posted
I had to turn the volume down for a second and I missed your question, but I think I heard most of the response. I was a little disappointed with the response - I'm not talking about all liberals, just those liberals.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Hey, he's happy with the progress of the movie. So it's not all bad news for you "envirotheists (is that how he put it?)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Colorado man was Ender's Game movie man? I'll admit, I didn't hear a lot after I called because the blood rushing to my head gave me an insane headache.
I wish I would've spoken up after he spoke for awhile, I wanted to follow my question up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it was, but I thought Indiana man was Ender's Game movie man. I was too busy trying to figure out which of the callers was which one of you dudes to really pay attention. Could you not have introduced yourselves by your hatrack names? Sheesh. The nerve. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was the same person, I think. But yeah, I got thrown off when the host said "Southwest Colorado, you're on the air." I'm nowhere near that godforasken area of the state.
Yeah, like I was gonna say, "Hi, Mister Card, this is Reshpeckobiggle!"
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I considered saying I was on Hatrack, but I didn't think it was at all relevent. I was thrown off when he asked if I was Adam Hobson (that's what he said right?). He was close, just got the last three letters of my last name wrong.
I thought I'd be pretty easily identifiable, since I blabbered on about pretty much the same stuff I rant about here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, when you get the mod job....until then, you lay off. You've taken this tone several times with me, on Ornery, Sake, and here, and it is in and of itself inappropriate, to use your term against you.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well I was actually joking...compared to the butt-kissing by the interviewer, you were fair and balanced.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the problem with one member of the community reminding another of what constitutes appropriate behavior. Calling Resh an ass-kisser is uncalled for.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I'm not going to be able to listen, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts after you have, Lyrhawn.
He sounded a lot less combative than he did on the essay he wrote. Actually I thought he sounded pretty nice. He was calm. But I didn't buy most of his explanations. First off, he sounded a lot like the people he was attacking. He sounds just as driven by a pure belief that can't be swayed by facts, it's just what he believes. And I don't think he's quite up to date on some of his facts, especially about the economy and its relationship to the environment.
I should say though, that I found myself agreeing with much of what he had to say. He attacked Gore, and said that his rhetoric on global warming was getting in the way of real progress, and I don't necessarily disagree. But I think Card is sort of part of the problem, because he's one of those that ties Gore to environmentalists and by association to global warming, and since he doesn't believe, he shoots them ALL down.
I called in, and I asked him why global warming even mattered? Businesses are making billions off of products that have, as a byproduct, benefits for the environment and for the solving of this problem. His answer was that the solution left out too many players, like the third world and especially, China. I agree with that. But he also said that our economy couldn't handle it, in the same breath he said we have a remarkably resiliant economy. We spend billions propping up our agricultural base, on giveaways to oil companies, on a whole host of things that build up industries that don't even need our help. And there are renewables and energy efficient technologies that save companies billions and reduce thousands of tons of CO2...and yet they don't get that same attention. So I have to say I didn't agree with him 100% (unlike most of the callers seemed to), but I found him much more reasonable than his essay would suggest.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, you personally are not funny when you're being an asshole. In fact, for you, humor and assholery are mutually exclusive. If you ever think you're being funny, stop for a second and ask yourself, "Am I also being an asshole?" If the answer is yes, then you can dependably assume that no one else will think what you are saying is funny. This is not true for everyone. It is, however, true for you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My comment was directed at Lyrhawn. I'm glad he called, because it was getting boring with all the adulation.
Resh, I have to admit that I was mildly annoyed with you, if you were the caller who asked about the Ender's Game movie. Seriously, if he knows anything, it'll be on the website.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I called in, and I asked him why global warming even mattered? Businesses are making billions off of products that have, as a byproduct, benefits for the environment and for the solving of this problem. His answer was that the solution left out too many players, like the third world and especially, China. I agree with that. But he also said that our economy couldn't handle it, in the same breath he said we have a remarkably resiliant economy. We spend billions propping up our agricultural base, on giveaways to oil companies, on a whole host of things that build up industries that don't even need our help. And there are renewables and energy efficient technologies that save companies billions and reduce thousands of tons of CO2...and yet they don't get that same attention.
