Color me unimpressed with google mining to divine interest levels. I’m pretty sure “Barely Legal Anal Teen” surpassed any search terms mentioned in the article.
Well yes it is and the Nobel Peace Prize committee’s opinion that he deserved his half of the prize did not deserve to be equated to be “like the wife-beater winning for Shelters”.
Jim
Lucky for you, Gore’s personal conduct has been fine. Read the thread.
Feel free to mention jet fuel and throw around the world “hypocrite” a few times to rebut this post.
Gore’s personal conduct has not been fine. Read the thread.
I don’t see why not, but again, you are entitled to your opinion.
OK I’m getting sucked in one last time b/c the thread won’t die anyway.
Folks aren’t desperately poor because of Bill Gate’s behaviour getting rich. If he had gotten rich robbing those poor, he would not deserve any credit.
They aren’t starving because your fat neighbor overeats. If she got fat swiping food from the hungry, she should not get credit.
But the world is heating up, according to Mr. Gore, because of production of CO2 required to support lifestyles such as his. If your expected scenario unfolds it will be because of carbon footprints like Mr Gore’s. That’s why his Nobel is inappropriate. The problem is personal behaviour, repeated millions of times over. Trying to get others to change while you persist in exhibiting the behaviour you are trying to change is why it is analagous to the Shelter-creator getting the Nobel even though he beats his wife.
You can argue that Mr Gore does not consume more than his share, or that his use of green energy or carbon credits somehow so mitigates his consumption that his carbon footprint is “neutral.” I think that argument is easily defeated, but if proved, he certainly is worthy of the Nobel.
If you argue that as long as he changes the behaviour of others, the net good makes him deserving of the prize, it’s your opinion to have, but it is the same logic by which a wife-beater who establishes Shelters deserves the Nobel.
I don’t understand. Can you clarify your statement?
I couldn’t really say one way or the other. Aspersions rarely fuck dogs. What do you think?
So what?
Gore’s personal conduct has been so exemplary, he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
What specifically do you not understand?
The first definition of “aspersion” at dictionary.com is “a damaging or derogatory remark or criticism; slander”
It’s pretty clear that claiming somebody “wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him in the ass and fucked his dog” is casting aspersion.
Earlier, you suggested that “one side is talking about science while the other side smears, casts aspersions and obsesses over their political enemies electric bills”
Which sides were you talking about?
So, by that standard, Gore was a bad choice for the Nobel Prize.
And I disagree with the decision of the Nobel Committee.
Your statement.
I don’t know what that person was trying to say, because I’m not that person. Besides, this thread is not about Sean Hannity, who fucks dogs, or who you think is calling you names. It’s about the fact that Al Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless efforts to warn humanity about the dangers of global warming.
You could say that, if you wanted to be wrong. Al Gore was chosen for the Nobel Prize because, along with the IPCC, he was the best choice. They did the science, he spread the word.
The only people whose opinions matter are the Nobel Committee, and they disagreed with you when they awarded Al Gore and the IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is sophistry designed to make it look as though Gore is somehow uniquely or specially to blame for current levels of CO2 production, which is not persuasive. Both Gates and Gore are certainly beneficiaries of our society’s ingrained tendency to cater to the wealthy and to privilege the possession of wealth. But Gore isn’t causing current trends in CO2 production, any more than Gates is causing starvation among poor people.
Nonsense. A wife-beater is somebody who’s violating the accepted norms of decent behavior in law and society. He should not be excused for that, even if he engages in philanthropic efforts to stop other people from doing the same thing.
Gore, on the other hand, is simply caught in the same CO2/civilization/wealth matrix that all the rest of us are caught in. As you keep pointing out, it’s pretty much impossible to live a normal middle-class lifestyle in our present society, much less be a major public figure and international activist, without having what is by global standards a huge carbon footprint. On the other hand, it’s perfectly possible to be a productive member of society and even a great philanthropist without beating your wife.
So your efforts to compare Gore to a violent criminal are unconvincing and offensive, not to mention sounding tinged with personal spite.
Ouch. I’d be even more hurt if I did not admire the thoughtfulness of your posts so much.
It is the logic of the parallel that I am appealing to and not the smear potential. Let me state for the record that I think Mr Gore is a sincere individual and that I do not question his personal character in any way.
