothing to do with what the speaker says, when he's championing a cause. You can validate the truth of what they are saying by looking at their words, and seeing if the facts back it up. Their personal lives have nothing do to with its validity.
um perhaps you are willing to live in a world where people do not actually live the standards they espouse, but I would rather not.
By your logic we should accept the word of a known liar at face value as his personal credibility has no implication on his presentation of the facts.
Nobody expects perfection, but when you so strongly espouse a cause, you can do more than the average person does to demonstrate the virtues of that cause.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What makes men like Gore and Obama hypocrits is that that, to paraphrase you, front themselves as paragons of virtue on the environment, yet don't practice what they preach.
I'm still not seeing this "don't practice what they preach" bit. Where's the evidence for that, again?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
What is your evidence that Obama (a) presents himself as a paragon of virtue and (b) he is a hypocrite?
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Thanks Lyrhawn for stating what you did. It’s an inescapable fact that one has to use electricity to charge up the batteries on a totally electric car and even a hybrid, and that the electricity has to come form some process which uses energy to generate that electricity. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I would like to add this to what you said: I remember form general science that every time you change energy from one state to another or from one form to another, you lose something in the process. The word “efficiency” comes to mind but no doubt the physicist and engineers have other terms as well to describe what I’m talking about.
So my question is, do we gain anything by using an electric car as opposed to a gasoline car? When I say “gain anything” I’m talking about, do we gain anything in terms of CO2 emissions? How about in terms of dollars per mile driven? How about in terms of ergs (or whatever) of energy per mile?
I lack enough background in physics and math to know the answers to these types of questions. So does anyone here have the background or know of any studies done which show comparisons of the different alternatives?
Another thing that I wonder about is solar voltaic cells. Where I live there is plenty of sunshine most of the time. One could conceivablely recharge a car that way without resorting to plugging into the electrical grid. But what would the cost of that be in terms of time it takes to recharge, cost of solar voltaic cells, cost and environmental impact of manufacturing and transporting solar voltaic cells?
Another thing I wonder about is how many more power plants are we going to have to build if we convert to everyone driving electric cars? Right now there are a lot of people (Like Al Gore and John Kerry’s wife) who scream bloody murder at the very suggestion that a new coal fired plant ought to be built. And they go into spasms and foam at the mouth if you even mention the word “nuclear.”
Personally, I would be ecstatic if I didn’t have to give even one more penny to the oil companies (especially the ones connected to the Middle East). It would give me great pleasure also if I didn’t have to give even one more penny to the government in the form of gasoline tax..(Have you seen what the percentage of tax is on gasoline? You always hear folks squawking about oil tycoons’ huge profits but just take a look at how much the government’s piece of the action is.)
So where the heck are all these alternate energy sources I keep hearing about? And how much are they going to cost me? Can I even afford them even if they did become available?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: What is your evidence that Obama (a) presents himself as a paragon of virtue and (b) he is a hypocrite?
As I stated earlier, Illinois Senator Barack Obama made a recemt speech in which he warned against SUVs and global warming and then drives off in an SUV, a GMC Envoy. His people claim its an alt-fuel (e85 ethanol) vehicle but that make of SUV is not e85 complaint. I didn't say that he presents himself as a paragon of virtue, I said that he presents himself as a paragon of virtue on the environment, but he, like so many liberals, doesn't practice what he preaches. See report at http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So my question is, do we gain anything by using an electric car as opposed to a gasoline car? When I say “gain anything” I’m talking about, do we gain anything in terms of CO2 emissions? How about in terms of dollars per mile driven? How about in terms of ergs (or whatever) of energy per mile?
It depends on what we're using to generate the electricity, mainly, and how it's getting to the car. If we went with nuclear sources, electric cars would be reasonably cost-effective and environmentally sensible.
--------
Mig, given how much of Drudge's "flash" information gets retracted, you might want to wait on more data for that one. It's also worth noting that at least three of my coworkers have modified their cars using after-market parts to run on ethanol and other biodiesels.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it's worth nothing that were this a conservative, on a conservative issue, there's a chance Mig would have applied that level of double-checking already.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If people cannot be living examples of the ideas they present, how can anybody validate the truth of anything anyone says?
You are going to rely on a politician for your source of truth? You can't gather the evidence concerning this to decide the truth on your own?
I understand that it is nearly impossible to accept the political platform of an opposing party. But this country is getting to the point that even if we are faced with impending doom we are still divided along political lines on the course of action we should take. That is not good.
Big oil has a monopoly on energy. The fact that they were able to kill the next generation of cars is evidence enough for me that their monopoly is going to ruin us.
And burning oil products is dirty and if you've ever visited LA you can't deny it.
Global warming or not, we need to start changing. Polution and big oil's energy monopoly is reason enough for me to adopt the attitude that the proposed actions to solve global warming are valuable enough on their own. Global warming or global freezing, the actions merit enacting.
[ August 16, 2006, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samuel Bush: So my question is, do we gain anything by using an electric car as opposed to a gasoline car? When I say “gain anything” I’m talking about, do we gain anything in terms of CO2 emissions? How about in terms of dollars per mile driven? How about in terms of ergs (or whatever) of energy per mile?
...
So where the heck are all these alternate energy sources I keep hearing about? And how much are they going to cost me? Can I even afford them even if they did become available?
I don't have the science background to answer your questions. But here are my guesses.
I don't think we will gain anything for a long time. But until we switch, we will never gain anything. It is like the propeller vs the jet engine. I'm sure there were many propeller companies who tried to prevent the introduction of the jet engine. But think what we would be flying today if we were still using nothing but propellers. This is exactly the scenerio we have with big oil. They are so powerful they are going to prevent progress.
This is why I'm ticked. I don't care as much about cleaner cars as I do that we are being held back by rich selflish people. Of course, cleaner cars is the future. But that isn't all that is being held back from us. EV's are the bomb dude.
And to answer your other question, we will never see alternative energies become viable until big oil no longer has an energy monopoly.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So my question is, do we gain anything by using an electric car as opposed to a gasoline car? When I say “gain anything” I’m talking about, do we gain anything in terms of CO2 emissions? How about in terms of dollars per mile driven? How about in terms of ergs (or whatever) of energy per mile?
Your question has been pretty much answered in this thread. Electric motors are about 90% thermally efficient, compared to internal combustion at roughly 8% thermal efficiency. Also note that charging the cars at night time actually improves the efficiency of the grid, since it would help balance the power output between day and night.
Also, tesla motors claims that the monetary cost of energy to drive their car is about 1 cent per mile, compared to about 7 cents per mile for my Prius. That's a pretty good indication of how much you "gain" by going electric.
So the short answer to your question is yes.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:As I stated earlier, Illinois Senator Barack Obama made a recemt speech in which he warned against SUVs and global warming and then drives off in an SUV, a GMC Envoy. His people claim its an alt-fuel (e85 ethanol) vehicle but that make of SUV is not e85 complaint.
You should double check this. GM recently announced that it had been quietly producing e85 compliant SUVs in order to comply with federal regulations, but didn't specifically label the vehicles as compliant. Most of the GM SUV's produced during the last several years are fully e85 compliant.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:You'll have to clarify. I don't recall criticizing any politician for their investment choices. Or are you somehow claiming that I would accuse Cheney of hypocrisy for handing out no-bid contracts to Halliburton?
If you were to advocate Dick Cheney as a strong advocate for an objective government and defender of free enterprise, then that would be equivalent to your defense of Al Gore because his work will harm his stock portfolio in the future, while it profits now.
By the system of measure you're using, apparently it is acceptable to profit from something you believe to be harmful now if you plan to change it in the future.
Bzzt. Wrong. Read my post again.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think it's worth nothing that were this a conservative, on a conservative issue, there's a chance Mig would have applied that level of double-checking already.
And here I am, having just posted a thread about that very thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn,
If this were an open hypocrisy on the part of someone advocating a policy you disagree with, can you honestly say you'd be so dismissive of it?
I doubt I would be. But I think I'd give whoever it was a little leeway. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still harp on them a bit, but what I KNOW I wouldn't do, is use their personal actions as some sort of factual proof one way or the other about the veracity of the claim they are making. Life choices have little to do with whether something is scientifically proven or not.
Mig -
It was an example, that quite frankly I think still works, but there are better ones out there I'm sure. Hell, look at the man's campaign pledges, he CERTAINLY does not practice what he preached then. He isn't a uniter, he DOES like big government, and he DOES like more government power and more intrusiveness into people's lives.
And to paraphrase Blackblade, when did Gore or Obama ever stand up and claim that they are paragons of environmental virtue? It's rhetorical, don't answer it, but come on.
Blackblade -
This:
quote: um perhaps you are willing to live in a world where people do not actually live the standards they espouse, but I would rather not.
By your logic we should accept the word of a known liar at face value as his personal credibility has no implication on his presentation of the facts.
as a response to what I said, saddens me greatly. Why are you putting all the responsibility on someone other than yourself? Stop being so damned lazy and learn the facts for yourself. You're speaking as if Gore is the ONLY font of truth when it comes to Environmentalism. He's one voice among thousands, though he gets more face time than most, it doesn't really matter. Yes, the personal respectability factor DOES matter, but we aren't talking about something where a laymen's vouching for or against it really matters, we're talking about a vast scientific spectrum of information. Whether or not Gore is a paragon of virtue or a child molester matters absolutely ZERO about the truthfulness or correctness of Global Climate Change. If you really think it does, then I think you're lazy.
Mig -
The GMC Envoy does not currently come automatically E85 ready, BUT, it is a car, (like almost all cars) that can be easily modified to use E85 fuel. Until you actually get under the hood of his car and prove that those modifications weren't done, calling Obama a liar without any proof is stupid and childish.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Whether or not Gore is a paragon of virtue or a child molester matters absolutely ZERO about the truthfulness or correctness of Global Climate Change.
And my contention, which I don't understand why Republicans can't accept, is that the truthfulness or correctness of Global Climate Change matters absolutely ZERO. The solutions that are proposed are valid enough that we should embrace them! You can have your cake (there is no global warming) and eat it too! (clean up the environment)
Seriously, this shouldn't be a political battle. The real opponents here are the big companies standing in the way of progress. And republican politicians' love of big business is the ONLY reason this is a political battle. Republicans voters need to understand WHY republican politicians are against enacting enviromental changes. It hurts big business! Not because it is a bad thing! It is a very good thing! Clean cars. Silent cars. No more zoom zoom.... but whoosh whoosh! (sound of air as it moves out of way of silent EV car driving by very fast)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Preaching to the choir James.
I think this is the first environmental thread I've argued in for quite some time where I haven't done by whole "Selfish People Should be Enrivonmentalists" thing. I figure people have already heard me do it a dozen times by now, so I don't want to harp on it, but you're right, it doesn't matter whether or not it'll save the entire planet, there's a bunch of benefits that come directly, more immediately, and for that matter, many of them are economic benefits.
The debate is useless, but we still have it anyways.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I just don't get it. How can anyone be against electric cars? I see several categories of alternatives: obviously classic cars, where the technology wont work yet (like big rigs), rich pigs running the oil companies, and rich pigs paid off by the oil companies (GM and republican party). Rich pigs must get a clue. Ok, my facts aren't totally backed up. I really don't know that GM was paid off by Philips 66.
But that brings up another category of rich pigs that still need to get a clue: hummer owners. I know too many of them. They make me sick. It really irks me to see hummers in the church parking lot on Sunday. "Gotta drive the gasoline incinerator to church because we haven't burned enough gas today!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, electric cars do have downsides. *laugh*
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Thanks, Glenn.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, electric cars do have downsides. *laugh*
The slope of the hood as it reaches the bumper, right?
