or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gore:It's Not Easy Being Green
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gore:It's Not Easy Being Green - Page 2

post #41 of 116
Really. Was that because you entered the room?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #42 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

Writing a book or making a movie, how do either of those help the planet?


Wow.... I don't know how a rational human should reply to such an inane statement.

It's like saying how did MLK's mere words touch a nation, how did Gandhi's walkabout's affect change, how did Bobby Sands refusal to eat a few dinners stir a nation.
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #43 of 116
Common sense and level headed thinking are not requirements for arguing politics.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #44 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

I know of no one who is perfect - but to claim he's done nothing is truly absurd.

....to put it politely.
post #45 of 116
Trumptmann, you seem to be using a slippery form of moral relativism to avoid the issue. The issue is whether or not global warming is causing damage to the environment. You are using a "He's not doing the right thing, so why should I?" argument, and a "If he isn't giving enough to charity, then it must mean that the charity really serves no purpose." argument.

Whether or not Al Gore is a complete hypocrite or not, that has no bearing on the question of whether the environment is in danger or and whether or not the population has to do something about it.

I will admit that the things that Al Gore does for the environment do not make up for the hypocrisy. If he donates $1000 for wind power, he's easily getting that back in political power which he enjoys. He should only get credit for real sacrifice, not any sacrifice which gives him political power, because whether politicians are right are wrong, they still enjoy their careers.

Now, it is hypothetically possible that Gore is not over consuming even though he has two large houses. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a stretch but it is possible. It is quite possible that even if you have an 8 bedroom house, you live in one main part and only keep part of it heated or air conditioned when guests come over. An 8,000 square foot house doesn't necessarily use more heating and air conditioning than a 2,000 square foot house.

Now, you could say that it costs a tremendous amount of energy to build the house. But it is possible it is an inherited or purchased house that was already there. If it was a house in the Gore family, I could see wanting to keep it. If he built a brand new house, then that would be bad. It's also possible he built the brand new house long before he was aware of global warming. I admit these are stretches, but are possible.

Also, there really isn't anything wrong with owning part of a corrupt oil company, when, if you didn't, someone else would anyway.

As a simple example, let's say I love Apple and I think Microsoft is corrupt. Then it would seem like a terrible thing to work for Microsoft. But it isn't, because if you didn't hold that job, another applicant would. The only way you can change the system is by giving your money to Apple, supporting the alternative. In other words, a person who works for Microsoft and buys Macs has more good net effect on the system then you average person who works at Walmart, but buys a PC with Windows for their home. Microsoft gets what they would get from both people either way, you can't change that. But the person who buys the Mac increases Apple's marketshare and R&D power with their dollars.

The people in power are in power either way. Unless your action increases their power, it doesn't matter. Generally the only real measurable difference you can make is supporting the alternative. There's nothing wrong with owning Exxon stock if you put solar panels on your house. Someone else would own the Exxon stock anyway.
post #46 of 116
In other words Trumpy's trying to make something out of nothing. He's good at that .
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #47 of 116
trumptman:

Quote:
Gore contends the planet will be on an irreversably damaged within 10 years. Do you really think his actions reflect someone who believes that?

Absolutely. People who believe in something do not necessarily follow it.

Quote:
Well there is some controversy about carbon offsets. First you seem to not fully grasp it because it doesn't result in less carbon, it is just traded. There are plenty of concerns about the truth of measuring and actions related to those carbon trades.

Sure, that's fine. As I've said repeatedly, one can argue about the efficacy or the policy, but to deny that Gore has been inactive is foolish.

Whether or not that action is positive is certainly debatable.

I really do note care that Gore has some big houses. I do not think it is significant because the real issue lies outside the realm of Gore's personal life.

Quote:
This is why I've argued in the discussions I mentioned previously here that simply making something more efficient isn't enough when the efficiency is then used for more luxury.

I don't know that I've ever disagreed with this notion. I am not a conservationist. I want a fast car with a giant engine. I want a big house with the A/C constantly set on 72, even when I'm not there. I want a 50" plasma in the living room. I want an overclocked, quad-processor desktop with twin 30" LCD displays and a big laser printer.

I do not buy into the notion that self-hate and self-punishment fix the world's problems because the world's problem isn't the fact that we use electricity. Electricity itself is not the problem. Pollutants are the world's problem, so let's just get rid of those and keep all the good stuff.

Quote:
If you are the leader, why not 100%?

I don't know and I don't really care, but I do know that even 1% is not "none". I don't care about Al Gore. He occupies 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of my brainspace. It's nice that he seems to care about the environment, but I am significantly less interested in him than those who don't like him. I'd actually like for him to be president, but that's largely a measure of what we currently have.

Quote:
Action must be effective, rational and morale. I named actions that could end pollution as well. Simply outlaw industry and start death gangs to murder large segments of the population. I suppose you would justify it with "action is action."

Justify? I simply wouldn't use hyperbolic words like "nothing" and "none".
If someone was organizing death marches I wouldn't be screaming about them "doing nothing".

My problem is your use of language, you shouldn't butcher the language in pursuit of whatever political gripe you have.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #48 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by belfast-biker

Wow.... I don't know how a rational human should reply to such an inane statement.

It's like saying how did MLK's mere words touch a nation, how did Gandhi's walkabout's affect change, how did Bobby Sands refusal to eat a few dinners stir a nation.

