wco81 wrote:But if the US doesn't exercise leadership, all the developing countries will try to reach our level of fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions.
What? With Al Gore we have terrific leadership. He leads by example.
The jet ski on the back of his new solar powered house boat is there as a symbolic way to show the folly of man. Symbolism worthy of yet another Nobel Peace prize and to show the world that we are serious about our care for the environment. Almost makes me want to find a tree and hug it.
wco81 wrote:It's going to take the effort of more than one individual or one family.
Are people really outraged at Gore or just want to look for an excuse to adopt their stance?
Yet that one individual is considered by many the voice of the environmental movement. The movie, the Nobel peace prize, etc, etc. Don't you think it is just a bit hypocritical? With all the money and notoriety this guy have made off the environment, is it asking too much to expect him to treat it as well as he wants others to?
I doubt Gore is what any non-believer looks at to adopt their stance. People like him do make it easier to stick with that stance.
bdoughty wrote:
I doubt Gore is what any non-believer looks at to adopt their stance. People like him do make it easier to stick with that stance.
Funnily enough that is exactly what you're consistently doing in this thread...
To me its just like criticizing a news reporter for discussing a news event. They have nothing to do with the actual news, they're just the ones putting it in front of your face.
bdoughty wrote:
I doubt Gore is what any non-believer looks at to adopt their stance. People like him do make it easier to stick with that stance.
Funnily enough that is exactly what you're consistently doing in this thread...
To me its just like criticizing a news reporter for discussing a news event. They have nothing to do with the actual news, they're just the ones putting it in front of your face.
[Temporary user ignore repeal]
That might just be the worst example in the history of making examples on the internet.
bdoughty wrote:
I doubt Gore is what any non-believer looks at to adopt their stance. People like him do make it easier to stick with that stance.
Funnily enough that is exactly what you're consistently doing in this thread...
To me its just like criticizing a news reporter for discussing a news event. They have nothing to do with the actual news, they're just the ones putting it in front of your face.
[Temporary user ignore repeal]
That might just be the worst example in the history of making examples on the internet.
[/Temporary user ignore repeal]
Must... ignore... childish response... must.. be strong...
Al Gore does not (to my knowledge) involve himself in any environmental/climate change research beyond merely reporting on the findings of others. Do you know something I don't? Does he secretly possess an advanced degree in environmental sciences? No? Then why take his word for it?
macsomjrr wrote:
Al Gore does not (to my knowledge) involve himself in any environmental/climate change research beyond merely reporting on the findings of others. Do you know something I don't? Does he secretly possess an advanced degree in environmental sciences? No? Then why take his word for it?
I do not take his word for anything, that is not the point. The problem is that he tries to convince others, that might be more easily persuaded, to spend tax payer money on his cause. That is more than just reporting the finding of others, he is trying to help create policy.
wco81 wrote:It's going to take the effort of more than one individual or one family.
Are people really outraged at Gore or just want to look for an excuse to adopt their stance?
He's the f*cking poster child of the movement, man! Al Gore running up outrageous utility bills at his home while espousing carbon credits and also placing a fuel-burning jet ski on the back of his boat would be like Jimmy Swaggart committing adultery while serving as America's leading televangelist. Oh, wait ...
Gore is just a symbol, a symbol of the hypocrisy of radical environmentalism. Note the italics for clarity.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
OK. It seems to be a difficult message to get across. But to make it clear, Al Gore isn't asking people to all go live in caves to save the Earth. He's not telling people to get rid of their jet skis, or to never drive, or to never fly, or to do a bunch of extreme things that people think he wants. Al Gore is not a radical environmentalist. He's not even close.
The whole concept is being more efficient in various things BEFORE having to take more drastic measures. Driving is fine, but it's better to drive energy-efficient vehicles. Using electricity is fine, but take steps not to waste it. Or, if you have the means, take your boat and make it more energy efficient (like installing solar panels on the boat, making it more energy efficient). He's not saying that you are a terrible person if you drive a car, or that you hate the Earth if you fly on a business trip.
