My apologies. You are entirely correct. Peace (prize), out!
Of course I preach that 2 + 2 equals 4. I behave as if 2 + 2 equals 5. So therefore, 2 + 2 = 5.
Don’t even get me started on how I did basically no research to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, I am really standing on the shoulders of giants there. It was apparently well known for years amongst math scientists that 2 + 2 = 4.
So when I got a gold star from my teacher for my presentation on how 2 + 2 = 4, it was ill deserved. And the gold star is forever tainted from the time that teacher gave a gold star to Ronnie Barksdale.
Can’t we talk about something more relevant and mature, like how Obama does not wear a flag pin?
What can I say? It’s basic economics.
Let me ask you this: If half the big houses in the United States were put on the market tomorrow, do you think that developers would continue to build big houses at the same rate?
Why? They are both goods that are subject to the laws of supply and demand.
Let me ask you this: If half the big houses in the United States were put on the market tomorrow so that the owners could move to small houses, do you think that developers would continue to build big houses at the same rate?
Or do you think that possibly they might start building more small houses?
BTW: I would like to remind everyone reading this thread again, that Al Gore is working with his town, to retrofit his house according to there regulation to have Solar Panels and other improvements. The house is over 50 years old and rather than resell it to someone that will not make improvements he is properly trying to make this old mansion more green.
In the meantime he is powering this wasteful place with the green power available over the grid.
I assume in the barrage of side issues, this might have been missed.
Jim
I agree. It is similar to when Michael Moore won the Best Documentary award for Fahrenheit 9/11. He manipulated scenes, took statements out of context and flat out lied, yet he was rewarded for it. A documentary, according to Encarta, is
. That is not what we saw from either mssrs Moore or Gore.
Gore receiving an award for a compilation of other people’s work is like Gardner Gozois, the editor of the Nebula Awards Showcase 2006, receiving the Nebula Award for Best Science Fiction. He did not do the work so he should not get the award. It doesn’t matter if he “got the word out”. He did not earn it.
Gore didn’t deserve his Nobel like Kerry didn’t deserve his Purple Heart. This is what you call a pre-emptive swift boating meant to discourage his entry into the presidential race. The Republicans think they have a chance of beating Hillary, but they’re scared to death of Gore. So it’s time to start building those google hits and spreading the meme, so people can think “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
I don’t think you understand what the Nobel Peace Prize is. Getting the Word out is a very important consideration. When TR won it, he did do the actual negotiation, he just set everything up to get a peace accord between Japan & Russia.
Or are you talking stictly about the Oscar?
Jim
Right. One person is not buying gasoline, and demand is therefore slightly decreased. You get it now?
erie, I see zero connection between those two things. Either way, Encarta’s definition is a non-issue. The awards are given out by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and even if some of the things Moore said are not true, he clearly made a film in documentary style. This would be like me saying the Bible isn’t a book because I don’t believe some (or rather most) of the things in it. I wouldn’t miss that argument if I never saw it again.
Dozois. And I’m glad you know better than the Academy what constitutes a documentary.
No documentary, including science film clips, isn’t selective in what it shows. That includes Wiseman’s. Are you claiming that Gore and Moore had no facts or information in their movies? If not, your objection is pointless. There is no documentary that is going to be considered 100% correct by 100% of the people - especially those with an axe to grind.
Lamar and Hentor, I’m neither surprised that this happened or unappreciative of what some perceive to be the result of his work. I went back and read the Nobel nomination criteria and it does include a reference to “the integrity of the environment, and global impact.”
Nobel’s charge though was “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The link goes on to say “Fairly early in its history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee felt clear to award the Peace Prize to organizations as well as to individual persons. More recently, it has extended these criteria to include contribution to the advancement of human rights.”
Pretty lofty stuff there, eh? No wonder some (save Arafat, for one) are persons who’s entire careers have been dedicated to and laden with stratospheric goals and achievements. Past winners, including those for literature, medicine, mathematics, physics, etc. have been nothing short of legendary in their performance and character.
For the record, I’ve not seen Mr. Gore’s film. What I have seen is dismissals by some professionals of a fair number of the film’s claims and events portrayed as fact that, in fact, weren’t. That bothers me and gives me the sense he was playing loose with the truth to make a point, veracity be dammed if the end result is for the common good. In my mind, that’s not necessary. The truth is the truth and in this case I think it stands alone on it’s own merits with hyperbole and sensationalism providing a distraction and discredit instead of justification.