The people you mention did a lot more than speak words. In fact it is easy to see that since their lives so perfectly illustrated their words, that it drove even more people to adopt their words for their own lives.

I would invite you to compare the actions of those who participated in the Montgomery Bus Boycott for example to those who preach against rampant consumerism while jetting around the world and coming home to stock options from oil wells and 10,000 sq. ft. homes.

Perhaps your own irrationality will finally hit a wall and see that the two are not congruent as you have claimed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

Trumptman, you seem to be using a slippery form of moral relativism to avoid the issue. The issue is whether or not global warming is causing damage to the environment. You are using a "He's not doing the right thing, so why should I?" argument, and a "If he isn't giving enough to charity, then it must mean that the charity really serves no purpose." argument.

Actually I'm applying the opposite of that. If you truly believe the planet will be harmed to the point of becoming seriously uninhabitable in ten years, you don't apply small measures or small steps. You don't say, I'm sorry you've got cancer of the brain, would you like a little chicken soup for that. It is moral relativism that allows one to say that a man of good intention but bad actions is great. It is moral relativism that allows a man who does nothing but make demands of others to be declared great while declaring that those who must actually meet the goals, make the changes are the evil-doers who haven't bought into the plan.

By an absolute standard, you use nothing but actions to judge a person moral. Intentions are the path reserved for hell which we will all gladly experience here on earth if Gore is right and we all act as he does.

Quote:
Whether or not Al Gore is a complete hypocrite or not, that has no bearing on the question of whether the environment is in danger or and whether or not the population has to do something about it.

It does have bearing because you expect your leaders, you expect the most intellgent and the most informed to take the most action. What sort of action do you expect from the poor, from the ignorant and uninformed, from those with no resources? Your statement is true. If the environment is in danger and action must be taken, those who must take the most action are those who are the most intelligent and most capable. By that standard Gore falls down and as a result, so does his movement. It is not rational to expect the most from the least capable and least informed.

Quote:
I will admit that the things that Al Gore does for the environment do not make up for the hypocrisy. If he donates $1000 for wind power, he's easily getting that back in political power which he enjoys. He should only get credit for real sacrifice, not any sacrifice which gives him political power, because whether politicians are right are wrong, they still enjoy their careers.

Agreed and you start to see the real point. If the preaching for change is not true then the basis for it is not saving the planet, but political power. I'm not asking Gore to give up that political power. I'm simply asking that if he wants us all to live in a manner that will stop the planet from functioning properly in ten years, he should not only do this well, he should do it first.

Martin Luther King Jr. may have uttered great words, but how effective would he have been if he had continued riding the bus while asking others to walk twenty miles if need be to make the point of his words while he would not do so himself. Would he have been allowed to get away with telling us he paid someone else to offset his ride on the bus so he could still ride?

Quote:
Now, it is hypothetically possible that Gore is not over consuming even though he has two large houses. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a stretch but it is possible. It is quite possible that even if you have an 8 bedroom house, you live in one main part and only keep part of it heated or air conditioned when guests come over. An 8,000 square foot house doesn't necessarily use more heating and air conditioning than a 2,000 square foot house.

The point is that even the 2,000 sq foot house is a waste if the planet is dying. Our lifestyles have been supersized for so long we don't understand what it takes to just to get by but still live well. Gore could set an example of truly living in a reduced footprint perhaps even with communal facilities to make up what the larger structures used to support. Gore and wife could easily live in an 800 sq ft. condo with community weight room and pool.

Quote:
Now, you could say that it costs a tremendous amount of energy to build the house. But it is possible it is an inherited or purchased house that was already there. If it was a house in the Gore family, I could see wanting to keep it. If he built a brand new house, then that would be bad. It's also possible he built the brand new house long before he was aware of global warming. I admit these are stretches, but are possible.

It is still bad either way. Claiming your wealth or housing is historical is just a way of excusing a lack of action. Could I really still be allowed to own a plantation with slaves in this day and age if I claimed it was historical and my ancestors happened to have already owned it as well? Would that make it okay as long as it wasn't a new plantation? Do you see how lame these rationalizations for lack of action are on the part Gore?

Quote:
Also, there really isn't anything wrong with owning part of a corrupt oil company, when, if you didn't, someone else would anyway.

Except that it could help fund alternative energy which then could help suppress the demand that you profit from with the oil company. Gores stocks could fund a biodiesel company and perhaps the rate of return wouldn't be as good, but he has the type of historical wealth that doesn't need to think about the short term. He also specifically preaches about investing for the long term instead of the short term gain. He does not follow his own advice.

Quote:
As a simple example, let's say I love Apple and I think Microsoft is corrupt. Then it would seem like a terrible thing to work for Microsoft. But it isn't, because if you didn't hold that job, another applicant would. The only way you can change the system is by giving your money to Apple, supporting the alternative. In other words, a person who works for Microsoft and buys Macs has more good net effect on the system then you average person who works at Walmart, but buys a PC with Windows for their home. Microsoft gets what they would get from both people either way, you can't change that. But the person who buys the Mac increases Apple's marketshare and R&D power with their dollars.