But for some reason, Al Gore has turned into the internet's biggest straw man.
Feanor wrote:It's kind of odd that you are using the fact that the Earth's temperature dropped after Kyoto as evidence that it isn't working. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most global warming scientists and even activists would be happy if it just stops rising and remains more or less at its current temperature.
It dropped .0015 of a f*cking degree Celsius -- at a huge expense. Can such an insignificant drop be directly attributed to Kyoto, or quite possibly it be just -- gasp! -- the cycles of nature?
Again, I'd love to see anyone who is a strong supporter of Kyoto provide evidence that it's working effectively and efficiently, and I'd like to see more than the membership list.
Take care,
PK
I think it's useful to take a look at the stated objective of the treaty:
"The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."
There's really nothing in there about halting or reversing climate change - likely impossible and perhaps not even desirable, given that a certain amount of climate change is entirely natural. The main goal of the treaty was simply to try and put a halt to the the incredible rate of increase in carbon emissions in an effort to mitigate what could be some very negative consequences of rapid climate change. When you're dealing with something that could possibly wipe out much of the planetary species and put the future survival of the human race in jeopardy there is something to be said for the precautionary approach.
Best wishes,
Doug
"Every major sport has come under the influence of organized crime. FIFA actually is organized crime" - Charles Pierce
dougb wrote:There's really nothing in there about halting or reversing climate change - likely impossible and perhaps not even desirable, given that a certain amount of climate change is entirely natural.
Jared wrote:OK. It seems to be a difficult message to get across. But to make it clear, Al Gore isn't asking people to all go live in caves to save the Earth. He's not telling people to get rid of their jet skis, or to never drive, or to never fly, or to do a bunch of extreme things that people think he wants. Al Gore is not a radical environmentalist. He's not even close.
The whole concept is being more efficient in various things BEFORE having to take more drastic measures. Driving is fine, but it's better to drive energy-efficient vehicles. Using electricity is fine, but take steps not to waste it. Or, if you have the means, take your boat and make it more energy efficient (like installing solar panels on the boat, making it more energy efficient). He's not saying that you are a terrible person if you drive a car, or that you hate the Earth if you fly on a business trip.
But for some reason, Al Gore has turned into the internet's biggest straw man.
I'm sorry, but if I said something like: "Scientists have for several years now warned us that we are moving dangerously close to several so-called tipping points that could within less than 10 years make it impossible to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization unless we act quickly."
I'd probably get rid of a few flat screen monitors and the rainforest worth of paper on my desk if I expected *anyone* to believe it.
bdoughty wrote:
I doubt Gore is what any non-believer looks at to adopt their stance. People like him do make it easier to stick with that stance.
Funnily enough that is exactly what you're consistently doing in this thread...
To me its just like criticizing a news reporter for discussing a news event. They have nothing to do with the actual news, they're just the ones putting it in front of your face.
Can I report on it too so I can be exempt from having to actually do anything about the supposed problem I'm reporting on?
I'd like to report that it's friggin' cold up here and we have lots of snow. I have not seen any polar bears, which may mean they are endangered. There. *Whew*. I feel so much better. Now I can go back to burning my plastic Christmas tree in the backyard with a clear mind.
Radical environmentalists chain themselves to trees or sabotage construction equipment, disregarding the safety of human lives.
They do not go around giving little Powerpoint presentations to mainstream audiences.
And the concerns about the warming long preceded Gore's prominence.
It's only the American right-wing, or at best, half the electorate, who are denying what people everywhere else has come to accept, denying scientific consensus.
Of course, being isolated seems to be part of the appeal.
wco81 wrote:It's only the American right-wing, or at best, half the electorate, who are denying what people everywhere else has come to accept, denying scientific consensus.
The initial part of your above accusation/opinion indicates that global warming is as much of a political issue as it is an environmental one. Geez, if you question the root of climate change, then damn it, you MUST be a Lindsey Graham-loving, redneck knuckledragger!
I'm not a member of the American right wing, yet I have doubts whether recent climate change is cyclical or exacerbated completely by man. So where can you conveniently pigeon-hole me?
