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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Noemon, and the wind from his fiendish plan is awfully smelly and enviornmentally unfriendly
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