Using your simple example, what would you call the person who believe Microsoft corrupt, preaches such but still buys the Microsoft computer and worse still owns Microsoft stock? Would you call them worse than a hypocrite? Would you call them a liar who's actions do not reflect the facts they present? Would you claim their actions do not matter because their intentions were in the right place?

Quote:
The people in power are in power either way. Unless your action increases their power, it doesn't matter. Generally the only real measurable difference you can make is supporting the alternative. There's nothing wrong with owning Exxon stock if you put solar panels on your house. Someone else would own the Exxon stock anyway.

Someone would own the Exxon stock. That is true and they would make or lose money based off what people would pay for it. If fewer people are willing to own or hold that stock, it becomes worth less than before. Also you make it sound like there are no alternative or emerging energy stocks. That is not true. People do have a choice. Gore specifically notes they have a choice and if they care about the planet, he specifically tells them to invest reflecting that view.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 116
Trumptmann, answer this question with either a "yes" or a "no". We need to decide whether or not to conserve resources and use less energy. We need to decide whether there is a danger to the planet. Is the final answer to those two questions dependent in any way, shape, or form on whether Al Gore is a hypocrite or not?

It's like the question of whether we needed to invade Iraq or not. That question can be answered independently of George Bush. It can be answered independently of whether or not 150,000 troops was sufficient or whether we really needed 500,000 troops. It can be answered independently of whether someone besides Rumsfield would have done a better job.

Just answer the damn question Yes/No.

Most people here so far have said that it appears Al Gore IS a hypocrite. So just answer the question.

trumptmann wrote:

"It does have bearing because you expect your leaders, you expect the most intellgent and the most informed to take the most action. What sort of action do you expect from the poor, from the ignorant and uninformed, from those with no resources? Your statement is true. If the environment is in danger and action must be taken, those who must take the most action are those who are the most intelligent and most capable. By that standard Gore falls down and as a result, so does his movement. It is not rational to expect the most from the least capable and least informed."

This is a load of moral relativIstic bullshit. If the environment require sacrifice, it requires sacrifice. Whether or not Al Gore does anything is not relevant. Whether or not 80% of wealthy people do nothing is not relevant. EVERYONE HAS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. YOUR'S IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OTHER GUY DOING THE RIGHT THING.

As a middle class person, I can probably afford to buy a Toyota hybrid to save emissions and even cut out some of my trips. This is my responsibility. WHETHER OR NOT I DO THIS IS UP TO ME AND MY SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THE ROCKEFELLERS CONTRIBUTE THE SHARE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF CONTRIBUTING.

I notice this with you trumptmann. When a point is clear you just load up the paragraphs and try to put in layers of finely detailed logic to dance around the point.

Whether or not the environment is in trouble has nothing to do with what rich people or anyone does.
Whether or not I should do my reasonably required share has nothing to do with whether or not anyone else does their share.
Whether or not I should do what's right has nothing to do with:
"It does have bearing because you expect your leaders, you expect the most intellgent and the most informed to take the most action."

You do what is right and that is not dependent on what "you expect from your leaders".

Trumptmann wrote:

"Using your simple example, what would you call the person who believe Microsoft corrupt, preaches such but still buys the Microsoft computer and worse still owns Microsoft stock? Would you call them worse than a hypocrite? Would you call them a liar who's actions do not reflect the facts they present? Would you claim their actions do not matter because their intentions were in the right place?"

You seem to be willfully blind. Why are you asking this? I clearly wrote that Al Gore appears to be a hypocrite. That means he is not a hero, or a great man. I wrote in the above post "I will admit that the things that Al Gore does for the environment DO NOT MAKE UP FOR HIS HYPOCRISY." Even though I've admitted Al Gore isn't a good guy, you keep going on about this point to try to drag down the whole global warming idea by tying Al Gore to it and dragging him down, thus dragging down the global warming idea.

You either missed or disagreed with the point I was making about Apple and Microsoft. I said that a person who buys Microsoft stock today CREATES NO NET DAMAGE, because someone would have bought the stock anyway. The purchase does not effectively give Microsoft any more power than it had before the purchase. I pointed out that supporting the people in power, like the big music companies, usually does no damage. Contributing to the alternatives, like the independent music companies has a practical affect, making them more powerful, and eventually allowing them to break the power grip of the people in power.

I don't think there's anything wrong with owning Microsoft stock in this example. I think you should avoid buying their products if possible, because a little less revenue makes them microscopically less powerful. But 2% more marketshare for Apple makes them three times as powerful and three times as capable of spending more on R&D which leads to more sales, more advertising and more power.
post #50 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

trumptman:

Absolutely. People who believe in something do not necessarily follow it.


I think you need to check your premise then. People cannot live in contradiction to themselves. If they claim to believe it but don't follow it then they really don't believe it and are paying it lip service. This is why it is always important to look at a person's actions. The actions truly reflect their moral code.

Quote:
Sure, that's fine. As I've said repeatedly, one can argue about the efficacy or the policy, but to deny that Gore has been inactive is foolish.

The problem is that I don't consider mouthing words to be "active." I consider active to be linked with action.

Quote:
really do note care that Gore has some big houses. I do not think it is significant because the real issue lies outside the realm of Gore's personal life.

Then perhaps you didnt' understand him because it is the summation of all our personal actions that has an affect on the planet. You preach the contradiction of a person being able to make a difference, but not with anything they can personally influence.

