Apparently some of the things alleged in the op-ed that spawned that five-page thread were, in fact, false. Al Gore's office also issued its own response.
The part about the Fox host repeating it doesn't bother me overmuch; he could easily not have known about the correction. They ought to issue their own correction now, of course, but I'd be surprised. What really does bother me is that the correction wasn't nearly as widely publicized as Peter Schweizer's original op-ed attack piece, so a lot of people will just carry on believing things about Al Gore that simply aren't true.
Since we had such a long discussion about Al Gore's ostensible hypocrisy here when the piece first aired, I thought it important to mention this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually I'd be surprised if they didn't issue their own correction, Twink. I certainly would in their position. Even though I'm not at all fond of Fox News, I don't think they're likely to give their critics such an easy opportunity as this.
I can understand why you're bothered by the ratio of publicity in this case...but really, it's a problem with mass media as a whole. It's certainly not an indication of a specific targeted campaign against Al Gore.
In any case, I'm glad he is not (apparently) such a big hypocrite. HIis is an issue I'd prefer not to have that sort of spokesperson.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:a lot of people will just carry on believing things about Al Gore that simply aren't true.
Al Gore totally didn't earn those purple hearts!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks for posting this, twinky.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks Twinky. Retraction never get the sort of publicity as the oridignal article.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thank for the info Twinky.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Another Conservative Myth Busted!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
this was nice to see.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Poor Al Gore. That guy just can't get a break.
Why hate on someone trying to make a positive change? I wonder how many H2s are in the Fox News lot?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aw TL beat me to it.
I was waiting for a Snarksplosion in this thread.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Poor Al Gore. That guy just can't get a break.
Yeah, his life must suck. A second-generation U.S. Senator that made a Presidential run and lost to a bunch of lawyers and is now forced to go from college to college begging for hundred of thousands of dollars in exchange for two hours of soothing environmental conversation. I'm glad I'm not him.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
So are they saying Al Gore doesn't own three houses? Does he use the wind power offered at one of them?
I don't understand what they mean about offseting the carbon. What is it that Al Gore's doing that's good for the environment?
I'm not sure I buy the idea that just becuase he doesn't have a zinc mine or own oil stock (and any of us with a mutual fund probably own oil stock) that he's not a pollutor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
AvidReader: whatever Gore has left over after reducing his own carbon emissions, Gore pays for companies to reduce their carbon emissions by the amount that he contributes to the environment, thus resulting in him being 'carbon-neutral'. This is good for the environment because carbon-related pollution is a significant pollutant; Gore is not hurting the environment in that fashion at all, net.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I'm not sure I buy the idea that just becuase he doesn't have a zinc mine or own oil stock (and any of us with a mutual fund probably own oil stock) that he's not a pollutor.
Everyone is a polluter; that's never been the issue. The question isn't whether or not Gore, or any of us for that matter, pollute. It's how much.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let me just point out that I said all this in the five-page thread in question, and yet it still didn't seem to settle the issue. Do people not know what the carbon market is, or what?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd be surprised if everyone did. Though I think it will start gaining publicity soon. California is about to enact legislation to drastically cut Carbon Dioxide emissions (among others I believe) in the next decade or two, and will open a huge new carbon market (or at a huge new wing onto the prexisting carbon market) to help get it going.
Supporters hail it as a great move for the better, as I believe California itself is the 13th or 14th greatest creator of CO2 emissions in the world. Detractors say it's the beginning of the end for California's economy, and that it will ruin everything. Fact of the matter is, it's really sad when the President of a nation is so behind that state governments and individual MAYORS of cities are progressively, independently acting and changing their territories for the better, but the President is still standing his ground.
I would've liked to see a program similar to the one that California did recently (the stem cell one) that created a multibillion dollar fund to help subsidize a mass production photovoltaic cell industry, and then give low, or no interest loans to people to add them onto their houses. Not only would it create thousands of jobs that won't go anywhere anytime soon, it'd be a boon to the economy, would lower the power bills of citizens all over the state, and would get rid of those nasty rolling blackouts that have plagued the state since what seems like the dawn of time. I'd have to do a bit more reading on the subject, but even in the last five years PV cell technology has increased in efficiency dramatically. Small cells are providing a hell of a lot more energy than than did a couple years ago. I suppose before I would really expect them to dump billions of dollars into such a program they'd want to make sure they have the best product for the money, but if there aren't any major advances expected soon, I'd say get it started.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
From what I read in your link it wasn't much a correction and it is being spun for all its worth. All the correction said is "He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003." The mine was closed, had it not closed I am sure he would be happily taking the money
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
DK, is it your opinion that mine owners are inherently anti-environment?
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:It wasn't much a correction and it is being spun for all its worth.
I still prefer spin that is based on truth to spin based on lies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just focusing on this specific statement as it reads when standing alone, John van Pelt...