An earlier caller (New Jersey?) made the point that there are sectors in our economy where emissions could be cut without causing economic collapse. OSC seemed to agree with that point and complemented it by pointing out how our train systems need improving. He didn't mention it but trains actually have an effective emissions rate 1/5th of that of cars iirc. Anyways, what surprised me about his position was that it seems that he actually agrees with some policies of the "ecotheists" (btw, minus rep for that caller and anyone else who uses that term seriously) but just has an issue with their justifications for the policies. If thats his main problem then I think he should spend more time trying to compromise with the pro-gw crowd and less time criticizing them. Improving our rail systems would be a great compromise because environmentalists would get their wish for reduced emissions and OSC and the like would get their wish for reduced dependence on foreign oil.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, shigosei. Maybe you should have called instead. But guess what? He's near the top of the list of my favorite writers, I already agree with him on the issues, and Lyrhawn wasn't willing to liven up the debate by being an Alan Colmes to his Sean Hannity (thank god, and good on you for that; we got enough contentiousness to go around here), so I decided to get off the boring subject of Global Warming, and ask him about the things that we can ALL agree about (i.e; the reasons we are all here in the first place -we're fans of his fiction.)
Good point, Lyrhawn, about Gore. He is definitely a Straw Man for the Global Warming movement. But I disagree with your assessment about his inability to change his beliefs by the facts. Based on what he said.I think he is probably very open to some actual scientific evidence about Global Warming. His point was that what so many consider to be the conclusive evidence is hardly that.
Also, something to keep in mind about how much different he sounded compared to the tone of his essays: the same can probably be applied across the board. I can 100% guarantee that most of you would find me much less offensive if you heard me say the things I do rather than just read them.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Did I lose yet?
Yeah, man. You lost.
The only thing I'm giving you credit for is breaking the ice for swear words. I can now follow suit and say that your comment was totally assholish.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"steven, you personally are not funny when you're being an asshole. In fact, for you, humor and assholery are mutually exclusive. If you ever think you're being funny, stop for a second and ask yourself, "Am I also being an asshole?" If the answer is yes, then you can dependably assume that no one else will think what you are saying is funny. This is not true for everyone. It is, however, true for you."
Why is that? Because you find me frightening?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Also, something to keep in mind about how much different he sounded compared to the tone of his essays: the same can probably be applied across the board. I can 100% guarantee that most of you would find me much less offensive if you heard me say the things I do rather than just read them.
I don't think people find you generically offensive but rather they find you offensively stubborn (like on creationism). If that makes sense.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
The only thing I'm giving you credit for is breaking the ice for swear words. I can now follow suit and say that your comment was totally assholish."
I'm not going to take you seriously when you say this, because...I don't have much respect for those who engage in dogpiles, and I'd hate to lose respect for you. This is verging on a dogpile, in my book.
Tom...I'd be OK with your condescending attitude...if it wasn't so clear that you have agendas. I'm not saying you're the most obviously agenda-ed person in the Hatrackosphere, but you sure do post a lot, and it can be hard to take criticism again and again without you ever admitting you have any faults. We know you do. You're human.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I called in, and I asked him why global warming even mattered? Businesses are making billions off of products that have, as a byproduct, benefits for the environment and for the solving of this problem. His answer was that the solution left out too many players, like the third world and especially, China. I agree with that. But he also said that our economy couldn't handle it, in the same breath he said we have a remarkably resiliant economy. We spend billions propping up our agricultural base, on giveaways to oil companies, on a whole host of things that build up industries that don't even need our help. And there are renewables and energy efficient technologies that save companies billions and reduce thousands of tons of CO2...and yet they don't get that same attention.