Quote:
I don't know that I've ever disagreed with this notion. I am not a conservationist. I want a fast car with a giant engine. I want a big house with the A/C constantly set on 72, even when I'm not there. I want a 50" plasma in the living room. I want an overclocked, quad-processor desktop with twin 30" LCD displays and a big laser printer.

Then you want a planet that can absorb all the carbon related to the generation of all those activities. If the premise that global warming puts forward, that the planet has a limited ability to absorb human generated carbon is true, then anything that puts you above that your indiivdual portion of carbon is immoral. You could also claim not to care which I suppose would just get your off with amoral. You can hope that replacements for carbon generated activities will be found soon and just decide not to change how you live in the meantime which means you either don't care about risking the planet, or don't really believe the planet is at risk. If that is true, the Gore isn't a hypocrite, he is just a liar making a power grab.

Quote:
I do not buy into the notion that self-hate and self-punishment fix the world's problems because the world's problem isn't the fact that we use electricity. Electricity itself is not the problem. Pollutants are the world's problem, so let's just get rid of those and keep all the good stuff.

Self-hate has nothing to do with it nor does self-punishment. The planet can either absorb these activities or it cannot. If it cannot and you engage in them, you aren't a hypocrite. You are much worse. If it can absorb them and you endorse those parties who seek limits using lies, then you are much worse that a hypocrite there as well because you are asking for self-sacrifice when none is needed in the name of a political power grab.

Quote:
I don't know and I don't really care, but I do know that even 1% is not "none". I don't care about Al Gore. He occupies 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of my brainspace. It's nice that he seems to care about the environment, but I am significantly less interested in him than those who don't like him. I'd actually like for him to be president, but that's largely a measure of what we currently have.

Based on what you but forward it is easy to understand why someone who occupies so little of your brainspace would be an appropriate choice for president for you. The number of contradictions and lack of thought they indicate are quite amazing.

Quote:
Justify? I simply wouldn't use hyperbolic words like "nothing" and "none".

Ah, I get it now. You are so self-centered that disagreeing with you amounts to hate speech or bombastic type language.

Quote:
If someone was organizing death marches I wouldn't be screaming about them "doing nothing".

Of course you wouldn't scream that because that is clear action. Yet based on what you put forward, talking about a death march is the same as carrying one out. It is by this reasoning that Al Gore has done "something."

Quote:
My problem is your use of language, you shouldn't butcher the language in pursuit of whatever political gripe you have.

Enjoy the problem. I say none and that is hyperbole. You use butcher and it is passive. You are cheaper than a comedy club, that's for sure.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 116
Nick, has Gore's [extreme] hypocricy made you doubt global warming? Do you think it is an issue or not?
post #52 of 116
Thread Starter 
Absolutely. We are talking about a gentleman who claims, while not being a scientist, to have access to the best sources available on this matter. The course of action he draws from this information is indifference. He generates goodwill, political power and perhaps even profits with the alarmist rhetoric, but what he does not generate is any action that would indicate a real concern or problem. That (in addition to the sources I already have read) makes me believe there isn't one. My own sources could be declared wrong or falliable by the sources of others or even Mr. Gore himself. But since he really doesn't seem to act on or believe them either, I would have to discount the criticism.

Now there are really a couple issues that encompass global warming. The first is the state of the planet itself. The other is who do we reliquish power to in an attempt to avert the warming. Historical precident shows that when someone can claim a desire to take individual decision making, self-government or other such matters away claiming a public interest, the results are often horrorific. We've witnessed what a government can do to matters like private property when claiming your fellow man won't have enough bread in his stomach. Can you imagine what can be justified when they can claim that there literally won't be a planet left to stand on?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #53 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

Absolutely. We are talking about a gentleman who claims, while not being a scientist, to have access to the best sources available on this matter. The course of action he draws from this information is indifference. He generates goodwill, political power and perhaps even profits with the alarmist rhetoric, but what he does not generate is any action that would indicate a real concern or problem. That (in addition to the sources I already have read) makes me believe there isn't one. My own sources could be declared wrong or falliable by the sources of others or even Mr. Gore himself. But since he really doesn't seem to act on or believe them either, I would have to discount the criticism.

Now there are really a couple issues that encompass global warming. The first is the state of the planet itself. The other is who do we reliquish power to in an attempt to avert the warming. Historical precident shows that when someone can claim a desire to take individual decision making, self-government or other such matters away claiming a public interest, the results are often horrorific. We've witnessed what a government can do to matters like private property when claiming your fellow man won't have enough bread in his stomach. Can you imagine what can be justified when they can claim that there literally won't be a planet left to stand on?

Nick


Hmmmm?

He seems to be doing more than you are.

Even if that's drawing attention to the situation.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #54 of 116
^That's just completely batshit crazy.
post #55 of 116
This is so lame, and so typical. It's nothing more than a game of smoke and mirrors so that whenever someone mentions issues of global warming, the whole discussion can be immediately sidetracked to the square footage of a rich man's house. What a waste of time and thought.
post #56 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac

This is so lame, and so typical. It's nothing more than a game of smoke and mirrors so that whenever someone mentions issues of global warming, the whole discussion can be immediately sidetracked to the square footage of a rich man's house. What a waste of time and thought.