Yeah yeah. Ok. Fine. The first jet airplanes weren't the best in the world either. But ya gotta admit the YF-23 is not your granddad's jet... (first jets flew in WWII)
And the F-35 Lightning isn't no P-38 either (link is to an ogg video file showing the latest jet technologies).
Anyway, I can't wait to see what electric cars can do in 10 years. Maybe all they will do is just drive. But I bet the technologies the auto industry would hone if they were making them would improve many many other aspects of our lives.
[Edit: Arg, I'll get this post right eventually.]
[ August 17, 2006, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by TommySama (Member # 9669) on :
"Maybe all they will do is just drive."
Many of them will think and see and learn, any maybe, someday, be able to love?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Who says he's profiting? He owns the stock. If his work forces the value of the stock downward, he doesn't profit, he loses. In the meantime, as a stockholder, he has more say in whether the company works toward environmental solutions.
I did just that, skippy, and you said what I thought you said.
It is acceptable to profit from something now if you're working to change it in the future. I don't buy into your flimsy 'change it from within' copout, either. Al Gore cannot possibly imagine that the miniscule amount of stock he owns will help him change petroleum company policy from within.
Basically, this is acceptable because it's Al Gore and he's a proponent of a Good Issue.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Oh goody. AlGore quits owning petroleum stocks, and naturally the companies collapse. Four billion people starve to death within the year: the GreenRevolution is HIGHLY dependent on petroleum-derived fertilizers as well as petroleum-fueled mechanization, transportation, etc.
[ August 17, 2006, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not even sure what the point of your post is, aspectre.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is acceptable to profit from something now if you're working to change it in the future.
I know my investment in defense stocks has helped fund my investment into socially conscious stock.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
One concrete downside of electric cars is that they are TOO quiet. Already, the Prius has gotten a few articles about the dangers of it's electric-only mode (which occurs in city traffic going about 30MPH).
Imagine you are a blind (or even just distracted) pedestrian. You get the walk light (or in places that don't have the nifty chirpers, are told you have the walk sign). Except, someone in their new electric car is also distracted and runs the red light. If you are blind you will have no idea that the car is coming at you until it hits you. You get no auditory warning.
Expect sound-makers to become mandatory on any electric cars; maybe not immediately, but when the safety issue becomes clear.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know my investment in defense stocks has helped fund my investment into socially conscious stock.
So to take this line of reasoning one step further, would it be OK to sell questionable used automobiles if you used the profits to fund orphanages and soup kitchens?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So to take this line of reasoning one step further, would it be OK to sell questionable used automobiles if you used the profits to fund orphanages and soup kitchens?
I think it depends on your definition of "OK," and whether you accept utilitarianism as a moral force. Certainly any argument for the "greater good" might well say, yeah, it's "okay" to steal bread for your family. Was it "okay" for the Blues Brothers to cause enormous financial damage to downtown Chicago in their attempt to pay off an orphanage's loan?
I think people leverage this sort of low-grade evil all the time; it's the same logic by which movie stars "justify" their action flicks by doing an art film the next year.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You haven't answered my question, though.
The stolen loaf of bread isn't really applicable here, because whether or not the equivalent action-funding and profiting activities you find morally wrong-is of questionable effectiveness, at best. Stealing the loaf of bread to feed your family, though, well they're starving and you feed them. Pretty straightforward.
How far along we are to 'starvation' is by no means clear, either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The stolen loaf of bread isn't really applicable here, because whether or not the equivalent action-funding and profiting activities you find morally wrong-is of questionable effectiveness, at best.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Is the issue that "bread = food" is more obviously true than "money = assistance?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade,
Do you always live up to the ideals you believe in? Always? If not, should I think that those ideals are false? Or that you are a human being that sometimes falls short?
Should someone disbelieve in Christianity, for example, because Christians don't always live up to it?
Tom, KoM, this is not a question for you. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It is acceptable to profit from something now if you're working to change it in the future. I don't buy into your flimsy 'change it from within' copout, either.
Nope, still haven't got it. You don't profit by owning stock, you profit by selling it. If the stock goes down, he loses. There is no "profit now." Unless you know the details of Gore's stock trading habits, you've no business claiming he profits. (Also see the thread about registering Republican because there's no value in voting in the Democratic primaries in Texas).
As far as changing it from within, it doesn't matter how much of the stock he owns in order to get the annual report, or access to the yearly stockholder's meeting. And given Gore's stature, if he owns one share, and stands up to speak at the shareholder's meeting, people will listen.
The fact is that whether Gore owns petroleum stocks or not has little bearing on whether he's "walking the walk." What matters is whether he's also investing in green technologies. I've already given the example of Molten Metal Technologies, which is something I know he invested in through pure serendipity.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Four billion people starve to death within the year: the GreenRevolution is HIGHLY dependent on petroleum-derived fertilizers as well as petroleum-fueled mechanization, transportation, etc.
I wouldn't hate big business so bad if they behaved better.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade,
Do you always live up to the ideals you believe in? Always? If not, should I think that those ideals are false? Or that you are a human being that sometimes falls short?
Should someone disbelieve in Christianity, for example, because Christians don't always live up to it?
Tom, KoM, this is not a question for you.
Remember I said, "Nobody expects perfection, but when you so strongly espouse a cause, you can do more than the average person does to demonstrate the virtues of that cause."
And yes I do put very much effort into living up to the ideals I think are right.
kmbboots: How do you suggest people be able to establish truth in a world where integrity and honesty are convenient but not mandatory? I suppose I should have bought stock in "salt" because apparently we are supposed to be eating it everytime anybody speaks.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote: Environmentalism's method of handling global warming is flawed.
The old paradigm works like this: We judge just about every issue by asking the question, Will this make the economy larger? If the answer is yes, then we embrace whatever is in question—globalization, factory farming, suburban sprawl. ...
Endless economic growth is built on the use of cheap fossil fuel... Coal, oil, and natural gas were, and are, miraculous—compact, easily transportable, crammed with Btu, and cheap. Dig a hole in the ground, stick a pipe in the right place, and you get all the energy you could ever need. ...
Carbon dioxide is the one major environmental contaminant for which no study has ever found any indication of improvement as living standards rise.
Which means we might need a new idea. We need to stop asking, Will this make the economy larger? Instead, we need to start asking, Will this pour more carbon into the atmosphere? Some of the shift would be technological. If carbon carried a real price, then we'd be building windmills far faster than we are now. All cars would be hybrid cars, and all lightbulbs would be compact fluorescent. ...
For that to happen, we'd need to change as dramatically as our lightbulbs. We'd need to see ourselves differently—identity and desire would have to shift. Not out of a sense of idealism or asceticism or nostalgia for the '60s. Out of a sense of pure pragmatism.
For instance, we've gotten used to eating across great distances. Because it's always summer somewhere, we've accustomed ourselves to a food system that delivers us fresh produce 365 days a year. The energy cost is incredible—growing and transporting a single calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the eastern U.S. takes 36 calories of energy. What would it take to get us back to eating more locally, to accepting what the seasons and smaller scale local farmers provide?
Or think about the houses we now build. They're enormous—more than double the size they were in 1950, despite the fact that the number of people in the average home continues to fall. Even a technologically efficient furnace or air conditioner struggles to heat or cool such a giant space—and the houses can only be built on big suburban lots, guaranteeing that their occupants will be entirely car-dependent. What would it take to make us consider smaller homes, closer to the center of town, where we could use the bus or a bike for daily transportation? ...
Since researchers started trying to measure such things in the years after World War II, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves "very happy" with their lives has remained steady, even though the material standard of living has nearly tripled in the same period. More stuff is not making us happier—but we can't break out of the cycle that offers more stuff as our only real goal.
What we really seem to want, according to the economists and psychologists conducting such research, is more community. Standard economic theory has long assured us that we're insatiable bundles of desires. That may be true, but more and more it feels like our greatest wish is for more contact with other people. We've built the most hyper-individualized society the world has ever seen: According to some surveys, most Americans don't know their next-door neighbors, which is a truly novel idea for primates. That's contributed to the great success of our economy—each of us rises and falls based on our own efforts, which is a great motivator. But it's also contributed to that gathering sense of dissatisfaction, and to that cloud of carbon dioxide. If everyone has to drive their own car everywhere (and the biggest car possible, to maximize their own safety), then it's hard to reduce emissions. If our idea of paradise remains a 4,000-square-foot house on its own isolated lot, it's hard to imagine really rapid change. ...
And you can do the same kind of rethinking about many other parts of daily life, from transportation to housing to energy itself: Imagine a windmill at the end of your cul-de-sac, powering the ten homes along the street. You wouldn't be generating much carbon, and you would be generating lots of companionship.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Gee, Blackblade, you are a way more perfect person than anybody I know(except, as I recall Tom.) I think most people do a whole lot of failing to live up to what we believe. Even good people, who believe in good things. I refer you back to the Jefferson example.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: You don't profit by owning stock, you profit by selling it. If the stock goes down, he loses. There is no "profit now."
Does big oil not pay dividens?
Also, take a step back here. You're suggesting that Al Gore owns oil stock in order to bring about internal change in the company, or bring it down by taking his non-existant profits from owning oil stocks and investing in competing technology. Doesn't that sound a little more far-fetched than the simpler explaination?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Gee, Blackblade, you are a way more perfect person than anybody I know(except, as I recall Tom.) I think most people do a whole lot of failing to live up to what we believe. Even good people, who believe in good things. I refer you back to the Jefferson example.
Could you articulate where exactly I described myself as more perfect then most? I have said that if you strongly endorse a moral principle you do it a diservice by not living it yourself as people are less apt to believe it. I have yet to present myself as a living example of any moral principle. Why should I even bother answering you statements directed to me, when you have not seen fit to answer mine?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Does big oil not pay dividens?
Probably, but they'd have to be huge dividends in order to outweigh stock value fluctuations.
quote: Also, take a step back here. You're suggesting that Al Gore owns oil stock in order to bring about internal change in the company, or bring it down by taking his non-existant profits from owning oil stocks and investing in competing technology. Doesn't that sound a little more far-fetched than the simpler explaination?
There's a difference between what Rakeesh is accusing me of and what I'm claiming. Gore owns stock in petroleum companies, but his work to encourage a carbon neutral society threatens the value of the stock he owns. My claim is that putting his investments at risk in this way indicates sincerity in his belief, rather than hypocrisy.
Rakeesh is also separating one issue into two, namely profitting from stock and working to change the system from within. Owning stock is being part of the bigger system. While the right wing position is that he's a liberal tree hugger, investing in mainstream industry gives him credibility within the moderate conservative investment circles, as being one of them. Divesting himself of any but purely green technologies would put him firmly in the tree hugger category, even for most moderate investors.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I am just saying that we all advocate positions that we fail to perfectly embody. You, for example (me, too) talk about how wonderful Christianity is. We "strongly endorse" the "moral principles" of Christianity (though our ideas of what that mean may not be exactly the same). We both fall short of living those ideals perfectly. That doesn't mean that those ideals are wrong. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson failed to live up to his ideals of equality and freedom. That does not mean that those ideals were wrong. Al Gore fails to live up to his ideals. That does not mean that what he says is wrong.
