An Inconvenient Truth

[Liar]

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

Well, Ive never said he was. To me, he's yet another pundit among pundits.That's the eay it works, you don't get things done by humbly sitting quietly in a corner. Because nobody else is. You raise attantion. You shout from rooftops. You fondle the balls of major news media outlets.

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.]

Um. Beeecause it wouldn't work as well? He's in the business of attention whoring. Raising money? Dunno, but raising attention is the name of the current game. And you got to admit, guy's getting a helluva lot of attention. And along with that, the cause he's promoting.

 

[mckai777]

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.

Yes, but not for another few billion years.

 

[sophia jane]

Well, Ive never said he was. To me, he's yet another pundit among pundits.That's the eay it works, you don't get things done by humbly sitting quietly in a corner. Because nobody else is. You raise attantion. You shout from rooftops. You fondle the balls of major news media outlets.
Um. Beeecause it wouldn't work as well? He's in the business of attention whoring. Raising money? Dunno, but raising attention is the name of the current game. And you got to admit, guy's getting a helluva lot of attention. And along with that, the cause he's promoting.

Yeah, I think that's where the confusion is coming in. His goal was to create awareness, and he's done it remarkably. If that awareness leads to more and better scientific research to prove or disprove global warming, I don't see anything wrong with that. If it's used as a means to get people to be smarter with their energy usage, what's wrong with that? I think people are confusing Gore the private citizen with Gore the former Vice President.

 

[Pure]

rr opined,
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.

lame indeed. why not bring up the birth mark on Bill Clinton's dick and Obama's smoking. that'll convince people.

 

[Pure]

hi liar,

have you ever figured out the causes of the American right wing's hysteria and paranoia? i suppose it's become big business with Fox News, the Murdoch empire, etc. it's also entertainment (news is now 'info-tainment').

how is it that the future of capitalism is linked with continuance of coal and gasoline burning, and destruction of forests and large, clean bodies of water?

is the continued criminalization of bum fucking really the way to save western civilization?

 

[mikey2much]

---
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."

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.[/QUOTE]



The Palestinians have to live of charity because we let their neighbor abuse them so badly with never a word of comdemnation from us and we protect them from the UN also. If the U.S. would give the two sides a level playing field there would be a hope of peace. until then things will continiue the way they are today.

 

[R. Richard]

how is it that the future of capitalism is linked with continuance of coal and gasoline burning, and destruction of forests and large, clean bodies of water?

Private industry does not destroy forests. Forests are a source of income. Capitalists take care of sources of income. Government does not do nearly as good a job.

Again, private industry allow the pollution of bodeis of water that they control? Absurd! Private industry wants the fish and/or shell fish from those bodies of water. Private industry also wants to bottle and sell the water after as little cleanup as practical to offer the kind of quality product the consumer demands.

Government? The government doesn't preserve the environment. The government makes political speeches.

 

[R. Richard]

The Palestinians have to live of charity because we let their neighbor abuse them so badly with never a word of comdemnation from us and we protect them from the UN also. If the U.S. would give the two sides a level playing field there would be a hope of peace. until then things will continiue the way they are today.

The Israelis live in a fortress under attack by suicide bombers. The Israelis want to live in their country in peace. The Israelis have a decent economy that would be one hell of a lot better if they did not have to defend themselves against attack by their neighbors. [Even the UN agrees that it was the Arabs who attacked Israel, not the other way around.]

The US can't give the two sides a level playing field. The Palestinians settle their political disputes with rifles and RPGs. The Israelis prefer [sometimes] polite debate.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby
That's right - but don't you think it's more useful (and healthy psychologically)

*snerk*
you crack me up

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.

Re. cracking you up: At least I've done one positive thing today. But seriously, that psyche angle is something to think about - if one goes through life thinking the end is nigh, then one makes bad decisions in many personal matters (Why get married? Why have kids? Why put money in an IRA? Why live?) It's a very bad habit to get into.

It's also a completely unproductive one in the context of this debate. I don't view myself as cynical - being skeptical of the claims of self-serving elites is rational, not cynical. Instead I am optimistic - you are completely correct that within 50 (or 100) years the problem will be "fixed," most likely in a completely "organic" way that requires no massive empowerment of the political class. With or without my carbon tax, petrol will gradually become more expensive and substitutes will come on line, with no need for mandates or subsidies.

Finally, why do you say, "without going nuclear?" Nukes are good: The scores of modern design plants plants being built right now around the world are infinitely and intrinsically safer than the dinosaur kludges of previous generations. Regarding nuclear waste, more than 98% of the material in a spent nuclear fuel rod is recyclable, and that's what's done outside the U.S. Pure politics prevents it here. In France, where 58 nuke plants generate 78 percent of electricity, all the fuel rods are recycled, and the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts that remain are all stored in a single room in Le Havre. Solving this particular non-problem is really not hard at all. (see http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=18328084&highlight=transuranic#post18328084)

 

[Pure]

and France's nuclear solution.... who's paying for it?