I find that particular kind of tolerance even more harmful than a willingness to believe lies from the right people, because it's so much easier to believe spin based in truth, but spun in a manipulative direction.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I find that particular kind of tolerance even more harmful than a willingness to believe lies from the right people, because it's so much easier to believe spin based in truth, but spun in a manipulative direction.
I find the phrase "a willingness to believe lies from the right people" chilling to the very bone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So do I, KarlEd.
But the reason I said I find the other more harmful than this one is that it (willingness to follow spin further than the truth leads) is that it's so much easier to sway people to do.
Attaining a willingness to believe what we know to be, deep down, lies takes in my opinion not just an incredibly charismatic leader but also an extremely devoted organization, charismatic and powerfully potent in and of themselves.
When such a thing comes along-Hitler and the Nazis, to use the most famous example-of course it does vastly more harm. But it doesn't come around nearly as often as people and organizations able to lead people to follow spin past the truth.
That's why I find a preference and tolerance for such a thing troublesome and distasteful and more harmfuul.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
The retraction only relates to the royalities from the zinc mine he profited from for so many years.
As for the rest, it only shows that Gore is unwilling to change his life style to meet the standards he expects the rest of us to live up to. It OK to live in multiple mansions and maintain his jet-setter lifestyle because he can afford to "buy-off" his excessive (relative to the rest of us who must live in modest homes) consumption of the energy. If paying for carbon credits and adding photo-voltaic cells to his mansions helps him feel better, so much the better for him. But where's his sacrifice? He could care less if Americans lose jobs because their company is forced to reduce carbon emmissions in pursuit of calming the global warming hysterics. That's OK with Gore because his wallet helps keep his conscious clear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig,
Are you even going to address the point put forward repeatedly that Al Gore may not be the stereotypical liberal-environmentalist you're portraying him to be? That the fundamental aspect of his own environmentalism, or one of them anyway, is a carbon neutral lifestyle?
Or are you just going to continue to ignore it and hope no one notices?
To presume he's not sacrificing anything is just stupid, Mig. Clearly if he had no committment to the environment, he could be profiting much more handsomely than he already is.
And as for the rather short-sighted assertion that Americans lose jobs in 'pursuit of calming the global warming hysterics'...if you know anything about economics and business, you know that the American economy isn't a vaccuum. All changes have a negative impact initially, but eventually the model adapts and the people who were displaced will find different employment that is just as good or better. Progress marches on and all that.
You're shaping up to be a pretty stereotypical conservative, to be honest.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mig: actually, its exactly the position he advocates for everybody. He advocates everyone adhere to a carbon-neutral lifestyle, suggests ways one can reduce one's direct carbon output (many of which he implements himself, such as using solar panels), and suggests that for any remaining carbon one balance by paying for carbon reductions elsewhere (which is exactly what he does).
Would you care to point out a single inconsistency?
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:Rakeesh: I'm just focusing on this specific statement as it reads when standing alone, John van Pelt...
Okay, then I don't have to argue with you. But I will clarify.
You took my statement WAY beyond how I meant it (as you know). I was merely making a narrow and facetious swipe at DK, who seemed not to care for 'truth-value' as an ingredient of public discourse.
I don't like spin, really, of any kind. If you (or I) were to generalize honestly from my narrow remark, it would be to say "I prefer truth to lies."
I hope you would find my "preference and tolerance for such a thing" more acceptable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure whether or not you're irritated at my doing so, JvP, but let me point out that I thought it was clear I didn't believe you actually meant that statement to stand alone. I do not believe you willingly like any spin. Of course, unconciously we all take some spin with our reality, differenced only by degree.
I find it harmful, and prevalent, evidenced by the large numbers of Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, etc., fans throughout the nation. It's only anecdotal, but I know many people who do willingly except spin and a biased viewpoint. Not one which actually states it will lie in favor of their viewpoint, but one which suggests it will tell the story in a friendly way.
Conservatives and liberals alike can each point to various mass media sources to see the truth of this. It's not something I see much focused on. People are more likely to accuse their opponents of believing in lies or willingly believing in lies, which just isn't generally true in my opinion. It also causes people to turn off their ears when accused of such things.
That's why I think it's more harmful, and that's why I posted about it. It concerned you only insofar as you made-in a context-a statement which completely out of context was related to something I've thought in the past. Anyone could have said it.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I wasn't irritated, Rakeesh. I saw your disclaimer about deliberately taking it out of context.
I think you make a good point. I would add, I think, that 'spin,' by definition, is a warping of the truth -- e.g., by emphasis, indirection, exaggeration, omission -- and those are just the LESS venal methods .