Posted by Diana Bailey (Member # 8313) on :
After reading these messages, I've got to think that the hostility and anger directed towards Al Gore is in part due to the very real difficulty we have in formulating a consistent and thoughtful approach to global warming. All of us in America use enormous amounts of energy and live in ways inconceivable to my friends in Nigeria. Rather than get angry and shout "hypocrite", the real question Gore raises needs to be addressed-how then shall we live? There are lots of good places to begin thinking about these issues...my favorites are essays by Wendell Berry and the magnificent nature books by David Attenborough, and "Reguiem for Nature", by Duke professor John Terborgh.This book changed my perpective, my life...it goes on my top ten books read during the last decade.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: ...the real question Gore raises needs to be addressed-how then shall we live?
Not like they do in Nigeria. Given the chance to drive SUVs and live in air conditioned homes most people in a 3rd world country would probably jump at the chance. It's not environmental idealism that makes them live like they do, it's poverty.
Honestly, I'm a bit hostile to Al Gore after this thread in a way I wasn't before. I've seen more bending over backwards to justify his hypocritical actions than I can believe. He's not being asked to live in a cave or go to any extremes to prove anything. People are just wondering why the man can't be bothered to do some of most basic things that he is asking others to do because the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:People are just wondering why the man can't be bothered to do some of most basic things that he is asking others to do because the fate of the world hangs in the balance.
Like...? I'm waiting to hear one of the "most basic things" he's recommended that he's not doing.
So far, no one's been able to come up with one. They've cited lots of things that they think some hypothetical tree-hugger might feel guilty about, but that's hardly the same argument.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Personally, I can't see why anyone thinks Al Gore matters. Politicians are politicians. I'm sick of Bush but I prefer him over Gore and Kerry. But that isn't saying much, because I'm really sick of him. I'm sick of them all. We need new leaders across the board. They need to be from different walks of life than all of the current leaders that are born and bred for office. We need to get people in office who aren't career politicians. But, sigh, how?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But, sigh, how?
By not stopping there. The strongest force against change is the widespread idea that change is not possible. Working towards a change not helps not only in the actual work done, but also by adding an impression of one more person who thinks that it can be done. Get enough people thinking that and suddenly it seems feasible to huge chunks of people.
But then I run into the problem that I don't trust huge chunks of people to change a tire, let alone our system of government.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Like...? I'm waiting to hear one of the "most basic things" he's recommended that he's not doing.
So far, no one's been able to come up with one. They've cited lots of things that they think some hypothetical tree-hugger might feel guilty about, but that's hardly the same argument.
Here's a source outside the article stating some of the things he's advocating: On The Issues
1)Opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Oppose all new oil and gas drilling off the coasts of California and Florida - and continue the moratorium on new offshore drilling leases nationwide. 2)Oppose any Congressional actions designed to roll back protections for clean air and clean water. 3)Invest more in conservation, renewable energy and in technologies that combat pollution and global warming.
From the posted article on what he personally is doing: 1) As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas. 2)Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River. 3)But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.
Is the wiggle room on these points....sure there is. But to the average person not looking to condemn or defend Gore it's pretty straighforward examples.
I just don't see why everyone's so worried about it. What Al Gore says one way or another about Global Warming doesn't change the validity of the theory. People just think it's a little hypocritical and sad, sort of like if the Pope held stock in the pornography industry and defenders rushed to say it's not hypocritical because it's not in the Bible or he's just trying to change the pornography industr from within.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am worried about it because it's spokespeople like Gore who make the job of dittoheads easier.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
People seem to be confusing Gore with someone who's "pro-environment" at all costs. But that's not him, and certainly not in the way we might expect the Pope to be, say, Catholic; he doesn't embody the environmentalist movement, and certainly doesn't agree with the most liberal of its fringes. That's part of why many people who are single-issue environmental voters voted for Nader; among liberals, Gore's perceived as a reasonable moderate when it comes to the environment.
That he's been presented as a raving liberal on these issues only means that people who've bought into that steaming line accuse him of hypocrisy for not doing things he doesn't actually advocate doing.
That he's seen as being at the lunatic fringe of environmental advocacy in this country is only testimony to how incredibly unconcerned the Bush administration has been with environmental causes.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That he's seen as being at the lunatic fringe of environmental advocacy in this country is only testimony to how incredibly unconcerned the Bush administration has been with environmental causes.
Unconcerned is a bit generous, don't you think? How about openly hostile towards the environment?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I just don't see why everyone's so worried about it. What Al Gore says one way or another about Global Warming doesn't change the validity of the theory. People just think it's a little hypocritical and sad, sort of like if the Pope held stock in the pornography industry and defenders rushed to say it's not hypocritical because it's not in the Bible or he's just trying to change the pornography industry from within.
I liked this quote alot Bao, well put.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for double posting.
quote: People seem to be confusing Gore with someone who's "pro-environment" at all costs.
Or perhaps somebody who goes around lecturing on why our environment is in jeopardy, and even helping to create a film designed to implore people to change their habits.
When was the last time you went on the circuit Tom or helped create a major multimedia production to advocate anything?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My point is that believing that our environment is in jeopardy and advocating sensible environmental regulations -- believing in these things strongly enough to, as you put it, "go on the circuit" -- is not inconsistent with his behavior.
His behavior is "inconsistent" with a hypothetical person who holds a more extreme position on certain forms of consumption and environmental protection than he does.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I guess this is where we disagree Tom. I could ignore it if Al Gore drove around in an SUV, or even threw his Mcdonalds cheesburger wrapper on the ground. But when you so actively proft from the very things you are condemning you are doing more harm then good for the cause you say you are pushing.
And like I said, Admitting that what he does is wrong but that he was planning to make "the switch" later simply shows that he cares little for environmentalism and more for how people see him.
If you don't care that much for the environment, build a billion zinc mines on your property, and buy thousands of shares of stock in oil companies. Just understand that decency compells you once you have done that to not try and tell people they need to worry about the environment.
edited for clarity
[ August 18, 2006, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...a film designed to implore people to change their habits.
Have you seen it?
Added: This isn't a leading question. I'm just curious.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...a film designed to implore people to change their habits.
Have you seen it?
Added: This isn't a leading question. I'm just curious.
Ill be honest, no, I've seen the preview and read a review on it. Feel free to correct me as to the films content.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But when you so actively proft from the very things you are condemning you are doing more harm then good for the cause you say you are pushing.
It's worth noting that the only item listed so far from which Gore "profits" is the zinc mine that was built on property owned by a friend of his father's, and which was transferred to his ownership shortly after college; he doesn't operate the mine, but the company that does has paid what is essentially "rent" for access to the property since before he owned the land. It's also worth noting that the mine, while hardly "environmental," is no more or less dangerous than other zinc mines in a similar location.
As far as I know, Gore's position has never been that we should immediately stop mining for minerals.
The man HAS done some legitimately hypocritical things; he's a politician, after all, and especially early in his career was willing to sell out to get ahead. But I think he's being scorned rather unfairly here by people who've bought into the party line about him.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Feel free to correct me as to the films content.
I think you should go see it. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Feel free to correct me as to the films content.
I think you should go see it.
If I see it in the Special Interest section of my local BlockBuster, maybe. The preview did not sell me too much, it smelled like fear mongering.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I didn't see any previews, so I don't know what they're like. It isn't like a Michael Moore film, if that's what you're thinking. If you're already convinced that global warming is a bunch of hooey, then it might seem like fearmongering.
Interestingly, the ad at the bottom of the page is for "Anti-Bush Stickers, T-Shirts, Buttons and More! -- BeatBushGear.com." o_O
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I didn't see any previews, so I don't know what they're like. It isn't like a Michael Moore film, if that's what you're thinking. If you're already convinced that global warming is a bunch of hooey, then it might seem like fearmongering.
Interestingly, the ad at the bottom of the page is for "Anti-Bush Stickers, T-Shirts, Buttons and More! -- BeatBushGear.com." o_O
That seems so wierd that hatrack is allowing that website to advertise here in lew of Mr. Cards political remarks.
Oh well, its alittle funny I must say.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The ads are automatically generated, I believe, by a parser that looks at the thread content. Though it doesn't say "Ads by Google" anymore, so that may well have changed...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It's worth noting that the only item listed so far from which Gore "profits" is the zinc mine that was built on property owned by a friend of his father's, and which was transferred to his ownership shortly after college; he doesn't operate the mine, but the company that does has paid what is essentially "rent" for access to the property since before he owned the land.
Well, this is good news, now we can finally put an end to all the talk of Big Oil being in bed with Bush and Cheney. I mean they do not operate the oil companies so everything is just fine. Funny how Gore is not responsible for things happening directly on land that he owns. I suppose the difference is that a friend of his father's owned it first, and Gore didn't own it until after he went to college. Had the land been transferred from a friend of his mother's or if he had gotten the land before college I am sure you would have a much different view.
quote: It's also worth noting that the mine, while hardly "environmental," is no more or less dangerous than other zinc mines in a similar location.
I wonder if you apply this same philosphy to other aspects of the environment and/or government? I guess we can drill away in ANWAR because that will not cause any more harm, more or less, than other drilling sites do?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: the company that does has paid what is essentially "rent" for access to the property
Interestingly omitted from your post is the name of the company that simply pays Gore "rent" for access. Also omitted is how much that "rent" is per year, before Gore owned it and after Gore owned it. I wonder why you left that out?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
[whisper]Psst--Tom! DarkKnight has caught wind of your fiendish plan![/whisper]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Looks like the other ads still say "Ads by Google," so I guess this one just happens to take up the whole ad-allocated space.
But hey, "don't blame me... I voted for Kerry!"
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Yes Noemon, and the wind from his fiendish plan is awfully smelly and enviornmentally unfriendly
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Looks like the other ads still say "Ads by Google," so I guess this one just happens to take up the whole ad-allocated space.
But hey, "don't blame me... I voted for Kerry!"
twinky, if we could count your vote (and others from your...um...district, the world would be a better place!
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Well, this is good news, now we can finally put an end to all the talk of Big Oil being in bed with Bush and Cheney. I mean they do not operate the oil companies so everything is just fine.
Woah there DarkKnight. I'm a supporter of Bush. Except for his business practices. His administration has helped propell business to great heights. Big Oil is no exception. His administration was instrumental in reversing the California law that led to electric cars. The only reason to eliminate electric cars is to nurture our addiction to oil.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wonder why you left that out?
Well, for one thing, the name of the company is included in the link I provided earlier, so I figured that people who wanted a more detailed summary could, y'know, read the link. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can think of a half dozen reasons why drilling in ANWR is a bad, stupid, and damaging idea that have nothing to do with out and out pollution of the land around it.
I also don't understand what appears to be an unreasoned drive to find dirt on Gore. Why are his opponents so oddly determined to discredit him? You all DO know that there are a thousand scientists waiting to take his place as Climate Change's poster boy right?
Give it up. This is about science, not Gore's stock portfolio.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Give it up. This is about science, not Gore's stock portfolio.
Thank you, Captain of the Conversation. I could've sworn we were talking about Al Gore's credibility as a spokesman and not about the credibility of his cause.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Both since it was mentioned that his credibility casts doubt on his cause.
Another reason to quit using gas:
Iran sells about 2.4 million barrels of oil a day, earning about $5 billion dollars a month.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Give it up. This is about science, not Gore's stock portfolio.
Thank you, Captain of the Conversation. I could've sworn we were talking about Al Gore's credibility as a spokesman and not about the credibility of his cause.
If you think that's all that is being discussed, you haven't been paying attention.
