An Inconvenient Truth

[shereads]

The real truth is that scientists are about evenly split on global warming.

No, they're not.

 

[3113]

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that you don't like the much-maligned Mr. Gore??

Doesn't that dislike adversely colour ANY comments you might have to make on the man and his 'cause'?

Not to mention the fact that he's quoting incompete information from a bias source.

I'm not altogether sure why RR and others want to take pot-shots at Gore. He's been doing this for 30 years, long before he was VP--it's clearly something he cares about, not something he's using to say, earn money or power or fame. Afterall, few knew he was even doing this before the documentary. So it's not like, say, a Vice President who is supported by anti-gay fundies, who refuses to talk about his own gay daughter, because to do so would alienate his power base.

Gore's not coming into your bedroom trying to stop you from having the sex you want, watch or read the porn you want to watch/read, or stop you from earning money, taking drugs, or owning a gun.

His message is pretty simple and common sense. Don't shit where you eat. Don't piss in the water we all drink, try to get more bang for your energy buck--and let's try to to find other sources of energy outside of oil. Even if you don't believe in Global warming, this makes sense. China is going to be buying up all the oil, so we'd better find alternatives fast....Engines can now be made that run on vegetable oil. I assume you care about money--consider how damn cheap it would be for you to change over to that, and how much more money you'd have in your bank account if your car ran veggie oil rather than crude.

And this is a bad and evil message that you hate to the point where you want to find out and smugly spread bias and nasty things about anyone who utters it...why?

 

[S-Des]

And this is a bad and evil message that you hate to the point where you want to find out and smugly spread bias and nasty things about anyone who utters it...why?

It's a good point, but you have to admit that anyone who says global warming isn't exactly as it's claimed (not to the extent or about what are the most severe causes) is immediately shouted down by "true believers". I agree that we have to do better, both for our economy and our future. Despite my teasing of Gore, I don't think he's as cynical as RR does (although the Monk incident was one of the smarmiest political things I've ever seen).

As to why people are taking pot shots at him for preaching a good message...isn't it obvious? People do the same thing when a religious leader (who's just trying to "help" people) gets caught with his gay lover (or banging a young parishner, or even with his million dollar dog house). We hate hypocrites. They make us feel like suckers, and we despise that. I agree with Liar, his mansion is far bigger than a normal house, so his energy usage will be higher. This is a non-issue. I still am not convinced about some of the claims made by the more strident of the global warming advocates. It would help if people (on both sides) would stop playing with the numbers and have a real debate. I've heard some of the stats Roxanne quoted brought up to shoot down the left, and it makes it difficult to seperate the fact from the attempts to frighten.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

degradation of the environment is real. the problem requires addressing, even though mr lomberg says spend the money on AIDS instead. (even he admits the environmental problem).

rr, thanks for proving the hysteria of the right; all the ammo they have-- with Bush showing hints of 'green,'-- is Gore's electricity bill.

they're idiots.

maybe roxanne can tell us why fuel economy, conserving house heat, reducing garbage, alternatives to gasoline will --judging by the right's hysteria-- produce the end of capitlism. i would have thought that new types of generators, new fuels, new types of cars, new building and packaging materials would be a boon to the economy. silly me. the end is nigh!

agreed...

besides...

Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing.

if these folks can't even bother with a proofreader... !

 

[mikey2much]

At least they are trying to slove the problem

I don't really know. I have seen documents that indicate the Europe is not meeting its Kyoto Protocol goals and that the US is actually reducing CO2 emissions. I don't claim that the data I saw is absolutely correct. I do know that data on something like the Kyoto Protocols is very subject to distortion and outright lies, "because it is something we need to do!"

After the weapons of mass destruction fuck-up, how can you trust anything that the bush people have to tell you?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This is not a political problem. This is a problem of appetites, and of narcissism, and of self-deceit. The planet is breaking, and it is breaking under the weight of our hunger for more. To reform the world, we must first reform ourselves.

What you call "appetites, narcissism, and self-deceit" I call the rational desire of humans to live in houses that are warm in winter and cool in winter, have an abundance of material goods that make our lives more interesting and comfortable (like the work station and computer on which you wrote your jeremiad), have plenty of good food of all sorts 12 months a year, have convenient transportation for short and medium distance (cars) and long distance (airplanes), to have work that is more interesting and less dangerous than our ancestors - in short, to have the benefits of industrial civilization. News flash: We're not going back to the caves, or to the agricultural 'village.' Second news flash: With an electric economy based on nukes and possibly some other concentrated energy sources (like geothermal) every person on the planet can enjoy this level of material comfort for tens of thousands of years. The apocalypsism promoted by certain elites is a tool they would use to control the masses.

