[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
It’s frustrating to me to see the same arguments trotted out over and over again by the same people. I’ll not bother with taking up the same bullshit again - the other threads are out there to be reviewed.
[/quote]
Can you just give me a link to an explanation of how the profligate amounts of natural gas and jet fuel that Mr. Gore consumes all come from “renewable, green sources”?
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Can you just give me a link to an explanation of how the profligate amounts of natural gas and jet fuel that Mr. Gore consumes all come from “renewable, green sources”?
[/QUOTE]
Profligate? I misspoke when I said “energy”, meaning instead specifically electricity. His carbon offsets are purchased to make up for what he uses elsewhere.
You can search GD threads for Gore just as easily as I can. You could also search for posts by Cheif Pedant and Sarahfeena. If there’s an attempted Gore smear going on, you can be sure that they are involved.
I do believe What Exit is precisely correct about you.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Profligate?
[/quote]
Yes, profligate:
Sounds about right to me.
I too am skeptical about so-called “carbon indulgences.”
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
It’s frustrating to me to see the same arguments trotted out over and over again by the same people. I’ll not bother with taking up the same bullshit again - the other threads are out there to be reviewed. I’m pleased, however, that you all have resorted to employing the type of overblown rhetoric of the OP, endorsed by Sarahfeena, that will quickly advertise to anyone else how far from reality you’ve strayed. I hope the margins are comfy for you, because that’s where you’re headed, if you aren’t already there.
And Sarahfeena, Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize precisely because he’s done far more to combat global warming and the release of greenhouse gases than just about any other single person, including you and your husband.
[/QUOTE]
Funny you should condemn overblown rhetoric, and then praise Al Gore with rhetoric that is, frankly, overblown. 
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
It’s frustrating to me to see the same arguments trotted out over and over again by the same people.
[/QUOTE]
It’s frustrating to me to see the same lame defense trotted out over and over again by the same people.
You’re right…much if it is bullshit.
Believing that buying carbon offsets absolves a person of their responsibility to cut back on energy use…now THAT’S straying from reality.
That’s fine. All I can say if that if I were him, I would be embarrassed to accept that award.
Another lefty who doesn’t understand the concept of an analogy.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Of course, he does more than simply purchase carbon credits. All of his energy is purchased from renewable, green sources. This is good not only for him but for everyone, since it does increase the demand for green energy.
But of course you already know all this because we’ve been through two other GD threads on the matter. You simply have it out for Gore. I agree with initech. Watching Gore rewarded for his efforts is satisfying. Watching you righties flip your lids over it is hilarious.
[/QUOTE]
I have been blessed with a modicum of wealth. Compared to the world average, anyway.
If the only Inconvenience to the Truth is that I should purchase carbon credits and pay extra for green energy, but can otherwise consume at the level of Mr Gore (not just personal direct energy use, but the whole lifestyle) I have misjudged his message. If that is the standard he seeks for the world, he is not a hypocrite; he is simply unable to grasp that such a standard will do nothing.
There is not enough green energy to go around and there will not be, anytime soon enough. Carbon credits do not actually offset much of anything and they will be used as a proxy for avoiding more restricted consumption, very much like contributing to Shelters while I abuse my wife.
I am sure Righties (of which I am most definitely NOT one) will “flip their lids” but such a reaction does not mean the reason for flipping is incorrect. Whether he is a hypocrite or just unable to grasp his own message, Mr Gore is a poor choice for a Nobel.
You’ve got me confused now, Chief. Not difficult for one of my advanced years and habits, perhaps, but still…
On the one hand, you tell me the its all an excercise in futility anyway, we might just as well devote our time to digging appropriate sized holes for our children and grandchidren, as their doom is sealed. Then you rail against Mr Gore for his ineffective efforts and his hypocrisy, having already assured us it wouldn’t help much anyway. Donning sack cloth and preaching doom is no good, but if he must, then he should be donning recycled hemp sackcloth.
How does Mr Gore align with your approval, what could he do? Do we even know, at this point, what the prescription for success might be? And, if we don’t, how can we criticize his effort as hypocritical, if we have no golden mean to measure against?
He has appointed himself messenger, he has much to say. Should he insist his message be carried only on solar powered radio? Should he refuse to fly to speak to people he might sway unless the airplane is powered by flax seed oil? Do you expect him to bicycle to Oslo for the ceremony?
For my own part, I can barely restrain myself from pointing out, once again, that this the same sort of thing we dirty fucking hippies were talking about thirty-forty years ago, but nobody would listen, we had an abundance of toxic energy available to produce our pornucopia of loud, shiny crap. I refrain, of course, because I am not assured that the SDMB hamsters are fed from recycled waste and hemp oil, and I would not like to be a hypocrite, even for the sake of the novelty.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Funny you should condemn overblown rhetoric, and then praise Al Gore with rhetoric that is, frankly, overblown.
[/QUOTE]
Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore. Say it aloud. Savor it. Luxuriate in it. Mmm, mmm, mmm. Damn that’s good stuff.