The logic for me is whether it is appropriate to bestow awards upon folks who have been unable to do personally what they recommend for others.
Perhaps this story is illustrative:
*"A woman came to Mahatma Gandhi to ask him to speak to her son. It seems that her son, a borderline diabetic, was recalcitrant about reducing his sugar intake, and his mother felt that if Gandhi - his hero - spoke to him about cutting out sugar, then he would surely listen and change his ways. Gandhi told the mother that she should come back to him in two weeks’ time and make the request again. The mother did indeed return in two weeks; Gandhi did speak to her son; the boy heeded the advice and cut sugar out of his diet. The mother was overjoyed - her son would be on a much healthier path now; but a nagging question persisted in her mind. She approached Gandhi again and thanked him profusely for his help, but she asked him why the two week’s wait. “Because,” answered Gandhi, “I needed the two weeks to cut the sugar out of my diet first.”
This story illustrates one of Gandhi’s most closely held beliefs, but also one of great Jewish meaning, especially at this time of year: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”*
If you are satisfied that Mr Gore’s personal behaviour has been satisfactory in terms of what needs to be done to achieve his goals, I completely understand why you are comfortable with his Nobel. I look at his (and my) lifestyles and I consider us precisely the problem. It seems to me our efforts are little more than wealthy class sops and the model we create for the rest of the world desperately trying to live as richly as we do is completely indequate; Mr Gore’s is egregiously so.
Which statement? And what about it?
Then why did you seem to claim that one side is talking about science and one side is casting aspersions? What does that have to do with anything?
And Gore is setting a bad example.
If you feel that your views don’t matter, then why are you posting them in this thread?
You are now, by the way, up to 101 posts in this thread. They all consist of repeating the same falsehoods and spouting obviously biased opinions such as this. You can do this for 101 more posts and it won’t make any of them any more true or more convincing.
Al Gore does exactly what he asks other people to do - reduce their carbon emissions. He is a net plus to the effort to move everyone to green power production, because all of his electricity is generated by green power companies.
His lifestyle differs from yours, mine and Ed Begley’s because he is a former vice president with a personal mission to spread the latest information about global warming to as many people as possible. To offset the rest of the carbon emitting activities of his lifestyle, he invests in efforts that reduce or remove carbon emissions from the environment. See here to educate yourself as to what that means. Carbon offsets and credits - Wikipedia
He thus cannot be called a hypocrite, because he does not tell people to move into smaller houses or not travel. He suggests to them that they should have a net zero impact on the environment in terms of carbon emissions, and he does what he needs to do to achieve that.
And exactly which falsehoods do I keep repeating?
Are any of your opinions “obviously biased”? Or does that apply only to people you disagree with?
Actually, I believe his philosophy is a little different than that. It seems he advocates reducing one’s emissions as much as possible, and then purchasing offsets for the rest.
Right. He does exactly this. He has reduced the carbon emissions he is responsible for his home electricity to zero, and invests in carbon reducing actitivies to balance out the remainder that he is responsible for.
Since you recognize that this is his message, you must acknowledge that he is not a hypocrite.
It appears to me that it would have been possible for him to greatly reduce his consumption of natural gas and jet fuel, for reasons that have already been discussed in this thread.
But you just acknowledged that he advocates only reducing one’s emissions and investing in offsets for the remainder. Does he do this or not?
He seems to advocate, at a minimum, that one should reduce emissions as much as possible..
In my opinion, no. Assuming that his current usage is comparable to his past usage, I would say that there is plenty of room for him to reduce his emissions.
And you are in no position to determine a) how much he is actual responsible for in emissions, b) how much of that is necessary to achieve his goals, and therefore c) how much of a reduction is possible.
But regardless of all that, you still acknowledge that he invests in offsets for the remainder, so you must acknowledge that he does what he asks of others.
Right wing think tanks and Sean Hannity will not provide you with the information you need to assess either a, b or c above. Until you do, you cannot make any determination as to how much of a hypocrite Gore might or might not be. Your conclusions to this effect are based on nothing more than your own bias.
As a result, your contributions here are less valuable than the energy it takes to generate, display and store them. May I suggest you start right here in your own efforts to reduce the energy consumption you are resposible for?