And thanks for the promotion. Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I'm a bit surprised that nobody (unless I missed it) has stated something here that I think is fairly obvious.
Rather than 'Gore the fearmonger isn't even following his own advice,' I think it's probably more like this: Let's say you develop a conviction over a number of years of earnest study that there's a global issue that everyone ought to know about and everyone needs to do their part to mitigate....
If you're just a poor shmo like me, you start recycling, look at brochures for green technologies, bicycle and walk when you can, etc.
If you're a wealthy national figurehead... guess what? You use your name and prestige and influence to spread the word.
Gore's book, film, all of that? It IS what he is doing to battle this problem (which I happen to believe is real, not that it matters to my point).
It just feels bass-ackwards to point away from the movie and his global road-show and ask, 'so, what has Gore done to prove his convictions?'
And all this from the foundation of a patently hostile editorial, which: - undoubtedly left out positive facts - skewed the rest in the worst possible light - tarred with an absurdly broad 'environmental' brush, even though most of the implications have no bearing whatever on the specific issue of anthropogenic climate change.
Not that he can't add to both his credibility, AND to the solution, by better practicing what he preaches. But at least he IS preaching. That will have far more effect than a windmill array on a farm in Tennessee.
Seen in this light, it's clear that the editorial (note, this was not a news article -- I'm not sure all of you know the difference) aims to drive a wedge between Gore's audience and any action they might take in response to his message. When an information source seems to have an agenda, it's useful to look more closely.
The Hoover Institution boasts 147 Fellows (including Condoleezza Rice), but only 3 of them list environmental policy as a specialty. Schweizer, author of this 'paper,' isn't one of them, although Newt Gingrich is (!?). The other two, Huggins and Anderson, advocate the usual conservative agenda: property rights, laissez faire, and incentives rather than prohibitions, will raise the boats of big business and all our dinghies, too, while producing a cleaner, more efficient environment, painlessly.
Schweizer is more of your garden-variety ghost-writer pit-bull. From his bio :
quote: "His most recent work is Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday, October 2005). Other books include The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty (Doubleday, 2004/Anchor, 2005), which the New York Times called "the best" of the books on the Bush family, and Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph over Communism (Doubleday, 2002/Anchor 2003). "A rousing and compelling case that Reagan's personal and political odyssey...was central to bringing down the 'evil empire,'" said the Los Angeles Times in its review.
"His first novel, Chain of Command (coauthored with Caspar Weinberger), was released by Simon and Schuster in June 2005. Publisher's Weekly, in a starred review, called it a "debut political thriller crackling with a chilling authenticity and riveting dirty dealing...Weinberger and Schweizer have delivered a superbly paced, tightly plowed winner."
Interesting CV for a Fellow of a think tank whose mission includes "The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man's endeavors to make and preserve peace,..."
In addition:
quote:"His written work has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, Foreign Affairs, and elsewhere. He has spoken before dozens of corporate audiences including those at Amoco, Arthur Anderson, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, as well as numerous student groups including Young America's Foundation ('The Conservative Movement Starts Here' --jvp ), University of Virginia, and Florida State University."
Pardon me for taking this swipe at Gore with more than a grain of salt.
Is climate change a real and imminent threat? If 'imminent' includes my children's and their children's lives, I believe so. Should I take personal responsibility for the impact I make on the earth, leaving behind more, not fewer, natural resources, and a cleaner planet earth? I believe so. Should everyone who feels as I do be shouting as loud as Gore is, even if their personal record doesn't quite measure up? I believe so.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Going back to the first post, I don't see how owning mansions makes him a hypocrite.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not that he can't add to both his credibility, AND to the solution, by better practicing what he preaches. But at least he IS preaching. That will have far more effect than a windmill array on a farm in Tennessee.
And the only point I've ever had is that this kind of 'pass' is given only when the message is 'good'-as I happen to believe this one is.
Just as a for-example, how much do people care that Dubya preaches, exactly?
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:And the only point I've ever had is that this kind of 'pass' is given only when the message is 'good'-as I happen to believe this one is.
Just as a for-example, how much do people care that Dubya preaches, exactly?
You may have a point there. But in this case, it sounded like some people were questioning Gore's commitment, period. And it seemed to me that the scale and intensity of his campaign is testament to his commitment. It remains to be seen whether it is testament enough, absent demonstrable changes in his personal life.
It's also worth pointing out that the vast majority of An Inconvenient Truth is devoted to preaching scientific facts and analysis -- not to exhorting people to action. So much so that I thought it was a weakness, but I understand the trope: knowledge before action.
Not to get started on Bush fils, but his preaching is quite different, in that it runs the gamut from religion to rhetoric. Very rarely, if ever, is Bush laying out a system of facts for the People to decide for themselves -- he isn't a Schoolteacher President (as Gore would probably have been) -- he IS a Preacher President.
And I think that does go a long way with some of his audience. It also makes it harder to sling "walk the walk" accusations when the message is a lofty system of ideas (or binary system of values, YMMV).
What are we going to do, show a film of Bush exhorting Iraq to democracy, and then point out that he doesn't run his own household as a democracy?
At least Gore's 'sermon' is clear, fact-based, and leads to open discussion about actions and consequences. Gore's violations of his avowals, such as they are, are outside the debate itself.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Going back to the first post, I don't see how owning mansions makes him a hypocrite.
-pH
The threat to the environment dosn't just come form cars and SUVs. The energy we use to power our homes also contributes to global warming, or so we're told. Environmentalists as are always warning that we have to live more modestly. Conservation isn't just about gasoline for our vehicles, it's suppossed to be about our whole lifestyle. We in the west, so we're told, are living beyond our means and using way too much energy. This is a crisis, we're told. We have to cut back, it's time for sacrifice, we're told. Well, Gore sure like to use more of the Earth's resources than the rest of us. I drive an SUV, and my wife and I live in a house bigger than we actually need, and the AC is always running. I have little environmental concerns with spending all the energy can afford, but then I don't buy the global warming threat. What's Al Gore's excuse?
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:What's Al Gore's excuse?
Maybe he read this paper, by a colleague of Schweizer, author of the editorial you led with.
(My emphases.)
quote:He goes a step further by performing the complex task of estimating net U.S. carbon emissions. This requires subtracting carbon sequestration (long-term storage of carbon in soil and water) from carbon emissions. Think of it this way: when you build a house, the wood in it stores carbon. In a poor country that wood would have been burned to cook supper or to provide heat, thus releasing carbon into the atmosphere. McCormick shows that economic growth in the United States has increased carbon sequestration in many ways, including improved methods of storing waste, increased forest coverage, and greater agricultural productivity that reduces the acreage of cultivated land.
Because rich economies sequester more carbon than poor ones, stored carbon must be subtracted from emissions to determine an economy's net addition to greenhouse gas emissions. McCormick's data show that "rich countries take more carbon out of the air than poorer ones" and that "the growth rate of net carbon emission per person will soon be negative in the United States." Put differently—richer may well be cooler.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have little environmental concerns with spending all the energy can afford...
Why?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Going back to the first post, I don't see how owning mansions makes him a hypocrite.
-pH
pH: You are smart enough IMO that this comment is intentionally disingenuous. Oversimplifying everything the original poster said as a way to reignite the debate is akin to lighting a fire cracker and throwing it in the air then yelling FIRE! in a crowded movie theatre.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:
quote:I have little environmental concerns with spending all the energy can afford...
Why?
Because he doesn't understand the environmental concerns, and because he has bought into the lie that even if he did go to the effort of understanding them, at the end of that road lies only sacrifice and suffering.
There are no lack of ideological and fashionable bulwarks for those who would reject 'no man is an island.' Chief among them is the notion that we actually aren't part of the environment, that the environment is this other thing, somewhere far away from subdevelopments and lawns and malls, that contains gases and owls and temperature and trees (and tree-huggers).
It's a choice between living as if one's choices make a difference, and living as if nothing matters but one's comfort. The recognition that choices do make a difference is, in fact, the first and possibly only discomfort a born-again environmentalist will feel.
I can understand not wanting to wake up each morning thinking about how wasteful I am, thinking about the planet we are handing down to our successors. But I'm proud that I've instilled that awareness in my children. If there's any sort of crisis-collapse in the next 40 years, associated with climate change or Oil Peak, I'd rather have them as neighbors than your children, Mig.
No offense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have a difficult time understanding why someone would think there was no harmful environmental impact from spending all the energy we can afford. It seems like burying one's head in the sand to me, once you realize how we get energy.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Going back to the first post, I don't see how owning mansions makes him a hypocrite.
-pH
pH: You are smart enough IMO that this comment is intentionally disingenuous. Oversimplifying everything the original poster said as a way to reignite the debate is akin to lighting a fire cracker and throwing it in the air then yelling FIRE! in a crowded movie theatre.
BB, keep the poorly veiled insults to yourself. Starting a response to a short comment with "You are smart enough..." is the equivalent of saying, "Wow, you must be a complete moron." It's not the first time you've done it.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Going back to the first post, I don't see how owning mansions makes him a hypocrite.
-pH
pH: You are smart enough IMO that this comment is intentionally disingenuous. Oversimplifying everything the original poster said as a way to reignite the debate is akin to lighting a fire cracker and throwing it in the air then yelling FIRE! in a crowded movie theatre.
BB, keep the poorly veiled insults to yourself. Starting a response to a short comment with "You are smart enough..." is the equivalent of saying, "Wow, you must be a complete moron." It's not the first time you've done it.
-pH
I was not attempting to veil anything. I write what I am thinking. If you honestly felt the OP was saying, "Al Gore is a hypocrite because he owns a mansions" You seem to have missed a few words 99% of the posters have not. Or you simply ignored most of the responses.
I was not accusing you of being a moron, I was accusing you of being intentionally disengenous. I consider you to be quite inteligent, which is why I am confused by your oversimplification of the OP.
quote: It's not the first time you've done it.
Perhaps not, but I can't think of the last time I called anybody on the forums a moron, or even disengenous.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You very often begin responses to my posts with, "You're smart enough to know..." To me, this implies one of two things.
1. I know X but am deliberately questioning X to be snarky. 2. I am a moron because clearly, since I do not know X, I am not as smart as you think I am.
I wasn't missing anything. I wasn't oversimplifying anything. I, quite frankly, think that anyone with half a brain should be able to see that I wasn't "lighting a firecracker."
At no point did I say that you had ever OUTRIGHT called anyone a moron. That's the most irritating part about it; if you had the balls to just come out and say it, I could've addressed it the first time.
-pH
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:pH: You are smart enough IMO that this comment is intentionally disingenuous. Oversimplifying everything the original poster said as a way to reignite the debate
BB: first, if you read her post a little (just slightly) you will notice she was not trying to reignite a debate. Maybe throw a bit a sarcasm out there, but definately not debating. Lighten up.
And yeah what she said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ph: I defy you to find even ONE other post where I have said, "You are smart enough to know..."
I honestly do not see it as a stable of my writing style.
It has nothing to do with balls, I honestly do not think you are a moron. However if you keep insisting that I do, you will find I am more than willing to call you one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man:
quote:pH: You are smart enough IMO that this comment is intentionally disingenuous. Oversimplifying everything the original poster said as a way to reignite the debate
BB: first, if you read her post a little (just slightly) you will notice she was not trying to reignite a debate. Maybe throw a bit a sarcasm out there, but definately not debating. Lighten up.