Speculation: Is the civilzational self-hatred that is so widespread in our society itself a form of dysfunctional narcissism?

 

[mikey2much]

Have you been drinking from the republican cup of lies?

Al Gore was and is a fund raiser. He raised money from convicted felons. He raised money from Bhuddist monks [who take a vow of poverty] and then claimed he didn't know it was fund raising. Al Gore, of course, is the man who invented the Internet and who, with his wife was the source for Love Story. If Al Gore's lips are moving and sound is coming, Al Gore is lying. Al Gore is the guy who was so devastated by his sister's death from lung cancer that he had to cash sopping wet checks from his leased tobacco acreage.

Al Gore is a guy who has found a cause. He will make a damn good living off any cause he shills for.

JMNTHO.

Me thinks that your thoughts are not your own. You my friend have been convinced of the truth of republican lies. If you get your information from american press sources along, you are not getting the truth.

 

[R. Richard]

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that you don't like the much-maligned Mr. Gore??

Doesn't that dislike adversely colour ANY comments you might have to make on the man and his 'cause'?

In general, I don't like politicians. However, I try to be fair in my assessment of even politicians. In return I expect to be treated fairly.

Mr, Gore broke the law, not once but several times. He solicited funds from a tax-exempt Bhuddist temple and it is not legal to solicit funds from tax exempt organizations. He made fund raising calls from the White House and that is not legal. After he was caught, he did not take responsibility but clained that he didn't know the Bhuddist temple event was a fund raiser. He then claimed 'no defining legal authority' for the White House fund raising [no one had ever before been caught doing it.] Finally, he claimed to have invented the Internet.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

News flash: We're not going back to the caves, or to the agricultural 'village.' Second news flash: With an electric economy based on nukes and possibly some other concentrated energy sources (like geothermal) every person on the planet can enjoy this level of material comfort for tens of thousands of years. The apocalypsism promoted by certain elites is a tool they would use to control the masses.

That's a big IF. Last time I checked we were still running on mostly non-renewable resources.

 

[mikey2much]

all our leaders are whores, they have to be to live in the system we have now

Everybody who is in politics today has to sell out to get in the race. Our system sorts the honest men out at the outset to leave only the ones who are ready and eager to be bribed by the big money which really runs our country. Why else did we have to choose between Kerry and Bush last election? You don't really think that those were the best that america had to offer do you?

 

[R. Richard]

His message is pretty simple and common sense. Don't shit where you eat. Don't piss in the water we all drink, try to get more bang for your energy buck--and let's try to to find other sources of energy outside of oil. Even if you don't believe in Global warming, this makes sense. China is going to be buying up all the oil, so we'd better find alternatives fast....Engines can now be made that run on vegetable oil. I assume you care about money--consider how damn cheap it would be for you to change over to that, and how much more money you'd have in your bank account if your car ran veggie oil rather than crude.

And this is a bad and evil message that you hate to the point where you want to find out and smugly spread bias and nasty things about anyone who utters it...why?

Mr. Gore doesn't want me to be able to run a business that emits CO2, however he wants to run his own mansion on CO2 emitting power. He is all for energy conservation and he flies his chartered plane all over the world to lobby for energy conservation. Mr. Gore's chartered plane does not run on vegetable oil and even if it did, it would take a hell of a lot of vegetable oil. If Mr. Gore was really concerned about energy conservation, he would stay home and broadcast his message via the Internet [after all, he invented it didn't he?] Instead he jets around the world to RAISE MONEY!

In many areas, cars now run on a 15% ethanol blend. The ethanol is more expensive than gasoline and is 'economically' useful only because the government [read taxpayers] subsidize the production of ethanol. There is cheap, wood derived ethanol from Brazil, but that wouldn't buy off American farmers.

The idea of alternate energy sources is fine. However, with the exception of hydro-electric power there is currently no economically viable alternate energy source. In the area where I live there is a 'pilot' solar energy plant. The plant does produce energy from sumlight. However, the cost of the plant will never be recovered from the value of the energy produced. It is, however, a valuable learning process and may eventually do some good.

 

[sophia jane]

Finally, he claimed to have invented the Internet.