It's the only weapons they have to fight with.
post #57 of 116
"This is so lame, and so typical. It's nothing more than a game of smoke and mirrors so that whenever someone mentions issues of global warming, the whole discussion can be immediately sidetracked to the square footage of a rich man's house. What a waste of time and thought."

Absolutely. What's sad is that Trumptmann is a very logical guy, until you finally corner him, and then he sticks to a lie that anyone with his logical skills should be able to see is a lie.

"Al Gore doesn't sell his huge house that he enjoys. Therefore global warming probably isn't true."

"The Founding Fathers say slavery is wrong, but some of them still own parts of companies that use slavery. Therefore slavery probably isn't wrong."

"Joe says he believes women should be equal, but one time I heard him insulting his wife when he was angry. Therefore there's no probably no merit to the idea that women should be equal."

There's no point in even responding to this thread anymore. We've cornered Trumptmann, and this thread isn't even about whether Al Gore is a hypocrite, because most of us have agreed to that at least partially. Trumptmann's goal was simply to translate one man's actions into a defense that global warming is unlikely. Any fourth grader should see that that logic doesn't hold up.
post #58 of 116
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac

Hmmmm?

He seems to be doing more than you are.

Even if that's drawing attention to the situation.

Eww.. the scorn of Jimmac. I probably would be hurt if I actually thought that I needed your acceptance to make something true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

^That's just completely batshit crazy.

A leech doesn't approve of me. I'm so hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac

This is so lame, and so typical. It's nothing more than a game of smoke and mirrors so that whenever someone mentions issues of global warming, the whole discussion can be immediately sidetracked to the square footage of a rich man's house. What a waste of time and thought.

I didn't judge global warming. I did judge whether those who are using it to demand sacrifice and power were willing to give up those two traits themselves. I'm not going to let someone control me, my land, or my actions just because of a good intention that they don't even believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider

It's the only weapons they have to fight with.

Obviously I should use irrationality because that is all you and others seem to understand. You can claim you believe in global warming and that you endorse those who speak about it. Yet you are in contradiction to yourself. You don't act on your beliefs. There are no sacrifices made nor needed. It is hysterical to watch all of you defend the rich and their ability to exploit and live beyond even most people's desires.

You want to hand the planet, via treaties and so forth to those who don't believe any of their rich friends or themselves should have to pay to save it. You actually endorse this as a course of action. You put the noose around your own throat and consider it insane that I won't put it around mind. I assure you, I don't give up my rights, income or anything else to someone who contradicts themselves. You shouldn't either.

And spindler, your posts are so incomprehensible (while hysterically claiming to be logical) that I can't even read or understand them.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #59 of 116
We don't believe global warming is happening because of Al Gore. Our ideas are not based on Al Gore. We believe it because scientists, who have provided virtually all the progress in human history, say it is so. Al Gore is just a politician who appears to be creating policies that take the actions that scientists say needed to be taken.

You are setting up one big strawman agrument by tying this to Al Gore and what Al Gore does and whether Al Gore makes sacrifices. Even though we have said he is a hypocrite, you haven't even accepted that because you want global warming to be about Al Gore. It is not. It is about what scientists (you know the people who have extended life expectancy from 40 to 80) say.
post #60 of 116
trumptmann wrote:

"And spindler, your posts are so incomprehensible (while hysterically claiming to be logical) that I can't even read or understand them."

Actually, they are simple to understand. They are incomprehensible to you because you don't want to comprehend them, and I can PROVE it. In threads that you agree with me, like when we were arguing against Sammi Jo about the transgendered panic defense my guess is that you easily read and understood all my posts. In the thread about the minimum wage raising unemployment, I'm sure you probably easily read and understood my posts.

So this incomprehnsible stuff seems a little suspicious. I always comprehend your writing, even if I disagree with you. Even though I've always got the same writing style, I'm guessing you only comprehend me when you agree with my points but can't comprehend when you disagree.
post #61 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

"This is so lame, and so typical. It's nothing more than a game of smoke and mirrors so that whenever someone mentions issues of global warming, the whole discussion can be immediately sidetracked to the square footage of a rich man's house. What a waste of time and thought."

Absolutely. What's sad is that Trumptmann is a very logical guy, until you finally corner him, and then he sticks to a lie that anyone with his logical skills should be able to see is a lie.

"Al Gore doesn't sell his huge house that he enjoys. Therefore global warming probably isn't true."

"The Founding Fathers say slavery is wrong, but some of them still own parts of companies that use slavery. Therefore slavery probably isn't wrong."

"Joe says he believes women should be equal, but one time I heard him insulting his wife when he was angry. Therefore there's no probably no merit to the idea that women should be equal."

There's no point in even responding to this thread anymore. We've cornered Trumptmann, and this thread isn't even about whether Al Gore is a hypocrite, because most of us have agreed to that at least partially. Trumptmann's goal was simply to translate one man's actions into a defense that global warming is unlikely. Any fourth grader should see that that logic doesn't hold up.

Exactly what I was thinking. I believe there's even a distinct logical fallacy that those fall under.
post #62 of 116
I have Gore's book, and in a section about things people can do to reduce their climate impact, he recommends
• using fuel-efficient vehicles (Gore says he does)
• purchasing carbon offsets (he says he does)
• recycling (he says he does)
and a number of other things that we don't know if he does or not: keep the thermostat at a reasonable level, use energy-efficient light bulbs, use your own shopping bags, use clean filters on your furnace/AC, make sure your tires are inflated properly, etc.