Then, quietly, go to your window. Cup your hand to your ear. Lean forward, just so. There! You can hear it! A collective gnashing of teeth. Mutterings, not unlike the shabbily dressed guy on the street downtown. “grrgrrgrrr…wifebeater…grr…big house…osamabinladen…grrr…grrr…inventedtheinternet…”
The hue and whine of the conservative outrage machine as it grows weaker - outdated, powerless. It lumbers from one crazy topic to the next - a 12 year old boy one day, a Nobel Prize winner the next.
Ya just gotta love it.
Keep in mind, sir, that we came within a whisker of having this dull do-gooder as President, save for the intervention of the ten thousand Jews for Buchanan. We should have been saddled by this animatronic lecturer, and been denied the vigorous self-confidence and visionary statesmanship of The Leader!
We would have lived in much less interesting times, of that you may be sure!
Sarahfeena, you are generally a reasonable person who is not known for dismissing updated information as being the same old lame arguments. I think you have not heard the main points that has been made about Al Gore’s “high consumption” of electricity and gas at his home.
Please read Post #134 for a summary. In essence it explains that those figures came from The Past, not The Present.
The house was old. It was not “green.” The figures that were quoted were claimed while the house was being rennovated. The claims were made first by the ever “reliable” Drudge Report and picked up by a Right Wing group in Nashville. They have been neither confirmed nor denied. But the information is not current!
Since that article came out, the Gores house has become a model of energy efficiency. Again, see Post 134. Then tell me what else he could do and still accomplish all of the things which have earned him the Nobel Peace Prize?
Chief Pedant, I see that you have ignored the contents of Post 134 in order to maintain your position. Not a very scientific method there, Doc.
It would be lovely if we were as conscientious and concerned as Al Gore has been for the last twenty years. I suspect that your house, as does mine, looks quite different from his. You have a link to the photo. Is the roof of your house covered in solar panels? How do you know what other people are willing to do? You don’t know the people I do who do sacrifice. It’s unfair of you to project and it makes you wrong.
What do you say, Conservatives? Does Chief Pedant represent the thinking from the Right with this statement?
FTR, Belle Meade is a township within the boundaries of Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County. (The City of Nashville and Davidson County operate as one and Belle Meade is a township within its borders.)
What Exit?, you are so cool!
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Since that article came out, the Gores house has become a model of energy efficiency. Again, see Post 134. Then tell me what else he could do and still accomplish all of the things which have earned him the Nobel Peace Prize?
Chief Pedant, I see that you have ignored the contents of Post 134 in order to maintain your position. Not a very scientific method there, Doc.
[/QUOTE]
As to Mr Gore’s house in particular: I posted a cite where the figures were not disputed by Mr Gore’s spokesperson. As to the solar panels: in the words of Genie, perhaps “He can be taught.” Where were they back when he began to realize the problem? If you stop beating your wife because cameras have come into your home, do you get credit for it?
[QUOTE=Zoe]
It would be lovely if we were as conscientious and concerned as Al Gore has been for the last twenty years. I suspect that your house, as does mine, looks quite different from his. You have a link to the photo. Is the roof of your house covered in solar panels? How do you know what other people are willing to do? You don’t know the people I do who do sacrifice. It’s unfair of you to project and it makes you wrong.
[/QUOTE]
You are kidding me, right? If we were all as conscientious and concerned as Mr Gore has been for the last 20 years, but had lived at his level of contribution to AGW, and his Inconvenient Truth is correct, the earth would be an incredible and irreversible disaster by now. My highest electric bill in the last 12 months is $152; it averages about $85. My gas bill is about $75/month, average. Mr Gore’s 2006 electric bill was about $30,000, undisputed by his spokesperson: Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill - ABC News
If the solar panels with which you are enamored mollify any concern you have, that is your choice. However overall contribution to CO2 emissions is dependent on total lifestyle. It’s things like fancy hotels and new stuff and on and on. Everything we consume needs to be produced somewhere, and that, according to Mr Gore, is what is causing the problem, because it is that production which generates CO2. Applying lipstick to the pig–er, I mean, solar panels on the home–particularly this late in the game, is an underwhelming response.
(**by CP: ** "No one is getting on board the sacrifice train until everyone gets on… ")
[QUOTE=Zoe]
What do you say, Conservatives? Does Chief Pedant represent the thinking from the Right with this statement?
[/QUOTE]
May I inquire, as nicely as possible, what the heck a Conservative straw poll has to do with this thread? i certainly was not referring to Conservatives alone.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
What Exit?, you are so cool!
[/QUOTE]
Sycophancy seems to be a common trait among Mr Gore’s supporters, I see.
Elucidator: There is a reason the rich guy went away after receiving Jesus’ reply on how he could get into heaven. Wealthy people are not going to be role models for effective AGW-friendly living, period (with rare exceptions). This is not about how he should live. It’s about whether or not he should get the Nobel prize (versus, say, citizen Jamilla of Tanzania).
[QUOTE=lieu]
The British judge’s assessment of “alarmism and exaggeration” in his decision whether or not to allow schools to even show the film would appear fairly leveled.