Admittedly, I never thought much of Al’s honesty and maybe because of that I’m less appreciative of what this film may or may not be responsible for. Perhaps if a greater good comes from it then the manner of it’s cause matters not. Perhaps.
I always got it.
If one person decides to sell his big house and buy a small one, then overall demand for big houses is slightly decreased.
Let me put it to you this way: Suppose that half the big houses in the USA were put on the market tomorrow so that the owners could buy small houses.
Do you think that real estate developers would continue to build big houses at the same rate?
To that end, see the New Republic buttholes, as noted by Washington Monthly:
In this case, the station won’t order gas as frequently, and if you go back far enough less gas will come out of the ground, so less gas gets burned.
Let’s say Gore needs a relatively big house - remember he and his wife both work in it, and I bet he has staff also. They’re actually spending more on house heating by working there, but probably saving more on commuting bills. (My wife works at home. Our electric bills are higher, but she hardly ever buys gas for her car. We win.) Given that, let’s compare Al to random big house buyer X. Al, as we’ve seen and you keep ignoring, is trying to make his house as green as possible. X probably won’t. Let’s say X buys a big new house. New houses in general are more energy efficient than drafty old houses. Thus,. Al buying the old house and X buying the new house reduces overall energy usage. Al buying a big house instead of having him and Tipper driving to an office also reduces overall energy usage. I’m sure his usage is not optimal, but whose is.
Not to mention that his work will encourage energy efficient homes that will save far more than he can ever use even if he left all his windows open in the winter.
Do you have cites for these “dismissals” by “some professionals” of a film that you haven’t seen?
Because I have seen some rebuttals of such dismissals by people who are also “professionals”. Are you sure that you might not just be misjudging Gore’s film based on biased information?
If that’s what you believe Gore’s doing, I certainly think you’re right to be bothered by it. What I’m not convinced of yet, though, is that your assessment of what he’s doing is in fact accurate. If you’ll cite the sources from which you derived your “sense” about Gore’s film, we might be able to see if we agree that your concern is justified.
If those owners were successful in selling those homes to buyers, then might it not look like there is an increased demand for bigger homes?
They would only stop building bigger homes if the market indicated that nobody was buying those bigger homes.
I think you know where I stand on Global Warming, I am a self-described Green.
I watched the documentary twice and I would say the following:
- Al Gore cherry picked some of his information for dramatic affect.
- Al is not a scientist and was not perfect in communicating some of the science. A common and true complaint.
- Al described the problem, but offered only a few solutions, far less than many available reports and publications already had available*
I saw no outright lies or deceptions. These claims appear to be overblown. In this case, as the film was mainly a recording of lectures he gave with a Futurama style cartoon thrown in, I do not see what disqualifies it as a documentary.
Jim
- In his defense, he was trying to get college kids to wake up to the problem, not spell out solutions. He has wisely left that for bodies like the IPCC. He knows he is not a scientist.
Right. And if fewer people choose big houses over small houses, less big houses will get built.
Do you have a cite for that?
I’m not ignoring anything. Give me some cites, and I’ll re-evaluate my claim that Gore is setting a bad example.
“If” is the key word here.
Here is a small smaple to go with the one I gave earlier.
Newsflash: Al Gore Gets A Solar Roof
Here was the one from Fox News: Town Official Defends Al Gore’s Energy Inefficient …
So we see with a quick check, that Gore had to work within a towns overzealous zoning laws and he did so and he now has Solar Panels.
With a lot more digging, I could find the articles that talked about him improving the insulation of the house, especially the windows. This was read in a print magazine.
I hope this helps.
Jim
Take a look at post #45.
Now for commuting, Let’s take my example. Let’s say our energy bills go up 10% due to my wife working at home - and that’s generous, since she would about 25% of the hours in the week, turns off the lights in other rooms, and turns down the heat, since she uses a space heater. She also doesn’t use high energy equipment - a computer and a fax. The high energy usage stuff is unaffected. 10% of a monthly bill for us is $30. That’a about one ten gallon tank of gass, which will take her 250 miles or so. So if her commute was more than about 6 miles one way (and in the Bay Area that’s nothing) she saves. Not to mention that cars are worse polluters than powerplants. I’m not counting energy usage in whatever office she would go to at all.