For the love of god, if you're going to criticize somone, at least do it on legitmate grounds.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://sethf.com/gore/
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm


Another thing- the original article quoted by RR gives costs for his electric, but doesn't dig into why it's increased. Is it possible that it's increased because he's been working from home more? Does it mention that some of that electricity would be required by security and things of that nature? No. The article quotes an amount and leaves it to the reader to the infer that he's wasteful. That's bad reporting.
I get that global warming is controversial. I get that so many on the right who have faith in unprovable religion have issues with science (both the provable and unprovable kinds). But I also agree with those who have said that energy conservation and better usage is important for a host of reasons. Clean water, clean air, preservation of wildlife, sustainable fuels, reduction in possibility of war over oil. To dismiss the efforts for conservation because of such crappy reporting is just dumb.

ETA: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
This article shows both the conservative roots of report (released by Drudge!) and Gore's response.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

For the love of god, if you're going to criticize somone, at least do it on legitmate grounds.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://sethf.com/gore/
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm


Another thing- the original article quoted by RR gives costs for his electric, but doesn't dig into why it's increased. Is it possible that it's increased because he's been working from home more? Does it mention that some of that electricity would be required by security and things of that nature? No. The article quotes an amount and leaves it to the reader to the infer that he's wasteful. That's bad reporting.
I get that global warming is controversial. I get that so many on the right who have faith in unprovable religion have issues with science (both the provable and unprovable kinds). But I also agree with those who have said that energy conservation and better usage is important for a host of reasons. Clean water, clean air, preservation of wildlife, sustainable fuels, reduction in possibility of war over oil. To dismiss the efforts for conservation because of such crappy reporting is just dumb.

ETA: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
This article shows both the conservative roots of report (released by Drudge!) and Gore's response.

*applause*

 

[R. Richard]

For the love of god, if you're going to criticize somone, at least do it on legitmate grounds.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://sethf.com/gore/
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm


Another thing- the original article quoted by RR gives costs for his electric, but doesn't dig into why it's increased. Is it possible that it's increased because he's been working from home more? Does it mention that some of that electricity would be required by security and things of that nature? No. The article quotes an amount and leaves it to the reader to the infer that he's wasteful. That's bad reporting.
I get that global warming is controversial. I get that so many on the right who have faith in unprovable religion have issues with science (both the provable and unprovable kinds). But I also agree with those who have said that energy conservation and better usage is important for a host of reasons. Clean water, clean air, preservation of wildlife, sustainable fuels, reduction in possibility of war over oil. To dismiss the efforts for conservation because of such crappy reporting is just dumb.

ETA: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
This article shows both the conservative roots of report (released by Drudge!) and Gore's response.

Quote Al Gore: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Now, admittedly, he didn't say he 'invented' the Internet, instead he 'created' the Internet. [I assume that he did this in the same fashion that God created the heavens and earth.]

Mr. Gore has NOT been working from hime more. He has been jetting all over the world to spread his message of 'conservation.' Using an energy hog jet aircraft to fly around the world to promote conservation is like fucking for virginity.

It might surprise you to learn that I too am in favor of clean air, clean water and preservation of wildlife. However, I am not in favor of trying to achieve said goals by crushing the economy of the United States.

In the area where I live, there are any number of 'conservationists' who heat their homes with wood burning stoves. Said heating does save on oil. However, the air pollution it creates you don't wanna' know!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

That's a big IF. Last time I checked we were still running on mostly non-renewable resources.

That's right - but don't you think it's more useful (and healthy psychologically) to talk about how we get from where we are now to the future I describe, rather than lose ourselves in paroxysms of self-indulgent civilizational self-hatred? Repeat: We are not going back to the caves or the ag 'village.' (Note that an irrational desire to do so based on beliefs that are essentially religious may be the real agenda of many promoting global warming. Note also that this course would require a massive die-off of the human population - pre-industrial systems cannot support present populations.)

Therefore, if the global warming doomsayers are sincere in their beliefs regarding the magnitude of the problem, they will become the biggest backers of a huge increase in nuclear power, which creates zero greenhouse gases. They will also be the biggest backers of a revenue neutral "carbon tax" of like $5 per gallon on gas (with equivalent rates on all other fuels.)

This tax would be made revenue neutral by a dollar-for-dollar cut in marginal income tax rates, less the value of a refundable income tax credit for those whose earnings are so low they pay no tax. The higher fuel tax would increase the incentive for every individual and business to use less fuel. The lower income tax would compensate motorists and other energy users, and boost economic growth by reducing the tax disincentives to work, save, study and invest. The refundable tax credit would compensate the poor who pay little or no income tax, without reducing their greater incentive to also use less fuel.

If the doomsayers insist on not making the carbon tax revenue neutral but instead using it for a massive wealth redistribution scheme, then once again they show themselves to be insincere about global warming, because they will have placed a socialist agenda ahead of an environmental one, and made the tax I propose a political impossibility.