And yeah what she said.
sorry for double posting, but if pH was trying to be sarcastic, I completely missed it, and I am sorry I apparently did not pick up on it.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I don't think pH was being sarcastic, but nor did it cross my mind to imagine that "I don't see how owning mansions makes him a hypocrite" was intended as a comprehensive summary and critique of the original link.
It is a simple statement of fact (one that I happen to agree with), and didn't seem the least bit disingenuous to me.
BB, if we were talking about, say, the Bill of Rights, and I said "I find the wording of the Second Amendment confusing," would you accuse me of missing or ignoring all the other amendments?
The editorial DID stress that Gore owns multiple properties, listing them down to the number of bathrooms, with the clear implication that this was a component of their argument that Gore doesn't practice what he preaches (i.e.=hypocrite).
If we can't knock down singular claims, as pH did, without accusations of oversimplification, then I'm not sure what we're doing here.
I don't suppose, BB, you actually have a thought regarding the point pH made? Agree? Disagree? Cuz that would be, you know, interesting. As opposed to really really annoying and pointless.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
I'm not a fan of Al Gore, but the original claims, even if true (oil stock ownership, hypocrisy, etc) don't bug me in the least.
If I wanted to ensure the status quo, and assure a nation deadlocked against environmental responsibility, I'd do exactly what Al Gore—and others, on both sides of the issue, including scientists—are doing. Rather than a solid discussion of the issues we face, the largest being our ecosystem is too large and complex for current models to understand, Al feeds people emotional hooks and sound bites which as often as not are based on conjecture, rather than fact.
Not only does this discourage people who are emotionally drawn in, and then easily argued against, but it segments people into us against them. Those that believe the statistical analysis of those preaching environmental doom versus those buy into the analysis of those preaching "everything's ok, there's nothing to see here."
Even the scientists are in on the game. It appears collaborative work is rare, so many have their "this is the cause" or "this is the catastrophe" hooks that they've incorporated into unique models that, frankly, are worthless beyond learning exercises.
Consider:
Up until recently airborne moisture content data was only considered in two dimensions because we did not have satellite equipment capable of seeing cloud volume. So all global moisture data is based on the area of cover rather than volume up until last year—this is huge—water vapor is a major greenhouse contributor.
There is no solid understanding of upper level wind currents. We cannot and do not predict them. Upper level currents have a profound effect on precipitation, storms, and transfer of heat energy around the world. Almost as profound as...
Ocean currents. They started talking about the Atlantic conveyor, and the worldwide currents which circle the globe, moderate seasonal temperatures, and again, effect precipitation only very recently in the news. Why is that? We now have very rudimentary knowledge of surface currents, theoretical knowledge of currents just below the surface, and zero knowledge of deep currents. As far as statistical history goes, for this data this is no reliable history.
Solar fluctuation. Most current models ignore this completely. We are in a strong season, where solar radiation is concerned, but we really don't know enough about it to compensate.
Not to mention the effect of jet contrails, the fact that computational power is currently insufficient, and I'm certain many more factors that we've never heard of.
Regardless of who's to blame, and which political side is right or wrong, the politics of the matter have taken over. It's like a circus sideshow, and I think we should consider it all a bit more relevant to our everyday lives than to allow the discussion to degenerate into an argument over whose politician is more dishonest about the matter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you think they aren't discussing facts and science, then you haven't been paying very good attention. 75% of "An Inconvenient Truth" is a litany of facts.
So far as a lack of computing power, wasn't the Earth Simulator built specifically for this topic?
Better he argue we do something now, having a pretty damned good idea of what's going on, than do nothing at all until we find out it's too late. And even if you don't like THAT argument, there's a half dozen other very good reasons, which individually are worth it, to say nothing of their combined usefulness, for trying to end pollution, deforestation, and the like, that have nothing to do with Global Warming. It makes the argument about whether or not to wait to find out a moot point.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Lyrhawn, I wasn't arguing against being responsible stewards of the environment; I'm all for that, if only for our own comfort, I'm arguing that Gore plays fast and lose with questionable conclusions (I'll not bow to say he has much in the way of "facts" in his politicing, either) to incite emotional response, rather than rational response, which is the opposite of what is needed. Plenty of people crying fire in this theatre, now that we see the fire, I'm just saying we figure out how to actually fight it.
Lest in loosing the mongoose on the snakes we end up infested with mongoose. And, yes, they built the earth simulator for the purpose of modeling the environment, but considering adequate parameters for modeling the system have yet to be established, how can one build a computer adequate to model it?
And I'm not saying the Earth Simulator will do no good, it will and we will learn from it, it's just important to realize it's far from the end goal as far as climate modeling goes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is about where I wish Rabbit would jump in.
Arguing this with people who dislike Gore just doesn't seem to be worth it. First they attack the man, then his facts, or they attack his facts, which is fine and dandy, healthy criticism of scientific fact is all part of the scientific process, but when you present them with facts, by and large they still stick to their guns.
I don't know what you mean Chev, when you say that Gore doesn't use facts. The man spouts facts and statistics and information unendingly. Is it that you don't trust him, and therefore all the data he uses is therefore tainted with him? Or are you actually disputing the information that he puts forth?
I must say, regardless of any disagreement we might have, I can't do anything other than wholeheartedly agree with you here:
quote:Regardless of who's to blame, and which political side is right or wrong, the politics of the matter have taken over. It's like a circus sideshow, and I think we should consider it all a bit more relevant to our everyday lives than to allow the discussion to degenerate into an argument over whose politician is more dishonest about the matter.
I really don't see any progress being made on the environment though until either a strong democrat takes the presidency, or the Democrats take back both halves of the Congress. I'm not being dishonest or partisan when I say that the environment isn't really the issue Conservatives hang their hats on, which really surprises me. For all the talk the Right does about morality and values, I don't understand how they can be so laissez-faire about environmental protection.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: I don't think pH was being sarcastic, but nor did it cross my mind to imagine that "I don't see how owning mansions makes him a hypocrite" was intended as a comprehensive summary and critique of the original link.
It is a simple statement of fact (one that I happen to agree with), and didn't seem the least bit disingenuous to me.
BB, if we were talking about, say, the Bill of Rights, and I said "I find the wording of the Second Amendment confusing," would you accuse me of missing or ignoring all the other amendments?
The editorial DID stress that Gore owns multiple properties, listing them down to the number of bathrooms, with the clear implication that this was a component of their argument that Gore doesn't practice what he preaches (i.e.=hypocrite).
If we can't knock down singular claims, as pH did, without accusations of oversimplification, then I'm not sure what we're doing here.
I don't suppose, BB, you actually have a thought regarding the point pH made? Agree? Disagree? Cuz that would be, you know, interesting. As opposed to really really annoying and pointless.
The 2nd ammendment is not a good comparison, as discussing its vague wording is not the same thing as discussing what specific things a man does constitutes hypocricy. I just spent the last 10 minutes trying to come up with a comparison for the 2nd ammendment but I can't. I need to go to class/work. Ill see where we are at at work.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Here's where we diverge; I don't think a Democrat in office would solve the problem. I think a solid leader in office would solve the problem; regardless of political affiliation, and I don't think we have had one for some time. My main issue with Gore, regardless of reason, is his approach centers on "us vs. them" tactics, which is counterproductive.
He does site statistics, and statistics are not facts, in the sense that they are open to interpretation. Gore fairly consistently draws conclusions from an incomplete picture, makes arguments omitting known circumstances, and frequently over-emphasizes the strength of theoretical conjecture—as often potentially erring in one direction as another.
He has a history of this—during his tenure as VP the US mandated a percentage of all American auto manufacturers' vehicles sold must be zero emissions/electric by a certain date (I can remember what year originally, but in and around now). Unfortunately, at that time battery technology was poor (it's not much better now), and little practical work had been done towards mass produced vehicles. Meanwhile, foreign countries realizing the economic and technical realities of electrics spent their R&D resources on Hybrids, Diesels, and Hydrogen powered vehicles. While GM with their EV1 made a solid showing, the realities of EVs given our current technologies just do not meet American standards; they would require significant lifestyle changes, and cost considerably more to boot. Also, for the power infrastructure to handle the added load it's likely we'd have to wait until off peak hours to charge them.
What's my point there? Had the politicians (Gore claimed credit at the time if I recall correctly, though likely he was backed by committee) made an honest and informed assessment of the technical realities, rather than placing American automakers at an economic disadvantage, they could have just as easily advanced the state of the art for reduced emissions technologies in America by five years, easily. It's also worth noting that European automakers don't sell their high efficiency Diesels in the US because our Diesel contains high amounts of sulphur, which in addition to pollution damages the engines.
What Gore is doing is common to much or our government, and the news folks as well. Rather than focus on substance and rational discussion, they are appealing to the baser emotions of their audience. It certainly generates a loyal following, but it creates a confrontational us vs. them attitude that makes rational discussion, and working together, very difficult. Unfortunately, perhaps because scientists have to play a bit of politicking for funding, you see some of them do the same things from time to time.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Let's not forget that the Clinton/Gore administration negotiated the useless Kyoto treaty. It's useless because 1) the US never signed on, and 2) none of the countries that did sign are close to meeting its emmission targets. Gore negotiated the treaty. During the negotiations 98 Senators voted a resolution that demanded that the treaty should not exclude china or the developing world (or cause job losses in the US). Now that's what I call bipartisan! But Gore ignored them, negotiated a treaty that excluded china and the developing world. He knowingly negotiated a treaty that was DOA. Clinton didn't even try to get the treaty approved. Why? He knew the treaty stood no chance or approval. Why negotiate a treaty you know is DOA? My guess is that to Gore and Clinton climate change and the concern for the environment were no more than just political opportunism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why negotiate a treaty you know is DOA? My guess is that to Gore and Clinton climate change and the concern for the environment were no more than just political opportunism.
Why do you think we continue to negotiate with North Korea?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why negotiate a treaty you know is DOA? My guess is that to Gore and Clinton climate change and the concern for the environment were no more than just political opportunism.
Why do you think we continue to negotiate with North Korea?
Huh? Your response makes no sense. Could you please elaborate on what you think the NK issue has to do with Clinton Gore's failed Kyoto treaty? Do you mean that the Kyoto treaty is as good as the deal they made with NK to stop their nuclear activities and that the Kyoto treaty is just another example of the Clinton/Gore administration's failures at thenegotian table? If that's the case, then maybe you're right.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: I don't think pH was being sarcastic, but nor did it cross my mind to imagine that "I don't see how owning mansions makes him a hypocrite" was intended as a comprehensive summary and critique of the original link.
It is a simple statement of fact (one that I happen to agree with), and didn't seem the least bit disingenuous to me.
BB, if we were talking about, say, the Bill of Rights, and I said "I find the wording of the Second Amendment confusing," would you accuse me of missing or ignoring all the other amendments?
The editorial DID stress that Gore owns multiple properties, listing them down to the number of bathrooms, with the clear implication that this was a component of their argument that Gore doesn't practice what he preaches (i.e.=hypocrite).
If we can't knock down singular claims, as pH did, without accusations of oversimplification, then I'm not sure what we're doing here.
I don't suppose, BB, you actually have a thought regarding the point pH made? Agree? Disagree? Cuz that would be, you know, interesting. As opposed to really really annoying and pointless.
Thanks, John. As to the whole using more energy than he needs thing...don't we all? I just don't see how that particular point contributes to his being a hypocrite. And if it's because Gore should hold himself to a higher standard than the rest of us, why should he? And how far would he have to go?