The main charges against him:
• He owns stock in an oil company.
Gore claims that he doesn't, that it was his father's who left it to his mother:
Quote:
Vice President Gore: Actually, I don't own any stock in Occidental. Nor do I "control" any stock. When my father died 18 months ago, I was named "executor" of his estate -- a position which has one and only one duty: to see that the terms of the will are abided by. In discharging that responsibility I saw to it that the stock he left for the benefit of my mother was transferred to a trust that is supposed to provide for her and her care. The trustee has the responsibility of managing the assets of the trust (which is about $500,000). I do not.

Maybe he's lying.
• His home sits on a zinc mine.
OK, that sounds bad. I don't know. Is zinc related to global warming?
• He owns property.
Hmm?

This is an extremely weak hypocrisy charge. Gore could do better, but you could say that no matter what he did. If his home was solar-powered, they'd criticize him for not having a solar-powered car, or something else.

And contrary to what Nick says, Gore does do a number of things in his personal life that most of us don't. Not to mention devoting a significant portion of his career to gaining public attention about environmental issues. But that doesn't count, and in fact counts against him somehow because he's "telling other people what to do."
post #63 of 116
"Not to mention devoting a significant portion of his career to gaining public attention about environmental issues. But that doesn't count, and in fact counts against him somehow because he's "telling other people what to do.""

Trumptmann is correct on this. If Al Gore doesn't do as he says others should do, his political work shouldn't count for him being a good person, because he enjoys his career and the power that comes with it.

It's EXACTLY like a preacher. If a preacher doesn't live cleanly and make real sacrifices for charity involving hard work I don't necessarily give them credit. After all, a preacher enjoys making $50,000 a year for giving sermons and being given respect as a moral figure. It's much more exciting than working 9 to 5. A preacher enjoys the fame, prestige, and dynamic nature of the job. It is much more fun than sitting on the phone all day checking on whether invoices were paid. So I think a preacher only deserves credit if they make some sacrifice showing they would care even if they were not getting back. And I say the same thing for Al Gore. Would he be going on and on about global warming if he didn't get a career out of it? Maybe yes, maybe no, but the only real no-bullshit factor you can use to tell is if he makes personal sacrifices.
post #64 of 116
Thread Starter 
By the way, this little feature called the quote function makes the replies much more understandable. You should try it someday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

We don't believe global warming is happening because of Al Gore. Our ideas are not based on Al Gore. We believe it because scientists, who have provided virtually all the progress in human history, say it is so. Al Gore is just a politician who appears to be creating policies that take the actions that scientists say needed to be taken..

Amazingly enough I read scientist who say it isn't so. I also read scientists that disspell the very notion that the planet has always been in a static state and thus any change must be related to human efforts.

As for Al Gore and being a politician that acts on what scientists say, that is an outright lie. A true scientist would not grant political favors that render some safe from the actions needed by their study while demanding more of others. That is the opposite of science, anti-science, where instead of dealing with facts you deal with friends, favors, intentions, and who can exempt themselves from the reality of those facts.

Quote:
You are setting up one big strawman agrument by tying this to Al Gore and what Al Gore does and whether Al Gore makes sacrifices. Even though we have said he is a hypocrite, you haven't even accepted that because you want global warming to be about Al Gore. It is not. It is about what scientists (you know the people who have extended life expectancy from 40 to 80) say.

I don't care about Al Gore determining a scientific outcome. What you fail to realize is that Gore is taking action, using science as a justification, to grab powers and demand outcomes that are not related to that scientific outcome. If the science demands a dramatic reduction in a carbon footprint, and Gore misleads people about the need for that while claiming science as his basis, he is more than a hypocrite. He is someone who has intentionally mislead in an attempt to grab what is left of the planet while insuring it's destruction. I guess I would rather think him a liar than capable of such evil.

This is why the actions and words of folks such as yourself ring so hollow. You claim some sort of sanctimoniousness in "believing" in global warming yet you make no changes. You might make some small inane adjustment but the reality is that these don't add up unless applied by everyone in all fashions within the next ten years and many of them build on each other in ways that demand people truly get by with a lower standard of living. If all it really takes it buying a hybrid or running fluroscent lighting instead of traditional bulbs, wouldn't laws easily be passed to mandate such things? The reality is that such actions do not prevent warming they simply allow one to signal some sort of solidarity while doing nothing. No suggestion I have read actually leads to lower use. Instead it is just about signaling that you are willing to show solidarity, not make true progress.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #65 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

"Not to mention devoting a significant portion of his career to gaining public attention about environmental issues. But that doesn't count, and in fact counts against him somehow because he's "telling other people what to do.""

Trumptmann is correct on this. If Al Gore doesn't do as he says others should do, his political work shouldn't count for him being a good person, because he enjoys his career and the power that comes with it.

Yes, and I highlighted the big "if." I've tried to argue that he is doing things - like carbon offsets and fuel-efficient vehicles and recycling - and that the things that supposedly make him a hypocrite - like owning the oil stock - are not even true. If he was doing terrible environmental things and then wrote his books, he'd be a hypocrite. Given his actions though, there is nothing at all wrong with him writing his books and all the other things.
post #66 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

use energy-efficient light bulbs

Tipper said they did on The View.