Note that neither Al Gore nor any of the elites most prominent in promoting global warming as a threat have proposed either of these options. What they have proposed are command-and-control regulatory structures and mandates that vastly increase the power of the political class vis-a-vis individuals and the private sector. Furthermore, the specific form of this structure is one that is designed to have no real impact on the problem (Kyoto) - a fact about which there is no serious disagreement.

If you think seriously about these things then my skepticism will start to make a lot more sense to you.

 

[R. Richard]

That's a big IF. Last time I checked we were still running on mostly non-renewable resources.

ALL resources are non-renewable. The Sun powers everything. The Sun is most definitely a non-renewable resource. The Sun will not only burn out, the process will destroy all life in the solar system.

 

[Liar]

Mr. Gore has NOT been working from hime more. He has been jetting all over the world to spread his message of 'conservation.' Using an energy hog jet aircraft to fly around the world to promote conservation is like fucking for virginity.

Like using nukes to prevent more carnage?

 

[R. Richard]

Like using nukes to prevent more carnage?

Liar:
You are trying to bait me. Well, it won't work.

In combat, it is a SAVING of life to send your own soldiers into your own artillery barrage. Less of your soldiers die than if you waited for the barrage to lift, because the enemy starts firing back as soon as the artillery barrage lifts. It is a hard thing to do to order men into a situation where you will some of them yourself. However, it is much better than having the enemy kill more of them.

Similarly, it is much better to kill innocent civilians with nukes, rather than conduct a ground invasion in the face of a certain scorched earth/civilians as military shields resistance. Less innocent civilians die.

You seem to live in a world of symbols. Certain things are good and certain things are bad, pretty much by your own definition. Amputating a man's arm is bad, but it just might save his life. Killing someone like Charles Manson is supposedly bad [damned if I can figure why,] but it is better than letting him kill many, many others.

 

[R. Richard]

As Roxanne has pointed out, Kyoto is a fraud. Kyoto is not about global warming, it is about political control.

Kyoto means that a Europe can meet goals because the left wing governments of Eastern Europe destroyed the economies to an extent that CO2 emissions are way down. Kyoto means that India and China can continue to pollute to their hearts content, while the bad capatalist western governments have to destroy their own economies.

 

[Pure]

i find this heartening

rr said, Mr. Gore doesn't want me to be able to run a business that emits CO2, however he wants to run his own mansion on CO2 emitting power. He is all for energy conservation and he flies his chartered plane all over the world to lobby for energy conservation. Mr. Gore's chartered plane does not run on vegetable oil and even if it did, it would take a hell of a lot of vegetable oil. If Mr. Gore was really concerned about energy conservation, he would stay home and broadcast his message via the Internet [after all, he invented it didn't he?] Instead he jets around the world to RAISE MONEY!

this is so LAME. such frothings encourage me. the 'ammo' of the right on this issue is pretty pitiful. the 'green' cause must be having an impact. and, no, roxanne, it won't cause the death of capitalism and a return to dwelling in caves. chill. read. repeat calmly: "America is a great nation. It will survive conservation measures and cleaning the environment." take a breath. do it again.
---

Roxanne: What they have proposed are command-and-control regulatory structures and mandates that vastly increase the power of the political class vis-a-vis individuals and the private sector.

If you would read up a bit, Roxanne, you'd find that your proposed nuclear option is so vastly expensive that extensive involvement of government, at least in the form of subsidies, is going to be necessary. so that's more regulatory structures--how evil!-- but repeat calmly: "capitalism will survive; reading Ayn Rand will not become a crime."

 

[R. Richard]

rr said, Mr. Gore doesn't want me to be able to run a business that emits CO2, however he wants to run his own mansion on CO2 emitting power. He is all for energy conservation and he flies his chartered plane all over the world to lobby for energy conservation. Mr. Gore's chartered plane does not run on vegetable oil and even if it did, it would take a hell of a lot of vegetable oil. If Mr. Gore was really concerned about energy conservation, he would stay home and broadcast his message via the Internet [after all, he invented it didn't he?] Instead he jets around the world to RAISE MONEY!

this is so LAME. such frothings encourage me. the 'ammo' of the right on this issue is pretty pitiful. the 'green' cause must be having an impact. and, no, roxanne, it won't cause the death of capitalism and a return to dwelling in caves. chill. read. repeat calmly: "America is a great nation. It will survive conservation measures and cleaning the environment." take a breath. do it again.