-pH
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
For Gore, at least, I don't think the environmental issue is opportunism. I merely suspect he doesn't quite grasp the differences in how to accomplish scientific goals versus political ones. If you've seen him speak since he's been advocating environmentalism, versus his Presidential campaign, there's a lot more sincerity and general humanity behind his delivery.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: 1) the US never signed on, and 2) none of the countries that did sign are close to meeting its emmission targets.
I am afraid that you are wrong on both counts.
Number 1: The US did sign the Kyoto protocol, although the treaty were never ratified and the Bush administration later withdrew the signature.
quote:In 1998 the Clinton administration signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. In doing this it committed the United States to a 7 percent reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 emissions levels, to be achieved between the years 2008 and 2012. Three years later in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew the U.S. signature, claiming that the treaty was "fatally flawed".
Number 2: Many countries are well on their way to meeting their targets, some having already achieved a greater CO2 emmission reduction than what they committed to in the Kyoto protocol.
quote:The European Union (EU) has a Kyoto target requiring the original 15 EU member nations to collectively reduce their emissions 8% below 1990 levels during the Kyoto period of 2008 to 2012. The EU negotiated a burden-sharing agreement to unevenly allocate emission reductions among its members. Currently, emissions are already below 1990 levels. Existing programs and policies combined with the purchase of international credits are expected to allow the EU to go beyond its target and reduce emissions by 9.3% by 2010.
The U.K. has already surpassed its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by 12.5% and is on track to reduce them by 23-25% by 2010.
Recently, the U.K. government has indicated that it will fall short of its self-imposed target of reducing carbon dioxide (the main GHG) by 20% by 2010, instead reaching a target of 15-18%. It remains committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 60% by 2050.
[ August 23, 2006, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have a feeling the Senate would have shot it down almost regardless of the terms of the treaty. So long as the treaty actually asked something of the American people or caused any hardship on our economy in the short term, they would have balked at it, and Bush would have repealed it, or pushed to repeal it, when he took office anyways.
Chev -
I won't debate you on the statistics vs. facts thing. I don't have enough depth of information on the subject to really get into it.
But I have to say, I honestly don't see what you mean when you say Gore is so divisive, and mainly uses baser arguments rather than reason. If you could point out a few examples?
And have you considered it's possible he comes off that way because it's a lot easier to attack Conservatives than Liberals on the environment based on their records on the subject? If one person constantly votes against something, and the other person constantly votes for it, I think it's unfair to call the guy who says "That guy keeps voting against this!" partisan or some such. He's just emphasizing a fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So long as the treaty actually asked something of the American people or caused any hardship on our economy in the short term, they would have balked at it, and Bush would have repealed it, or pushed to repeal it, when he took office anyways.
Perhaps if it was a treaty that actually held the world accountable to environmental concerns, this would not have happened.
Mig,
quote:Huh? Your response makes no sense. Could you please elaborate on what you think the NK issue has to do with Clinton Gore's failed Kyoto treaty? Do you mean that the Kyoto treaty is as good as the deal they made with NK to stop their nuclear activities and that the Kyoto treaty is just another example of the Clinton/Gore administration's failures at thenegotian table? If that's the case, then maybe you're right.
C'mon, his response made perfect sense and I think you know what I'm talking about. We're still negotiating with North Korea even though we know it will probably fail in the short-term, and possibly the long-term because it's the right thing to do, it doesn't hurt us to negotiate, it helps engender international support, it's a peaceful means of dealing with a serious problem, gives us time and space to jockey for better position, a whole series of things.
Many of those reasons could be applied to the Kyoto Treaty, regardless of how DOA it certainly was.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh I'm not going to argue that Kyoto was perfect, or that it shouldn't have included the entire world, I believe it should have, and would have been much more successful if it had.
But I still don't think Bush, and his friends, would have allowed that kind of short term damage to the economy.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
The Kyoto treaty's main failure was the amazingly small impact it has, if successful, on the overall issue. I believe even Al Gore now quotes that Kyoto essentially is just slowing the growth of pollution, not even halting growth, best case scenario.
And, really, third world countries are going to become the largest polluters fast. Imagine 3 billion extra jalopies driving around and power-plants for developing nations devoid of active environmental consideration in design.
As re Gore examples I'll have to pull up something he wrote for reference; I will and get back to you.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:BlackBlade wrote: The 2nd ammendment is not a good comparison, as discussing its vague wording is not the same thing as discussing what specific things a man does constitutes hypocricy.
I was simply trying to come up with any simple example of a 'topic of discussion' (Gore's hypocrisy, Bill of Rights) that has individual 'parts' (Gore is hypocritical because of mansions, Gore is hypocrital because of not using green energy, Gore is hypocritical because he is in bed with Big Oil, etc.).
Ph simply opined that having mansions, in itself, does not make Gore a hypocrite. She may very well agree that the other points do contribute to a conclusion of hypocrisy, but she made no statement about that, so we can't be sure.
You seem to be responding as if what she really said was, "Gore isn't a hypocrite; so what if he owns mansions?" What she said was quite different.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ChevMalFet: The Kyoto treaty's main failure was the amazingly small impact it has, if successful, on the overall issue. I believe even Al Gore now quotes that Kyoto essentially is just slowing the growth of pollution, not even halting growth, best case scenario.
And, really, third world countries are going to become the largest polluters fast. Imagine 3 billion extra jalopies driving around and power-plants for developing nations devoid of active environmental consideration in design.
As re Gore examples I'll have to pull up something he wrote for reference; I will and get back to you.
I agree that that was the main failure of the accord. Especially with the case of China, but even China, who is destroying their environment in a race to modernization, even they have more stringent environmental regulations for many things, such as gas mileage, than the US does. That's just ridiculous. And the argument always used against raising fuel efficiency standards is that it would ruin the auto industry and hurt the economy. Lawmakers in this country aren't farsighted enough to see that short term pains for the sake of the environment will actually yield big savings and earnings in the future.
We're a short term society.
Posted by GeronL (Member # 9674) on :
I think this global warming stuff is all hype and there ain't anything in the box. Its about government power plain and simple. I think a lot of what we hear is bull. We should never even contemplate setting government policy, never mind rearranging our society, based on a computer model.
You cannot accurately model this stuff, there are far too many factors, far too many variables and we don't don't even know them all.
What we need to do is use facts. And the global warming political movement is short on them. No I am not Micheal Crichton.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
National Defense Argument:
Would you agree with overhauling the auto industry to make cars more fuel efficient, so we're less dependent on Middle East oil, and thus safer and less vulnerable?
Economic Argument:
Would you agree with the government creating economic incentives programs to get renewable energy manufacturing off the ground? It would create thousands, maybe even millions of new jobs, and would pay the government back over time from great amounts of revenue, not to mention making the US the world powerhouse for renewable energy. This bleeds into the Diplomacy Argument.
Diplomacy Argument:
Would you agree that a new focus on renewable energies would go a long way to repair our damaged world image by appearing to not only be a team player, but also by taking the lead in a new way, not just militarily, but morally as well, on the world stage?
Health Argument:
Would you agree that it's worth it to spend billions on renewable energies to SAVE hundreds of billions, if not trillions over time, from the decrease in cost to the health industry that would result from better quality air and water (mostly air). Would you agree that it's not only worth it for the monetary value, but for the overall value of raising our life expectancy? You know this is the first year, in no small part due to air quality, that a child born today is expected to have a SHORTER life than his parents.
If you answered yes to any of these arguments, then you agree to rearranging our society to fix the environment. The only difference is you're doing it whilst being selfish, rather than some moral obligation to sav the world.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What we need to do is use facts.
As opposed to models? How would you suggest we obtain these facts without models?
Posted by GeronL (Member # 9674) on :
Models are not facts, Models are computer programs that do what the programmers tell them to do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Are you suggesting we can obtain facts abouut climate change through computer models?
This is a very specific question, by the way. I am not suggesting that we cannot obtain evidence from modeling.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Actually, technically, the only valid reasons for humanity to be responsible stewards are technically selfish ones. If we were to render the planet unlivable for human beings, I have no doubt that—geologically speaking—in a relatively short period of time the earth would once again have a thriving biosphere. Vastly different, yes, and possibly devoid of humans, but thriving.
What we have essentially done is allow irresponsible growth in an economic system that rewards a disposable mentality; I think that will shift but it will certainly take time. I also suspect you'll find that in the next 10–20 years people will realize that we've polluted the seas/oceans/rivers/lakes far worse than the air at this point, and it's going to come up and bite us.
Unfortunately for the auto industry, making more efficient vehicles isn't nearly as lucrative as long as they are tied to gasoline prices. An ideal situation for them would be hydrogen or electric vehicles, since if you decrease the cost per mile, the effective vehicle cost decreases without taking money away from the automaker by decreasing the purchase price.
And, personally, I see electric as a dead-end outside of hydrogen fuel cell electrics, if only because the battery technologies are short lived and absurdly toxic, not to mention volatile. I believe it was MIT recently that developed a nano-tube-lined capacitor that charges almost immediately, has a much larger life-span, and the only questionable materials involved are the nano-tubes themselves—there is some fear they have a similar toxicity to asbestos. Also, if you've seen a capacitor fail, it's not exactly a non-violent occurrence.
Also worth noting that as far as we can tell, given our somewhat speculative data, we are currently enjoying the longest, least volatile period of weather in Earth's history. Part of what makes putting in the effort to figure out what exactly makes the weather tick worthwhile is the danger that we could very well be poised for a thousand year slide into -60C average temperatures. There are too many people today proposing we "tinker" with a unknown system that has vast change potential for my tastes.
Posted by GeronL (Member # 9674) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: National Defense Argument:
Would you agree with overhauling the auto industry to make cars more fuel efficient, so we're less dependent on Middle East oil, and thus safer and less vulnerable?
The auto industry should build cars that people want. Their sole job is to please the consumer, as is the sole job of all business. If the consumers want cars that run on natural gas then the companies should build those.
Middle East oil? There is oil all over the planet and it is government policy that we cannot drill for it. Its always the same type of thing that government creates problems and begets more government to 'solve' them. Government has never solved a problem, they simply justify enormous taxes.
quote:Economic Argument:
Would you agree with the government creating economic incentives programs to get renewable energy manufacturing off the ground? It would create thousands, maybe even millions of new jobs, and would pay the government back over time from great amounts of revenue, not to mention making the US the world powerhouse for renewable energy. This bleeds into the Diplomacy Argument.
It will simply move capital and investment from one sector of the economy to another. It will not necessarily "create" any more jobs than would have been created elsewhere. Capital and invstment has a tendency to seek out the best return. Thats where jobs come from. Make-work programs are not jobs, they are simply labor-intensive bureaucratic pet projects.
quote:Diplomacy Argument:
Would you agree that a new focus on renewable energies would go a long way to repair our damaged world image by appearing to not only be a team player, but also by taking the lead in a new way, not just militarily, but morally as well, on the world stage?
People hate the US because it is the most successful nation on Earth. What nation is dirtier than China? which was exempt from the failed thing called Kyoto. Kyoto was not about environmental protection or it would not have exempted two or three of the worlds top producers. Again I am saying let businesses do it, even if it "takes longer".
quote:Health Argument:
Would you agree that it's worth it to spend billions on renewable energies to SAVE hundreds of billions, if not trillions over time, from the decrease in cost to the health industry that would result from better quality air and water (mostly air). Would you agree that it's not only worth it for the monetary value, but for the overall value of raising our life expectancy? You know this is the first year, in no small part due to air quality, that a child born today is expected to have a SHORTER life than his parents.