An earlier caller (New Jersey?) made the point that there are sectors in our economy where emissions could be cut without causing economic collapse. OSC seemed to agree with that point and complemented it by pointing out how our train systems need improving. He didn't mention it but trains actually have an effective emissions rate 1/5th of that of cars iirc. Anyways, what surprised me about his position was that it seems that he actually agrees with some policies of the "ecotheists" (btw, minus rep for that caller and anyone else who uses that term seriously) but just has an issue with their justifications for the policies. If thats his main problem then I think he should spend more time trying to compromise with the pro-gw crowd and less time criticizing them. Improving our rail systems would be a great compromise because environmentalists would get their wish for reduced emissions and OSC and the like would get their wish for reduced dependence on foreign oil.
See, that's the exact same thing I'm talking about. I'm in support of increased rail traffic in the US too, and I think it's a crime that we're still stuck on planes and cars, especially when you consider how much time we spend waiting for delayed flights and stuck in traffic, all because infrastructure isn't keeping up with demand, and air traffic (also very polluting) is only going to get worse in the years to come, and delays are going to become more pronounced, even as tickets increase in price to pay for additions and the increased cost of jet lag.
But there's more than that, everything with a roof in this country could build a green roof and a solar panel array. It will save money hand over fist for not just the home owners, but the government as well if those green roofs help the sewer systems from being overwhelmed, which is especially important considering the sewer system is almost 100 years old, more in some places, and money isn't being spent to bring it up to snuff.
We could create a million jobs, billions in revenue, and save consumers billions more, and the bonus? CO2 goes down all over the country. That gives us the money, clout and moral authority to get countries like China to get on board with us, and more, we can sell them and the rest of the world the technologies we've pioneered and become the world's Green leader.
And I don't see any reason NOT to do that, to do it as aggressively as we possibly can. If it puts people out of a job, I have no problem with that, it's what happens when technology advances. New jobs are added that will stay a lot longer, and old, previous generation jobs are lost. It's happened for a thousand years, and it'll happen for the next thousand.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not going to take you seriously when you say this, because...I don't have much respect for those who engage in dogpiles, and I'd hate to lose respect for you. This is verging on a dogpile, in my book.
Dogpiling is not to be confused with, "I was rudely wrong loudly in public, and refuse to admit it...thus drawing attention to myself, and surprisingly finding no support!"
Do you believe people fear you?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not going to take you seriously when you say this, because...I don't have much respect for those who engage in dogpiles, and I'd hate to lose respect for you. This is verging on a dogpile, in my book.
Then take my words at face value as though they were independent of anyone else's, I dunno. It's my honest appraisal that the comment was inappropriate.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean that he is as close to a literal Straw Man as one can get. He is easy to dismiss, and when you do, you are implicitly dismissing Global Warming in general.
That being said, what does his easy dismissal say about the Nobel Prize committee? Oh, wait, that was the whole point of the essay that was the original subject of this thread. Don't you just love tangents?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He is definitely a Straw Man for the Global Warming movement.
Oh man this ought to be good.
what does this even mean
No, he's right, Gore is a straw man of sorts, and you've likely heard the reasoning used before. Gore is the posterchild for the modern global warming movement in the United States, and GW opponents attack GW via Gore, so when Gore does things like his massive home energy use, or buying offsets through his own company, or flying on personal jets instead of taking public transportation, he garners an extreme amount of negative press from those people. So it's extremely easy for them to attack Gore, and by association, they attack the entire movement because he is the representative of that movement. He's the single most visible figure in the movement, so he gets the most attention.
He's not a straw man for the global warming people, he's a straw man for the people against global warming. He's their excuse to dismiss and batter the whole thing without ever having to answer any of the serious questions the movement poses. That's why I think Gore unintentionally does his own movement more harm than good. I think he does great things internationally because they all love him over there, but here at home people are too willing and eager to poke him every chance they get, and since his message often appears to be, or is portrayed as "doom and gloom" then people want to just wrap him, the movement, and everything to do with it up in a ball and discard it. Granted he ends every message with "but if we act now, we can still save the world!" All people hear is the 90% doom and not the 10% hope.