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
Let's see, the same screeds about taxes and and small government as any other "fiscal conservative."
And obviously thinks anyone who questions the status quo on the way the environment is managed is a "radical environmentalist."
Culturally, I don't recall for sure but something about children are wonderful so people who try to abort them or "using abortion as contraception" seems to ring a bell. That's even if contraception is copacetic in the first place.
May not exactly be a Pat Robertson but still end up having similar positions on major issues.
Certainly closer to Robertson than Gore, that "radical environmentalist."[/list]
wco81 wrote:Let's see, the same screeds about taxes and and small government as any other "fiscal conservative."
And obviously thinks anyone who questions the status quo on the way the environment is managed is a "radical environmentalist."
Culturally, I don't recall for sure but something about children are wonderful so people who try to abort them or "using abortion as contraception" seems to ring a bell. That's even if contraception is copacetic in the first place.
May not exactly be a Pat Robertson but still end up having similar positions on major issues.
Certainly closer to Robertson than Gore, that "radical environmentalist."[/list]
what the f*** are you saying here? Is this a paragraph?
Jared wrote:
The whole concept is being more efficient in various things BEFORE having to take more drastic measures. Driving is fine, but it's better to drive energy-efficient vehicles. Using electricity is fine, but take steps not to waste it. Or, if you have the means, take your boat and make it more energy efficient (like installing solar panels on the boat, making it more energy efficient). He's not saying that you are a terrible person if you drive a car, or that you hate the Earth if you fly on a business trip.
Jet Skis are fine, as long as you are able to store them on a solar powered, bio diesel driven, house boat.
wco81 wrote:
It's only the American right-wing, or at best, half the electorate, who are denying what people everywhere else has come to accept, denying scientific consensus
Everywhere else? Care to back that one up?
People will fool you until it is time to put the money where their mouth is. I think you should know that all too well in regards to Prop 8 in California. Those were not all redneck, bible thumping, conservatives who got that one to pass. You go out and start polling outside of the rich white suburbs and find out what they want. Once you do you will realize yet another "inconvenient truth" that there are plenty of Obama voters/supporters that care more about feeding their children, jobs and social programs, who could give two shits about the environment and taking more of their tax money based on your precious scientific consensus.
Also, what is it with you liberals wanting to speak on behalf of the world as if they are all in agreement with you? This is not the first time either. It seems to be a case of the minority still yelling the loudest and the longest.
wco81 wrote:It's only the American right-wing, or at best, half the electorate, who are denying what people everywhere else has come to accept, denying scientific consensus.
I posted a link from a UK paper that disputed your so-called "scientific consensus". How is that American right-wing?
BD, I think you're off a bit. WCO is not a computer, but the Borg. Everyone must be assimillated into the GW cult. Resistence is futile. At least that would explain the bulletpoint format of every one of his posts.
wco81 wrote:Let's see, the same screeds about taxes and and small government as any other "fiscal conservative."
And obviously thinks anyone who questions the status quo on the way the environment is managed is a "radical environmentalist."
Culturally, I don't recall for sure but something about children are wonderful so people who try to abort them or "using abortion as contraception" seems to ring a bell. That's even if contraception is copacetic in the first place.
May not exactly be a Pat Robertson but still end up having similar positions on major issues.
Certainly closer to Robertson than Gore, that "radical environmentalist."[/list]
Care to explain your point, because you're doing a sh*tty job of being direct.
I support the legalization of drugs. I've never supported the political reasons behind the war in Iraq. I firmly support equal rights for homosexuals in civil unions -- but not marriage -- and am a strong supporter of happy, loving gay couples adopting and raising children. I support stricter fuel mileage requirements for cars. I support alternative energy development. I oppose offshore drilling -- not for environmental reasons but because it only delays impetus toward alternative fuels. I vehemently oppose capital punishment.
So, again, what the f*ck was your point?
I think independently on all issues, which makes any pattern of my stances look like a game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey. I know that's impossible for your ideologically driven identity to grasp, but it's the truth.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