Government, companies and people in California have spent around $3 billion on solar power projects and are generating about $25 million worth of electricity. Many of these solar or electric projects, such as electric cars, require batteries that wear out in 3-5 years.
Imagine three hundred million electric cars, requiring hundreds of new power plants burning coal and nuclear. Imagine a hundred million of the lead acide batteries being thrown into the trash annually.
Its not an improvement on what we have now its just a different kind of pollution.
quote:If you answered yes to any of these arguments, then you agree to rearranging our society to fix the environment. The only difference is you're doing it whilst being selfish, rather than some moral obligation to save the world.
The US and business have been getting more and more 'green' all the time. New cars pollute a fraction of what they did a couple of decades ago. Those old cars are being replaced all the time.
We don't need more government, I think in some cases we need far less of it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I meant more immediately selfish. I don't think it is selfish to endure personal hardship to save the life of someone who might live in a hundred or two hundred years. No one alive today is going to literally have to deal with an ice age, or the melting ice caps, or really any of the so-called major effects of global climate change.
Therefore whatever we do now, would be to save the FUTURE of manking, our grandchildren and so forth, and I'd consider that a selfless act. My suggestions for being selfish involve, in the grand scheme of things, much more instant gratification.
So far as tinkering goes, if we reduced our carbon emissions to ZERO, I still don't see how that could have an adversely negative effect on the world as a whole. Especially when most opponents say that humans couldn't possibly have an effect to begin with. We're already tinkering, every time we turn on our cars, or lamps, or faucets. In effect, we're REMOVING that tinkering, not adding to it.
Posted by GeronL (Member # 9674) on :
Lyrhawn
There is no real proof that human activity is causing any kind of cataclysmic warming. Some still say its going to get colder. Earth has been warming and cooling all through history and we are not going to change that natural cycle.
quote:Therefore whatever we do now, would be to save the FUTURE of manking
Thats called jumping to conclusions.
How much emission comes from a volcanic eruption? Are we going to start capping volcanos?
Wolf: every time we eat a rabbit we are tinkering with nature.
2nd wolf: Your nuts, lets go get a bite to eat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The US and business have been getting more and more 'green' all the time. New cars pollute a fraction of what they did a couple of decades ago. Those old cars are being replaced all the time.
This didn't happen by magic or the environmental consciousness of automobile companies, or their thinking that doing so made sense in the long-term. I imagine you must know that.
Posted by GeronL (Member # 9674) on :
It would happen without government too. Competition breeds better products at lower costs, thats the nature of the market.
MTBE was a pollutant that government forced gasoline refiners to add to their fuel. It began poisoning the ground water.
I think consumers are better judges of what should happen than government.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Geron -
Half your arguments aren't even applicable to the subject you have them replying to.
But I'll try to wrap up a response to all of it with this:
Suggesting, or worse yet, actually believing that BUSINESS has the best interests of its consumers at heart, and that Businesses are the best stewards of the environment is the most woefully ignorant thing I've yet read on this thread. It suggests a total lack of knowledge regarding the history of business in this country. If it weren't for government, we'd be worse off. I'm not saying government doesn't make mistakes, but suggesting that we'd all be fine if businesses controlled our lives, it's utterly ridiculous.
Posted by GeronL (Member # 9674) on :
quote:Suggesting, or worse yet, actually believing that BUSINESS has the best interests of its consumers at heart
They have to or they would be quickly out of business. If companies A and B were offering something consumers did not want and company C offered something they wanted, guess who would get their business?
Its quite simple
Government does not care what you think, they will get their money from you whether you want their 'product' or not.
Posted by GeronL (Member # 9674) on :
quote:If it weren't for government, we'd be worse off
There is not one thing government does that could not be better, more efficiently and cheaply done by competition in the private sector. That includes delivering mail and anything else a person could think of.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
I have a solution. Everybody go to the nearest pasture, and spackle shut the rear end of all the sheep and cows you encounter there.
Mammals with 4 stomachs emit a considerable amount of methane as part of their digestive process. Methane, part per part, is something like 5 times as potent a greenhouse gas. New Zealand, a land of considerable quantities of sheep, are research ways of minimizing the impact without resorting to exploding sheep.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
GeronL,
quote:It would happen without government too. Competition breeds better products at lower costs, thats the nature of the market.
Yes, eventually it would have happened without government. Arguably child labor would've ended in the United States without government eventually. Furthermore, the 'nature of the market' does not have as its first concern the welfare of humanity, it has as its first concern the welfare of its investors and its profit margins. Insofar as the lot of humanity is improved by higher profits in the private sector, you are correct.
But seriously, the kind of laissez-faire attitude you're promoting got us Standard Oil. It will always get us Standard Oil.
quote:I think consumers are better judges of what should happen than government.
I think you're deliberately ignoring exactly who puts the government into power. You know, the people? Who puts businesses in power? Only the individual businesses's investors, and are you really suggesting that they have the welfare of humanity as their best interest? That's what it sounds like you're suggesting.
If it is, frankly it's nonsense. If you were to call a stockbroker and invest some money in the market, you wouldn't ask to see a charitable-works statement, you wanna see how much money you stand to make. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it's laughable to dress it up as socially concious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Government does not care what you think, they will get their money from you whether you want their 'product' or not.
Wow...yeah. 'Government' doesn't care what you think, because they'll get your money anyway? So why exactly do they spend so much time trying to convince us they're doing good things for us, exactly?
They must be bored. Or it's just a hobby for them, or something. It couldn't be because they care what we think, not like the private sector which realizes that investors are more concerned with the environment than they are with the performance of their portfolios.
Just how heartfelt and in what ways the US government cares what its citizens thinks is of course open for debate, but to suggest that it doesn't is just plain stupid.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
(Quotes from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth/Climate Crisis website).
quote:We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
Glaciers, due to their nature, are migratory, ever changing sheets of ice. To claim that they are melting is as if to claim water is wet… There is a disturbing upward trend in the melting of some ice sheets, and there are some that are growing, as well. While this is likely an example of average climate increase it's a bad example to base an argument on, since the glaciers are dynamic anyway.
There is a shift in plant and animal habitat, and some of it appears to be due to climate change (though one could argue man has more direct effect over this).
Storms and droughts are a terrible example regarding climate change, simply because the premise of assumption are poor models. This years' Atlantic Hurricane forecast is an excellent example of how bad we are at understanding the cyclical nature of storms and droughts. (Again, drought conditions are largely to be thanked for direct human interaction with their environment, not overall climate)
quote:The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles. If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
There is no known cause-effect link between hurricanes and average temperature. Furthermore, we have only a rudimentary understanding of how the storms form and what happens internally during the storms. Lastly, 30 years is a meager statistical sample if one has to rely on correlation.
And yet, all of these are problems we face and must deal with. Had Gore presented this data as "worrying trends" and not attempted to present his conclusions as "factual information," I'd applaud him for it. As presented, it's hard not to take his claims for, at best, hyperbole, and, like swearing, it only gives people with emotional reasons to disagree an excuse to ignore what he is saying.
quote:Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years—to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050. There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now – TAKE ACTION
Taken at face value, I'd have to assume the deaths he mentions are attributed to the "climate change" caused hurricanes and draughts. Wonder how they figured out which those were?
The sea level rise issue has been brought up possibly the longest; and is in my mind a red herring. Changes in ocean currents, which we can't predict because we don't understand them, have the potential for much more drastic effects than the mere submergence of coastline.
Have to wonder about the heat waves. Possibly, but since it's been established we don't have a model for accurate prediction, how can this be presented as matter of fact? In fact the last few points fall under the same category. The type of people Al Gore needs to be reaching out to will not accept obvious speculation when presented as foregone conclusion.
And he closes with what I'd say is a decent call to action. Why am I dissecting Al Gore's presentation? Is it because I'm a Republican? Couldn't be, since I'm equally unimpressed by both parties. It's because I have an emotional investment in Environmental causes, I'd like to see us treat our home a bit better. As far as I can tell Al Gore is preaching to those that already buy into Al Gore, and are interested more in "being a part of a movement" rather than doing any critical thinking on the topic, because the people who care enough to do some solid research will realize that Al's been blowing smoke up their hindside. These zealous followers strengthen environmentalism as a political movement, and as such diminish environmentalism as a scientific interest.
And who exactly benefits when politics drive environmentalism rather than science? This is exactly how one sets up a reactionary "putting out fires" solution, rather than a solution based on systematic management and understanding.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright I see your point.
I still don't see how that is politically divisive though. He isn't playing partisan politics, he's playing environmental politics, which SHOULD reach across party lines. The fact that they don't isn't his fault, it's the fault of the party that isn't on the side of environmentalism.
The only problem I see with your criticism of his political fight, is that there ARE two sides to the coin, and rather than one being fought over the other, I don't see how progress will be made without fighting BOTH. Bush, and many of his cronies are out and out stamping out the scientific community. The National Academy of Sciences and others tell him something, and he shoves it aside.
When the politicians decide to ignore science, then those in favor of science must fight in the political arena. The cause of environmentalism has been a political issue for at least the last 80 years.
I understand the need to use scientific facts, rather than statistics and guesswork, but much of the above referenced material is factual statistics and admitted projections for possible futures. Statistics ARE facts, in the sense that they are true, whether or not they mean anything in the long run, or whether or not the conclusions drawn from those statistics are correct doesn't detract from the truthfulness of the stats themselves.
There's a lot of room for improvement in what Gore does, but he's been out there for decades trying to advance his cause, and he's made progress, and remains to this day a great advocate, and great spokesperson. I wish he'd stress the non-Global warming benefits of changing our way of living, but Global warming is his primary cause, not environmentalism as a whole.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I still don't see how that is politically divisive though. He isn't playing partisan politics, he's playing environmental politics, which SHOULD reach across party lines. The fact that they don't isn't his fault, it's the fault of the party that isn't on the side of environmentalism.
Dude, this paragraph clashes with itself. You admit that there is a point to the claim that Al Gore uses rhetoric and emotional scare-tactics, and then when those methods are ineffective, it's the other side's fault?
You've got this huge blind spot for this, it seems to me. Tactics that are distasteful at best and intolerable at worst in politics are, when happening in environmental politics, dismissed and casually set-aside at best. You would criticize the sort of politics Al Gore engages in-which you admitted he did, sometimes, when you admitted there was a point to the criticism-if they were coming from someone else on some other issue.
Why is it a good and tolerable thing for environmental concerns to advance their cause through hyperbole, scare-mongering, and twisting, Lyrhawn?
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Statistics ARE facts, in the sense that they are true, whether or not they mean anything in the long run, or whether or not the conclusions drawn from those statistics are correct doesn't detract from the truthfulness of the stats themselves.
Lies, "Darn" Lies, and Statistics.
The point is, statistics without a valid analysis, while factual, are useless. The reason why statistics get such a bad rap is that they are so easily manipulated; if you look at the temperature trend for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, then 100 years out they all will hint at fairly differing conclusions. Then if you look at 400,000 years of core samples, etc., it's obvious that 100 years of data doesn't give a proper perspective on the trending.
There are few easier ways to lie convincingly than to present statistics; like numerology, by omitting the data points that don't fit your conclusion, you can support any viewpoint you like.
An excellent, though not foolproof, way to catch someone pushing doctored stats is to look for dissenting data. Even the most rock solid theories have some jitter and the odd exception. A thorough statistical analysis will nearly always include mention of the exception, and an attempt to explain the cause.
quote:…it's the fault of the party that isn't on the side of environmentalism.