As a stalwart treehugger, I wish he'd tone it down and take a behind the scenes role instead of being so public. I'd love for him to be a part of the next government's taskforce to clean up the environment and to implement renewables and efficiency upgrades. I think he could do more good there than in front of a camera. He's far too good at being fodder for the Right.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's far too good at being fodder for the Right.
I'm a bit surprised you think that wouldn't happen regardless of who was the spokesman. Certainly Gore has more history to poke at, but that only makes mockery and scorn of him more powerful, it's not what makes it happen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: No one got the joke. You should work on that.
I just had to say that I got the joke. It wasn't really funny, but I got it.
I'm studying jokes right now, actually, and I think it might have been funny if it had been a little more subtle and a lot less graphic. (Though it might have played well in stand-up, depending on your persona, mannerisms and tone.)
Sort of like that Mitch Benn song "I May Just Have to Murder James Blunt" in which he calls Mr. Blunt "the only man alive who is his own rhyming slang." Much funnier than the actual rhyme would have been.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Granted he ends every message with "but if we act now, we can still save the world!" All people hear is the 90% doom and not the 10% hope.
Based upon your percentages we have very little hope. If 90% of a message is negative and 10% positive then wouldn't the overall message be overwhelmingly negative? Besides, according to Gore we only have a litle over 8 years until we go past the point of no return. SundancePosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's far too good at being fodder for the Right.
I'm a bit surprised you think that wouldn't happen regardless of who was the spokesman. Certainly Gore has more history to poke at, but that only makes mockery and scorn of him more powerful, it's not what makes it happen.
I guess I meant that Gore's methods of spreading the message are especially good at giving material for the right to use. If he came at it from a different angle, they might find they have a lot less ground to attack him on. He makes it too easy.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Granted he ends every message with "but if we act now, we can still save the world!" All people hear is the 90% doom and not the 10% hope.
Based upon your percentages we have very little hope. If 90% of a message is negative and 10% positive then wouldn't the overall message be overwhelmingly negative? Besides, according to Gore we only have a litle over 8 years until we go past the point of no return. Sundance
Well, this ties into what I just said to Rakeesh. Gore has a message: "We've got a problem, but we can fix it." Now that doesn't sound so bad, but he doesn't say it like that, he says it like this: "There are a million different ways that this problem will kill you," and that part of the message goes on, and on, so that by the time he gets to the end where you hear "but we still have time if we act now!" everyone but the diehards have already stopped listening. Inconvenient Truth was a perfect example of this. It's what, a 90 minute summation of his speech, where he details the problem and the potential disasters to come, and then spends some time at the end saying there's still hope. Personally I found it uplifting, but I can easily see how others would view it as a doom and gloom message that is just ther eto scare people.
I think it's a failing of people today, that they can't take 100% of the message and parse out the details to measure the potential problems versus the gains. That just isn't how messages work these days. These days you have to coddle people, I think you have to lead them by the hand, and Gore isn't at all interested in coddling people.
I think he thinks he's scaring them into action, and that kind of thing works for some things. Look at Pres. Bush, he managed to scare us into a trillion dollar war, into supporting a wealth of measures that otherwise we would have said no to. And in history, fear has managed to get us excited about a lot of things. But not for this, not for some vague threat we can't wrap our heads around. Not for something we can't shoot a missile at.
Gore is trying to do an amazing thing, and I don't think he's doing more harm than good. But he could go about it in a much, much better way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the slow response -- life/home stuff. Yes, steven, you were a bit over the line. Perhaps that type of discourse is acceptable at some other forums you frequent, but it's not appropriate here. And it shouldn't require hearing from me every time -- as has been mentioned many a time, this is to a degree a self-regulating forum. Just because you don't like the person reminding you of the rules doesn't mean that person is wrong. (To be fair, it also doesn't mean that person is right, but when multiple people mention it you might reconsider.) I'd appreciate it if you would edit your post.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