---
not to spoil this debate with facts, but here's a nice page--perhaps somewhat 'pro'-- about France's nuclear reactors and electricity production.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

 

[cumallday]

By some measure humans have used more physical resources since WW2 than in all of history before it. It's now taking a toll beyond anything we could have ever imagined. What does it mean when one-sixth of the world's population consumes without any real restraint? It means so far we've raised the temperature of the planet one degree Farenheit. The computer modelling is very clear: if we continue on this path, and if we are joined on it by some significant fraction of the world's poulation, then we will raise the planet's temperature something like a further five degrees before the century ends. That is to say, Earth will be warmer than it's been since well before the dawn of primate evolution.

We've also begun to intuit the damage to humans, and to human society, from that kind of endless binge. We're experimenting right now with what it means to live as a hyperindividual, living for yourself, never saying no. But satisfaction?

Which makes sense, I think. Because we've so completely denied one part of our nature, the part that embraces restraint. In the last couple of centuries we in the West have decided our true human nature is the beavering, ambitious, grasping, curious, pedal-to-the-metal part. It's certainly there, all of us can feel it. But, I argue, humans were also built for restraint. In a way it may be the greater of our gifts, the one that makes us different, the way flight makes birds different. We're the the animal that can decide not to do something we're capable of. Decide, as individuals, that we don't need a bigger car. Decide that something else - our family, community, the rest of creation, future generations - matter as much as we do, and thus sets limits on our behaviour. In individuals, learning restraint is the process of maturing. So I say - grow up.

 

[R. Richard]

and France's nuclear solution.... who's paying for it?

---
not to spoil this debate with facts, but here's a nice page--perhaps somewhat 'pro'-- about France's nuclear reactors and electricity production.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

From a reading of the article, it would appear that French private industry is basically paying for the nuclear reactors, at least the new ones. [In France it is sometime difficult to separate big French industry and the French government.] However the French government is doing the one thing it can do best. It is OKing the buiilding of private industry reactors. This is waht the best role of government is. Decide what will be allowed and then get the hell out of the way. Note, Al Gore's campaign is not to agitate for a solution and then get out of the way. No, Al Gore wants a permanent governmental committee to enforce rigid rules, mainly on the US.

 

[Huckleman2000]

...that's what's done outside the U.S. Pure politics prevents it here. In France, where 58 nuke plants generate 78 percent of electricity, all the fuel rods are recycled, and the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts that remain are all stored in a single room in Le Havre. Solving this particular non-problem is really not hard at all. (see http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=18328084&highlight=transuranic#post18328084)

Surely, Roxanne, you can't be suggesting we emulate the politics of the French?

 

[Huckleman2000]

...The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:...

Sorry, I can't take a press release seriously from an organization that can't even come up with a description of itself that isn't self-contradictory.

 

[sophia jane]

Sorry, I can't take a press release seriously from an organization that can't even come up with a description of itself that isn't self-contradictory.

Lol. I'm glad you pointed that out. I meant to earlier, and I got sidetracked with other absurdities in this thread.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Said use of nuclear weapons SAVED many, many lives. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the bitter end in a struggle that would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives [historical fact.]....

Only RR can take something that didn't happen (for whatever reason) and describe it as a "historical fact."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Surely, Roxanne, you can't be suggesting we emulate the politics of the French?

Their politics, no. Their energy policy, yes, but only to the extent that we cut back the regulatory undergrowth that currently makes it all but impossible to build a nuke here. Then allow the market - not politicians bought-and-paid-for by ADM and the farm lobby - to determine what energy mix makes the most sense at the moment. A choice you can tip in the direction of nukes by adopting the revenue-neutral carbon tax I recommended in an earlier post.

What I'm really saying is that this is where we are heading in the long run, whether people today are willing to accept that reality or not. As I said earlier, a return to the caves or the pre-industrial agricultural "village" is not an option. People like the comforts and conveniences of industrial civilization, and are not going to give them up. Given a nuclear powered electric economy there is no reason for them to, and nothing to prevent the rest of the world's population from also enjoying these comforts and conveniences.

So, what's the problem? Is the goal to address the global warming issue, or is that just cover for some other agenda? Because I'm still waiting for a single global warming enthusiast to sign on to my carbon tax and nuke proposals, which are infinitely more efficacious, less economically and socially destructive, and more politically realistic than anything the doomsayers have suggested to fix what they contend is the most serious problem we face.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

We've also begun to intuit the damage to humans, and to human society, from that kind of endless binge. We're experimenting right now with what it means to live as a hyperindividual, living for yourself, never saying no. But satisfaction?

. . . We're the the animal that can decide not to do something we're capable of. Decide, as individuals, that we don't need a bigger car. Decide that something else - our family, community, the rest of creation, future generations - matter as much as we do, and thus sets limits on our behaviour.

So decide: Which of these benefits of industrial civilization are you giving up this year: A house that is warm in winter and cool in winter? Having an abundance of material goods that make our lives more interesting and comfortable (like the work station and computer on which you're writing your jeremiads)? Having plenty of good food of all sorts 12 months a year? Having convenient transportation for short and medium distance (cars) and long distance (airplanes)? Having work that is more interesting and less dangerous than our ancestors?

