posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the history lesson Samuel Bush, kmbboots, and Bok. I stand corrected, it is a valid analogy.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?!?!?
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.Posts: 12 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
posted
If people cannot be living examples of the ideas they present, how can anybody validate the truth of anything anyone says?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