At an extreme, to compare 'spin based on lies' and 'spin based on truth' is a distinction without a difference. Especially the way so many people consume mass media (witness this very Gore attack-piece) -- folks will go to their deathbed defending the 'spin' version of something they believe, by citing 'something they read.' I don't think there's a lot of correlation between how tightly held beliefs are, and whether the 'something they read' was actually true or not.
The problem with the Gore piece, as I pointed out in the other thread, is that it was so clearly spin -- attack spin -- that by its nature it called into question if not the direct veracity of its 'facts' (which turned out to be justified), certainly its general candor. But a lot of people don't perceive this. It had a USA Today banner, therefore it's absorbable into my belief system without any critical thinking applied.
(Of course I agree that these cautions apply at all points on the political spectrum.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...California itself is the 13th or 14th greatest creator of CO2 emissions in the world."
Rank by Billions of Metric Tonnes 00) 5.872 UnitedStates 00) 3.683 EuropeanUnion 01) 3.550 China 02) 1.433 Russia 03) 1.221 India 04) 1.204 Japan 05) 0.804 Germany 06) 0.656 Texas 07) 0.545 UnitedKingdom 08) 0.517 Canada 09) 0.446 SouthKorea 10) 0.433 Italy 11) 0.384 Mexico 12) 0.383 California 13) 0.378 France 14) 0.360 Iran 15) 0.356 Australia 16) 0.345 SouthAfrica 17) 0.341 SaudiArabia 18) 0.314 Brazil 19) 0.307 Ukraine 20) 0.306 Indonesia 21) 0.305 Spain 22) 0.296 Poland 23) 0.262 Pennsylvania 24) 0.252 Ohio 26) 0.239 Florida 27) 0.232 Thailand 28) 0.230 Indiana 29) 0.227 Illinois 30) 0.212 NewYork 31) 0.208 Turkey
Given NewYork's rate of decrease in emissions and Turkey's rate of increase, Turkey is probably now #30. California's rate of increase probably exceeded Mexico's due to increased oil prices, and California is now #11. China's emissions probably now exceed the EU's due to China's expanding production and the EU's increasing energy efficiency.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mig -
You also don't really seem to grasp how jobs come and go in the American economy. Businesses are downsizing all over the nation right now, but at the same time we're adding a million jobs a year.
Gore might be concerned that some will lose their jobs as a cost of carbon neutrality, but in the end, renewable energy ISN'T a job loser, and it isn't inherently damaging to the economy. It can be worth thousands, if not millions of jobs for America, and Gore knows that. The economy has always been a piece of his argument, but no one ever listens to it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But where's his sacrifice?
EAT THE RICH
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
TD, is it your opinion that mining has no impact on the environment?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Interesting information on carbon dioxide emission rate of Kilauea Volcano
"We report a CO2 emission rate of 8500 metric tons per day for the summit of Kilauea Volcano, several times larger than previous estimates."
quote:TD, is it your opinion that mining has no impact on the environment?
Of course not. But merely having inherited land on which a reasonably responsible mine operates does not indicate that someone is not a "genuine" environmentalist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Interesting information on carbon dioxide emission rate of Kilauea Volcano
"We report a CO2 emission rate of 8500 metric tons per day for the summit of Kilauea Volcano, several times larger than previous estimates."
They actually have a net global cooling effect. Many people still mistakenly make the "Mount so-and-so released eight gajillion tons of <x>, so how could humans be possibly making an effect?" -- yet, don't trust these, whether for Ozone or Global Warming cases (they've been used in both, especially specifically naming Kilauea or Pinatubo).
This is in earnest. It's an old mistake. If a volcano blows up, the earth actually cools down some -- they're different (and significantly so) from manufactured CO2 which is, by all estimations, causing an 'anthropogenic climate forcing,' et al blah blah.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Samprimary, do you have a link for your claim?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can explain it in further detail, too. As best as I presently understand it!
Critical points:
ONE: PERCENTAGES
Humans produce about one hundred and fifty times (plus) as much CO2 output as volcanoes put out (probably more by now), so it is important that one does not fecklessly claim that humanity is a 'drop in the bucket' compared to volcanoes as a source of CO2 output; it's actually the other way around.
The 'times' figure is in flux; there may be legitimate disagreement as to exactly how many times much more CO2 man puts out than volcanoes. 150 times? 125 times? At any rate, it's the mega-lion's share.
TWO: GLOBAL COOLING
When a volcano 'splodes, it doesn't just release CO2 -- it's other two major outputs are massive quantities of water vapor and sulfur dioxide, etc. This creates a net global cooling effect. (beep!) so it's important to avoid accidentally claiming that 'volcanoes do all this global warming stuff, how could we possibly be warming the environment if the volcanoes aren't already?'
This covers two out of three of people's most common mistakes involving the mention of volcano eruption effects on the environment during political debates on the interwebs. The third is mostly unrelated to this issue, and deals instead with controversy over CFC's and the ozone hole.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I will clarify.