---
Nice job of begging the question. The United States is implementing and has been implementing conservation and pollution measures. The United States will continue to implement said measures. The United States will not return to living in caves or in the ruins of our tall buildings BECAUSE we will run our own country. With the new left wing Congress, we will also increase the minimum wage [unless you work for a company that is headquartered in Nancy Pelosi's district, of course.] We will also conserve on energy, except for the large airplanes necessary to which certain Congressional leaders and their families non-stop back and forth to work.

Roxanne: What they have proposed are command-and-control regulatory structures and mandates that vastly increase the power of the political class vis-a-vis individuals and the private sector.

If you would read up a bit, Roxanne, you'd find that your proposed nuclear option is so vastly expensive that extensive involvement of government, at least in the form of subsidies, is going to be necessary. so that's more regulatory structures--how evil!-- but repeat calmly: "capitalism will survive; reading Ayn Rand will not become a crime."[/QUOTE]

The US has, and has has for some time, nuclear power plants. They would have more and that without government subsidies, except that the 'green' politicians don't want a nuclear power plant anywhere near their back yard.

Now, let us look at a couple of places run by the UN. The Palestinians have to be supported by charity so that they can continue to plot the destruction of Israel. The refugees in Darfur have to be supported mainly by charity, but some of the young girls can sell themselves sexually to the UN peace force. What the US needs is more UN political control so that we can live on charity. Yeah, right.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

That's right - but don't you think it's more useful (and healthy psychologically)

*snerk*
you crack me up

If you think seriously about these things then my skepticism will start to make a lot more sense to you.

I don't think your skepticism doesn't make sense... I don't trust ANY politician, no matter what side they're on. That system itself is intrinsically flawed... but what system isn't?

I agree in part with some of the solutions you propose... although there are ways to avoid global warming and to develop viable energy alternatives without going nuclear. With enough incentive (i.e. gas tax etc.) I think it would be possible to "fix" this problem within a span of 50 years or less...

I'm as cynical as you are, frankly... and skeptical of the radical claims of both sides...

but I don't doubt that what we are doing to our planet is dangerous... physically/actually AND psychologically.

 

[Liar]

Liar:
You are trying to bait me. Well, it won't work.

I think it just did. You are trading water if you try to lecture me on military tactics, I know what you're saying, but the relevance of it in this disussion is just about as relevant as the inital kindergarten style finger pointing that is your initial quoted article in this thread. Which is - not at all.

I was merely pointing out that a cheap, hollow talknig point is a cheap hollow talking point. Mine is, yours was. Now can we get back on topic? What does Gore's personal wastefullness (or non-wastefulness, that article contains many words and a silly nudge-nudge implying but says nothing, but I'll leave that and just assume that Gore has an energy hog of a house ftsota) have to do with the truth or non truth of the massage of his movie and campaigning?

Clear enuff for ya, guv? Or am I baiting again? And you haven't so far? If so, hand me a manual for this thread.

 

[R. Richard]

I think it just did. You are trading water if you try to lecture me on military tactics, I know what you're saying, but the relevance of it in this disussion is just about as relevant as the inital kindergarten style finger pointing that is your initial quoted article in this thread. Which is - not at all.

I was merely pointing out that a cheap, hollow talknig point is a cheap hollow talking point. Mine is, yours was. Now can we get back on topic? What does Gore's personal wastefullness (or non-wastefulness, that article contains many words and a silly nudge-nudge implying but says nothing, but I'll leave that and just assume that Gore has an energy hog of a house ftsota) have to do with the truth or non truth of the massage of his movie and campaigning?

Clear enuff for ya, guv? Or am I baiting again? And you haven't so far? If so, hand me a manual for this thread.

Mr. Gore styles himself as a leader. A leader leads from the front and leads by example. Mr. Gore does not set a good example by owning an energy hog of a house and by flying around in an energy hog of an airplane. If Mr. Gore took the lead in creating the Internet, why does he not do his global warming work via that same Internet? [Hint: If you want to raise money, you have to go there and press the flesh. Mr. Gore is a politician raising money.] There are ways to combat the perceived threat of global warming, if indeed global warming is a threat. One way is to present calm scientific studies, not predictions of a 20 foot rise in sea level. Another way is to present opposing points of view in SCIENTIFIC debate, not political debate. Mr. Gore was part of a government that did not even present the Kyoto Protocol to Congress for ratification.

If Mr. Gore is leading the fight against global warming, he is not leading very well, if at all.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

What does Gore's personal wastefullness (or non-wastefulness, that article contains many words and a silly nudge-nudge implying but says nothing, but I'll leave that and just assume that Gore has an energy hog of a house ftsota) have to do with the truth or non truth of the massage of his movie and campaigning?

not a damned thing...

hand me a manual for this thread.

http://www.selenakittyn.com/index_files/AHManual.jpg