Oh, and are you planning to pursue political power so you can send men with guns to force the rest of us to also give these things up? Because if you are I need to determine how much energy I should devote to stopping you.

 

[R. Richard]

Only RR can take something that didn't happen (for whatever reason) and describe it as a "historical fact."

All of the historians who have studied the subject have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we could have decided not to use the atom bomb and found out for sure.

 

[Pure]

the truth hidden until now

Roxanne, is that [environmental stance] just cover for some other agenda?

damn, outed again. ok, the truth...

as comrade Nikita stated some time ago, 'we will bury you.'

 

[cloudy]

Roxanne, is that [environmental stance] just cover for some other agenda?

damn, outed again. ok, the truth...

as comrade Nikita stated some time ago, 'we will bury you.'

I kind of like "you will be assimilated."

Honestly, I don't like Gore; I never have (I lived in Tennessee while he was in office there - 'nuff said). He's wishy-washy as hell, and his wife gives conservatives a bad name (remember the music banning?).

I can't, however, argue with his stance on global warming. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[mikey2much]

A horse can't compete with a truck

The Israelis live in a fortress under attack by suicide bombers. The Israelis want to live in their country in peace. The Israelis have a decent economy that would be one hell of a lot better if they did not have to defend themselves against attack by their neighbors. [Even the UN agrees that it was the Arabs who attacked Israel, not the other way around.]

The US can't give the two sides a level playing field. The Palestinians settle their political disputes with rifles and RPGs. The Israelis prefer [sometimes] polite debate.

Just before 9/11, The state of Israel, had decided the Palestinians could not use moter vichicles to move goods forcing them to use donkeys and horses to compete against jewish firms who were allowed to use trucks. Would you call that a level playing field? I anm not against Jews but the state of Israel is like an abused child who has grown up to be an abuser of their own children. If American aid were to be cut off until the State of Israel started to behave toward her neighbors, there might be a climate where peace could grow. At the present time Israel is like a pit bull on a playground full of children.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, is that [environmental stance] just cover for some other agenda?

damn, outed again. ok, the truth...

as comrade Nikita stated some time ago, 'we will bury you.'

I knew it! (Pictures Pure pounding shoe on desk.)

 

[R. Richard]

OK, let's try a little logic.

A) The Kyoto Protocols are important. If not, then Gore is a time waster who deserves little but scorn for a political granstand play.

B) Let us then assume that the Kyoto Protocols are important. If the Kyoto Protocols are important, then a key item would be to get the United States on board. Al Gore was the Vice President and Blowjob Bill was the President when the Kyoto Protocols were first being ratified. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the Kyoto protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. There was not and is not participation by several developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Al Gore signs the Kyoto Protocol in a meaningless political beau geste.

C) However, we must still consider the Kyoto Protocols important or Al Gore is a time waster who deserves little but scorn for a political granstand play. Thus we look at key countries involved in the Kyoto Protocol situation.
Australia: "Fuck you, mate, we aint signing no effing Kyoto Protocol."
Canada: "Maybe we will and maybe we won't."
China: Exempt.
European Union: Accepts the Kyoto Protocols. However, the EU relies upon the economic collapse of the former East Germany and several Warsaw Pact nations whose economies have collapsed in order to meet their targets. Also, germany has exempted its coal industry from the Kyoto Protocols. Where there is a problem for an EU member in meeting the Kyoto Protocol goals, the failing industires can purchase chits from low pollurting areas, produce more CO2 emmissions and still technically meet the Kyoto Protocol goals.
England: England is meeting the broad goals of the Kyoto Protocols, but is over on CO2 emissions. Full compliance with Kyotot Protocol goals depends upon laws yet to be passed.
India: Exempt.
Russia: Will meet the Kyoto Protocol goals, since the large parts of the Russian economy have collapsed since 1990.

In general, the countries/groups supporting the Kyoto Protocols are meeting the goals via the collapse of at least certain parts of their economies. It would appear that the actual effects on CO2 production will be nil or very slight. There are five major nations who will not/may not participate in the Kyoto Protocols. China and Inda are exempt. Australia says, "No way!" Canada says, "Maybe." The US says, "No way." The Kyoto Protocols have no real chance to suceed unless at least the US gets on board. Since we have agreed that the US is very important if the Kyoto Protocol goals are to be met, then Al Gore should be stumping the US, trying his best to get the US signed on to the Kyoto Protocols.

Al Gore produces "An Inconvenient Truth" which supports the Kyoto Protocol in a meaningless political beau geste. If the Kyoto Protocol is important, why does Al Gore not have a grass roots political organization agitating for the Kyoto Protocol locally, supported by a traveling Al Gore when a local organization indicates that it may be at a key point in the campaign?

Well, left wingers, the ball is in your court. If Al Gore is leading a conservation movement, where is the movement and exactly what is Al Gore doing to positively support the movement?

 

[JamesSD]

R. Richard apparently reads the Drudge Report.

This is only a half step up from getting your news from Bill "O RLY?" O'Reiley.

This is a non-story. Anna Nicole Smith is more significant.