This is exactly what I'm talking about… his approach reinforces the idea that there is an us vs. them. There is no Party For/Party Against. There are people that support and detract from environmentalism on both sides of the party lines, and you cannot effectively take one side or another of the environmental debate simply by choice of party.
[Edited for PC-itude …and correct-itude] Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:There is not one thing government does that could not be better, more efficiently and cheaply done by competition in the private sector. That includes delivering mail and anything else a person could think of.
Why's the private sector sucking so terribly at healthcare in the richest nation on earth, then?
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Twisted Patent System, skyrocketing malpractice insurance, and an ineffectual, corrupt FDA?
I don't know, but that's my guess.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, those are the only reasons.
Right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, 'skyrocketing malpractice insurance' doesn't come from the government, it comes from people suing people. Doesn't exactly lend much credibility to the arguument that we should give over more of our necessity-services to the private sector.
Some of the biggest proponents of maintaining the status quo as far as the 'twisted patent system' are...you guessed it...businesses.,
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by ChevMalFet: (Quotes from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth/Climate Crisis website).
quote:The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
There is a piece in last month's Science by Christopher Landsea (of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division) that says that this claim was based on poor data.
There was an interesting article in the Detroit News the other day about the whole hurricane/ global warming issue. It's kind of looks like a minature model for the whole global warming scenario being played out.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said I didn't know...
and I wasn't really taking sides. Those are just current issues with US healthcare that scream out at me.
Excellent link, Bao, Thanks.
[ August 24, 2006, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: ChevMalFet ]
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
From the Detroit News article link above:
quote:Christopher Landsea, who works in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division...
How cool is that!?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hehe...I had the same thought.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I still don't see how that is politically divisive though. He isn't playing partisan politics, he's playing environmental politics, which SHOULD reach across party lines. The fact that they don't isn't his fault, it's the fault of the party that isn't on the side of environmentalism.
Dude, this paragraph clashes with itself. You admit that there is a point to the claim that Al Gore uses rhetoric and emotional scare-tactics, and then when those methods are ineffective, it's the other side's fault?
You've got this huge blind spot for this, it seems to me. Tactics that are distasteful at best and intolerable at worst in politics are, when happening in environmental politics, dismissed and casually set-aside at best. You would criticize the sort of politics Al Gore engages in-which you admitted he did, sometimes, when you admitted there was a point to the criticism-if they were coming from someone else on some other issue.
Why is it a good and tolerable thing for environmental concerns to advance their cause through hyperbole, scare-mongering, and twisting, Lyrhawn?
That's actually not what I said at all. I didn't admit that he uses rhetoric or scare tactics. But as I have said before, I do think he is going about it the wrong way. There's too much ambiguity in the science out there, and even where there ISN'T ambiguity, there are pro-business Republicans on the other side spinning accepted science their way, and enough people to buy it to make his arguments useless.
There are plenty of other fronts he could be taking in this fight that I think would meet with more success, but I'd still rather him do something than nothing.
And it's nowhere near the same thing as what I've criticized in the past. First of all, he isn't saying "Vote for me or you're all going to die," which I've taken issue with Republicans for doing. He's saying "You should change your lifestyle because it's the right thing to do, and if you don't your children or their children will pay consequences for it." There's a big difference, not the least of which is a total lack of imminent threat that the Republicans keep trying to shove down our throats. I might add, that he also isn't saying "A vote for Republicans is a vote for death," by and large he's trying to get Republicans to support his views, not to oust them in favor of more pliable Democrats.
What IS the other side's fault is their image on the environment. I'll repeat it again, since you appear to have missed it the first time. When Candidate A votes against the environment, and Candidate B votes for the environment, then Candidate B talks about the environment and Candidate A looks bad, it isn't Candidate B being a partisan hack, it's him championing an issue that Candidate A sucks at. It's not his fault that Candidate A votes the way he does.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:This is exactly what I'm talking about… his approach reinforces the idea that there is an us vs. them. There is no Party For/Party Against. There are people that support and detract from environmentalism on both sides of the party lines, and you cannot effectively take one side or another of the environmental debate simply by choice of party.
I don't agree. Maybe we got tripped up on words there, but when I said "party" I wasn't specifically referring to Republicans or Democrats, I meant party in a non-specific sense, simply referring to those on the side that is against environmentalism for whatever reason. And Gore doesn't play Left/Right politics in that sense with the Environment, and I've yet to see you show any real proof that he does.
And I don't understand what exists outside an Us/Them mentality. Regardless of what you might like philosophically, there IS an us and a them. For me, the "us" means people who support change for the environment for the better. "Them" is people who oppose it. That reaches across the political Left/Right divide, but I'm willing to bet a great many of them ARE on the right. Still, Gore isn't targeting based on the spectrum, but his opponents, the ones against his cause.
Philosophically, you can say there should only be science and not politics, but that totally ignores the people on the other side. They don't want change, they like the status quo, and regardless of science, they will still oppose it. Ignoring them will only make things worse, they should be confronted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A vote for Republicans is a vote for death," by and large he's trying to get Republicans to support his views, not to oust them in favor of more pliable Democrats.
The DNC would be pleased to hear this, I'm sure? You and I are seeing two totally different Al Gores. Of course he's workin to oust Republicans in favor of replacing them with Democrats. That's what politicians do!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Twisted Patent System, skyrocketing malpractice insurance, and an ineffectual, corrupt FDA?
I don't know, but that's my guess.
The patent issue is status quo for a private system, as noted.
Also incidentally, what's 'soaring' about medical malpractice insurance has absolutely nothing to do with the tort-reform claims of yesteryear. Medical malpractice lawsuit filings, payouts and jury verdicts are all dropping, and malpractice insurance costs have hovered steadily at about 2% of total healthcare costs.
It, in and of itself, is a nonissue -- when the malpractice insurance 'issue' came to prominence in American politics, it served only as a distraction from the actual problems with American healthcare.
Which leaves us with the FDA part, which I can't respond to without a more detailed assessment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:A vote for Republicans is a vote for death," by and large he's trying to get Republicans to support his views, not to oust them in favor of more pliable Democrats.
The DNC would be pleased to hear this, I'm sure? You and I are seeing two totally different Al Gores. Of course he's workin to oust Republicans in favor of replacing them with Democrats. That's what politicians do!
If he can't work with a particular senator or congressman on his issue, then I don't blame him for trying to get him replaced.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're sticking and moving like a boxer, Lyrhawn. Al Gore is a politician who, I believe, works to serve the nation in the way he thinks best. The way that works best is, to hiim, not achieved by merely persuading Republican lawmakers on issues one-at-a-time, it is to persuade the voters that the Democratic vision is the better one for the country.
I've gotten worn out talking about this, to be honest. I think your assertion that Al Gore 'by and large' wants to persuade Republicans on his issues, and not simply vote them out to be replaced with Democrats, proves my point about this double-standard Al Gore gets because he's on message.
I know that if I were to say, "If Dubya cannot work with a particular senator or congressperson on his issue, I don't blame him for trying to get them replaced," you wouldn't be so casual about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well certainly I don't LIKE that Bush would do that, but hell, it's Bush, nothing he does or would do surprises me at this point. Bush has been on a quest for consolidated power for the creation of his own version of America since day one, and I've opposed it since day one, taking only momentary leave of my senses after 9/11 when I thought we should act as one body. He has his agenda, and I have mine, just as Al Gore has his. I don't blame him for trying to get replaced the people who get in the way of that, but certainly I'll oppose it however I can.
I think I went too far when I said "by and large" referring to Gore's stance on Republicans, and I get what you're saying now. But hey, what do you expect, I'm a Democrat, a Liberal And I support what Al Gore is trying to do, though not all of his tactis, and with a general annoyance at the way he's going about it.
OSC just wrote a rather lengthy article about Liberals being liars and partisan dividers, and this shortly before Bush admits that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, after asserting up and down a few years ago that there was a clear connection between Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Iraq. No one is above putting blinders on for the sake of their own cause.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And I don't understand what exists outside an Us/Them mentality. Regardless of what you might like philosophically, there IS an us and a them. For me, the "us" means people who support change for the environment for the better. "Them" is people who oppose it. That reaches across the political Left/Right divide, but I'm willing to bet a great many of them ARE on the right. Still, Gore isn't targeting based on the spectrum, but his opponents, the ones against his cause.
Philosophically, you can say there should only be science and not politics, but that totally ignores the people on the other side. They don't want change, they like the status quo, and regardless of science, they will still oppose it. Ignoring them will only make things worse, they should be confronted.
I'm using the phrase us vs. them to represent the idea of tribalism/nationalism. People of our tribe, human, people not of our tribe, not human. "…they should be confronted." No, the should be engaged in discussion. Politics aside, most people are open to rational discussion and new ideas. The fact that our politicians encourage us all to divide up and go at each others throats makes me a bit ashamed to be American, really. What's worse is that we so often do it.
So to sum up, no I'm not arguing republican/democrat nor accusing it, I'm arguing against tribalist propoganda and the conforntational mentality it represents.
" there are pro-business politicians on the other side spinning accepted science their way"
There, fixed that for you.
quote:What IS the other side's fault is their image on the environment. I'll repeat it again, since you appear to have missed it the first time. When Candidate A votes against the environment, and Candidate B votes for the environment, then Candidate B talks about the environment and Candidate A looks bad, it isn't Candidate B being a partisan hack, it's him championing an issue that Candidate A sucks at. It's not his fault that Candidate A votes the way he does.
The fallacy is that one can legislate the environment. I'm going to invent magical Candidate C, that never gets heard, but wants to fund research into broad based ecology programs and put special emphasis on the impact of systematic reactions to outside influence. Unfortunately, because Candidate B is preaching Doom and Gloom, and has temporary political support, his legislature to seed the clouds over Africa with ferrous oxide because it was a popular request from his constituency has received unprecedented press and support from the legislature, winning Candidate B a name as an "Environmental Legislator."
There is a difference between "Supporting the Environment" and supporting the environment. You Can Not effectively support a scientific body if you do not have the basic respect for the tenets of the body. Reactionary legislation is worse than none and all, and I'll thank them to leave it out.
It is clear from Gore's information he doesn't respect the scientific process. He may or may not employee people who do, but having planted the seed of doubt, what evidence do we have that Gore has any intention of directly aiding the cause of environmentalism?
Rallying support and providing aid are two explicitly different things.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How CAN'T you legislate the environment? Legislation gave us toxic waste site cleanups, and water purity standards, and halted clearcutting in some areas, and saved endangered species from extinction, etc. etc. etc.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: …when the malpractice insurance 'issue' came to prominence in American politics, it served only as a distraction from the actual problems with American healthcare.
Which leaves us with the FDA part, which I can't respond to without a more detailed assessment.
The issues may go deeper, but I wasn't speaking on a political level so much as a personal understanding of the issues friends have gone through in deciding to give up their private practice.
And I'm not sure what part of the patent process being a fixture of private industry makes it "not broken." Read some of the new patents going through sometime, it's an eye opener. Or even better, the patents that are seeing litigation in the software industry.
The FDA has long been a thorn in our side... Look at what gets oked as wheat bread. 90% of it isn't. Harmful or at least undesirable ingredients on food labels commonly are called by different names as they go out of vogue, and several articles have been written about the decentralized, unorganized, wasteful spending that goes on in the name of "developing a classification system for the grade and thickness of Ketchup."
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
The inference was that you can't rely on Legislation without scientific understanding, apologies if I was not succinct in that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)