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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| 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.
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Models are not facts, Models are computer programs that do what the programmers tell them to do.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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]Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.,
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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. 