Edit: Not that I watch The View or anything. (Is it me or is Star Jones a worthless fame-hungry bitch?) Alright I watch the view...
post #67 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman


Amazingly enough I read scientist who say it isn't so. I also read scientists that disspell the very notion that the planet has always been in a static state and thus any change must be related to human efforts.

Let's go over basics again. You can always find one scientist out of a 1000 that disagrees with the other 999. Almost every scientist thinks that the climate shifts back and forth. Almost every scientist believes that today's changes AREN'T NECESSARILY man-made, but 95% of them think they are man-made. Why do you play these games? From now on, I would like you to be honest, by saying "Just because more than 95% of all scientists think global warming is man-made and happening, it doesn't mean it's true." Why must you be deceptive and say "I hear this one single scientist saying it isn't happening"? The overwhelming fact is that ALMOST ALL scientists think it is happening. That doesn't mean that it is certainly absolutely true, but why must you avoid that and put it in different ways to lessen the impact of the almost 100% consensus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman


As for Al Gore and being a politician that acts on what scientists say, that is an outright lie. A true scientist would not grant political favors that render some safe from the actions needed by their study while demanding more of others. That is the opposite of science, anti-science, where instead of dealing with facts you deal with friends, favors, intentions, and who can exempt themselves from the reality of those facts.

Let's follow the steps in this thread of how you bury the topic of global warming.

Step 1. 95%+ of all climatologists think global warming is happening now and is man-made. This makes liberals think it is happening.
Step 2. If you would like to argue against scientists that fine, though it is shaky arguing against experts like scientists, who create miracles year after year.
Step 3. You come in here and say Al Gore is a hypocrite, because he doesn't practice what he preaches.
Step 4. Me and almost everyone else agrees or partially agrees but points out what Al Gore does has no relevance to whether or not scientists are correct.
Step 5. Despite this, you go on and on about how Al Gore is on a selfish power grab, which some agree might even be true.
Step 6. I point out that I believe in global warming because of scientists, which has nothing at all to do with Al Gore.
Step 7. YOU PURPOSELY CONFUSE WHAT SCIENTISTS DO WITH WHAT AL GORE DOES IN THE ABOVE QUOTE:

"A true scientist would not grant political favors that render some safe from the actions needed by their study while demanding more of others."
THAT IS NOT WHAT SCIENTISTS ARE DOING. THAT IS WHAT AL GORE IS DOING. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENTISTS.

Again, I repeat, the liberals here believe that global warming is happening because of what scientists say.
We now need politians to implement a plan to move a solution along.
Whether these politicians are liars or not has nothing to do with whether or not the plan needs to be executed.
We need politicians to force big businesses, and everyday citizens, to use less energy, but mostly so that money goes to bettering alternative energy to solve the problem. People need some pressure because they are naturally selfish.

This is based on what scientists say. Whether the politicians who implement the plan are crooks or hypocrites has nothing at all to do with whether scientists are correct.

Whether or not Al Gore recycles or whether or not he beats his wife has nothing to do with what scientists say. You are attempting to shed doubt on the whole issue based on Al Gore's actions. Al Gore's personal actions have no bearing on the question of global warming.
post #68 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

Yes, and I highlighted the big "if." I've tried to argue that he is doing things - like carbon offsets and fuel-efficient vehicles and recycling - and that the things that supposedly make him a hypocrite - like owning the oil stock - are not even true.

But using fuel eficient light bulbs saves only a tiny bit of power. Adding another 5 rooms onto your houses uses massive amounts of energy in the manufacture. This is way more energy than the average person uses. We would need a full calculation of all his energy usage.

You can't eight six cheeseburgers at McDonald's but leave the sugar out of the coffee and say you are working on moderation. One reduction doesn't make up for the other massive overconsumption.
post #69 of 116
This thread isn't about global warming. It's about 2008.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #70 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

But using fuel eficient light bulbs saves only a tiny bit of power. Adding another 5 rooms onto your houses uses massive amounts of energy in the manufacture. This is way more energy than the average person uses. We would need a full calculation of all his energy usage.

You can't eight six cheeseburgers at McDonald's but leave the sugar out of the coffee and say you are working on moderation. One reduction doesn't make up for the other massive overconsumption.

It's not just fuel-efficient light bulbs. He says he uses fuel-efficient cars, recycles, and is carbon-neutral through offset purchases. Yeah, his father had a huge home and estate, but that's his mother's home now. He bought a house near DC, presumably since he lived there for several decades.

Look, I'm perfectly willing to believe he's doing terrible environmental things. But I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, and I'm not willing to just assume it.
post #71 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

It's not just fuel-efficient light bulbs. He says he uses fuel-efficient cars, recycles, and is carbon-neutral through offset purchases. Yeah, his father had a huge home and estate, but that's his mother's home now. He bought a house near DC, presumably since he lived there for several decades.

Look, I'm perfectly willing to believe he's doing terrible environmental things. But I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, and I'm not willing to just assume it.

I'm not arguing with you Brussell. I'm just saying that by default a 20 room house looks bad for his case so we would need some real evidence that either the house isn't his or he is doing something special to keep his carbon emissions low.
post #72 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

though it is shaky arguing against experts like scientists, who create miracles year after year.

Wahhhh...ha ha ha ha...wooaaahh...that was... ...I mean that....wahhh...ha ha ha ha

Whew...that was just great. Whew! Thanks. I needed that. Nice to end the weekend with a good solid belly laugh.
post #73 of 116
Thanks for reminding us of your wankery.
post #74 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Wahhhh...ha ha ha ha...wooaaahh...that was... ...I mean that....wahhh...ha ha ha ha

Whew...that was just great. Whew! Thanks. I needed that. Nice to end the weekend with a good solid belly laugh.

You look really cool with a rebuttal like that.
post #75 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Thanks for reminding us of your wankery.

You amuse me Shawn...no...really...you do.
post #76 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

You look really cool with a rebuttal like that.

How about this instead then...

Notwithstanding spindler's attempt to deify scientists (or at least to elevate them to the unassailable high-priests of our time), I suspect that most (true) scientists would have a far more modest appraisal of their work than to call it miraculous (something typically used to describe super-natural...not scientific...events or events attributed to God...not man). Second, intelligent people don't want or need to "argue against the experts" (ad hominem)...they, instead argue against the claims, the interpretations, the assertions, sometimes even the facts (if the facts merit questioning). No, the intelligent person doesn't argue against the person making claims (regardless of their current God-like standing)...but instead against the claims themselves.

So, yes, the statement spindler made is patently laughable.
post #77 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Wahhhh...ha ha ha ha...wooaaahh...that was... ...I mean that....wahhh...ha ha ha ha

Whew...that was just great. Whew! Thanks. I needed that. Nice to end the weekend with a good solid belly laugh.

Just wondering, what do you think is funny about the idea that scientists create miracles year after year? You don't think the following are miracles: cures for polio, drugs that extend the lives of AIDS patients, drugs that improving survival rates of cancers of all kinds, drugs against multiple sclerosis, which at one time was unstoppable, airbags in cars, drugs for depression and schizophrenia, very near a cure for hepatitis, etc..

Do you think we should respect voodoo rituals more than scientists? What has Christianity contributed to the world DIRECTLY? Lets sum it up:

years 0-1960 Lots of wars, brutality, bigotry, fought off the Scientific Revolution, always last to accept all progressive causes and equality among citizens.

years 1985-2003 Sat on their lazy asses, whined self-righteously, and did nothing while TV that American children watched became a sewer system with gossip, murderers, murder victims, dysfunctional families, celebrity rehab centers and brutal real life crimes all on display.
Oh, and while Christians were too lazy to cancel their cable or change the channel, they went on and on about how gays are immoral.

I'll take science's track record for my miracles.
post #78 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

How about this instead then...

Notwithstanding spindler's attempt to deify scientists (or at least to elevate them to the unassailable high-priests of our time), I suspect that most (true) scientists would have a far more modest appraisal of their work than to call it miraculous (something typically used to describe super-natural...not scientific...events or events attributed to God...not man).

Calling the miraculous work that scientists have achieved over the years a "miracle" is a well-founded characterization. But hey, to each their wankerous own.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Second, intelligent people don't want or need to "argue against the experts" (ad hominem)...they, instead argue against the claims, the interpretations, the assertions, sometimes even the facts (if the facts merit questioning). No, the intelligent person doesn't argue against the person making claims (regardless of their current God-like standing)...but instead against the claims themselves.

So, yes, the statement spindler made is patently laughable.

Yeah, I bet he disagrees with whatever ghost of an argument you're fighting?

Go ahead...
post #79 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

You don't think the following are miracles: cures for polio, drugs that extend the lives of AIDS patients, drugs that improving survival rates of cancers of all kinds, drugs against multiple sclerosis, which at one time was unstoppable, airbags in cars, drugs for depression and schizophrenia, very near a cure for hepatitis, etc..

No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler

Do you think we should respect voodoo rituals more than scientists? What has Christianity contributed to the world DIRECTLY?

Smells like you are attempting to construct a straw man to me. Yep. You are.
post #80 of 116
Chris, in life we have to get our answers from the correct people. While we have to verify things and understand things, we have to choose the correct sources. It is extremely, extremely, extremely dangerous to doubt the best people with the most thorough methods for others who have no way of knowing as much.

If you want to make it in life, you follow the people with the correct answers who get results. If the boss can do everything better and faster than you , you look at that. The losers in life, for emotional reasons or crappy attitudes sit around and gripe that the boss is picky or this and that, and he nags you to watch out for this and that because he's giving you a hard time.

To me, your doubt of global warming doesn't appear to be anything more than the person with the crappy attitude that goes nowhere in life because he has no respect for the boss.

Scientists build more and more knowledge every day. You can doubt them, but you would need a very good reason to. You don't doubt all the lab researchers creating the latest medicines. You don't doubt the mathematicians discoving new ideas everyday. Why would you doubt 10,000 climatologists with 20 years of work in their field on average? You need a really good reason and I don't see it.

It's sounds like you WANT to doubt it BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE THAT THINGS ARE OK AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING. IOW, you seem to doubt climatologists for no more reason than the punk kid argues with his boss instead of admires him.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gore:It's Not Easy Being Green