[/QUOTE]
By the way, here in the blogosphere is an interesting analysis of that ruling and how it has been reported. It includes a link to the actual text of the decision and to other blog discussions (e.g., by climate scientists William Connolley, James Annan, and Andrew Dressler.)
Major points of these:
(1) Lost in much of the reporting is the fact that the judge actually ruled against the plaintiff who wanted a ban on showing “An Inconvenient Truth” in the schools. He did rule that there were these 9 matters that should be addressed in the guidance notes although when he referred to them as “errors” he put this word in quotation marks. They were issues where he did think there needed to be more balance or context presented.
(2) On some of these points that the judge did think were problematical, there are decent arguments to be made that the judge got it wrong in his analysis.
TWEEEEEET!!
Everyone back down.
I see no reason for ANY of the personal exchanges in this thread. We have a perfectly good BBQ Pit that is currently overrun with Recreational Outrage and whining that could be better used to permit all of you to excoriate each other to your hearts’ content.
Stick to arguing the validity of the claims for Mr. Gore’s practices and leave other posters out of it.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I think that purchasing carbon credits is a bogus rationalization, so that doesn’t help to convince me that Gore is not a hypocrite
Some might find overly contributing to global warming is a bigger moral problem than wife beating. After all, a wife can get away, but the earth is stuck with us, as are the other 6 billion inhabitants.
I appreciate the complement. I wish you would read my posts a little closer, though…I do not believe we disagree on AGW. We do disagree as to whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, good to know. If you think Al Gore is a hypocrite but still think we should work to reduce Green Houses gases, then I am not too worried. Despite my defense of his winning the NPP, I am not really a fan; I just think some people are smearing him unfairly.
I appreciate his efforts as from my viewpoint he has done more to raise awareness than any 100 Hollywood stars, any 10000 environmentalist like me, and almost as much as 2000 climatologists that are sharing the award with him.
Hell, I still like Reagan even despite the fact he appoint James Gaius Watt as the worst U.S. Secretary of the Interior since Albert B. Fall. I thought his efforts in Foreign policy and fighting the Cold War outweighed the many negatives of his administration. So if I can continue to like Reagan, I can continue to like Gore, despite him being slow to green his house. You might compare him to Thomas Jefferson, I always found him the most hypocritical of our Founding Father. Speaking of Liberty, but failing to free his own slaves, not even in death. That is a true hypocrite to me. Gore is pretty small scale compared to that as he does purchase Green Energy, does but Carbon Offsets and has done a lot to Green his house and started the efforts years ago, despite some false arguments by Brazil84. I showed where his town’s regulations kept him from installing Solar Panels earlier. He does drive hybrids. He cannot avoid flying; it is how he does his business to increase awareness. That is really an extremely unfair criticism.
Zoe Thank you very much, always nice to see something like that. However, I am not sure in what regards you meant that. Is it for my postings in this thread or my efforts to be green?
Jim
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
…Elucidator: There is a reason the rich guy went away after receiving Jesus’ reply on how he could get into heaven…
[/QUOTE]
But did he come back? Perhaps he was going, to sin no more, or perhaps he just wanted to get across the road before the chicken.
But, s’truth, I think we have less to worry about from the Gots as from the Wantagets. If a guy thinks he can only feed his kids by burning down some rainforest, he’ll burn down some rainforest unless we can provide another option. Another daunting challenge, to be sure.
We don’t need another Jesus so much as another Einstein, or a Tesla. One genius may be all it would take, one mutant monkey out of 6 billion. We are awash in energy, stuffed with it, drenched with juice, there simply has to be a way to use the shit without fucking everything up!
When the US criticizes China for their human rights abuses, China’s response is always, “Who are you to tell us to stop abusing human rights? Look at Guantanamo (or any other US abuse du jour).” Should the US stop criticizing China? I personally don’t think so.
And if not, how is this situation any different? Gore is advocating that people reduce their carbon footprint. He has reduced his, but not to the extent he could. Does that mean he ought not tell people to reduce theirs? I don’t think so. Does it mean that his message is any less true or accurate? Of course not–just like the US message to China is not less accurate because of US actions. If the only people that could criticize were those who had their own houses perfectly in order, there would be no criticism whether we’re talking about environmental policy, human rights, or anything else.
Maybe Gore’s personal actions undermine his purity, or his nobility, but I don’t think they undermine his message or the impact that message has had–and it is his message/impact that earned his this award, not his personal environmental purity.
As for not getting on the sacrifice train until everyone is on board, that smacks of 3rd grade logic to me. We ought to all do what what’s right, regardless of what other people do.
What Exit?, in this particular thread I was speaking of the efforts that you make to live green. My friends have been patiently teaching me step by step, but I have been slow to make big changes.
You haven’t provided any information on the fancy hotels. “New stuff and on and on” is too vague.
That’s why the renewable resources such as solar power and water power are so important.
Electricty in Nashville (where Gore lives) is provided by TVA – the Tennessee Valley Authority. Much of its energy is generated by its 29 power-producing hydropower facilities owned and operated by the government. TVA also uses another renewable resource – the wind.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Maybe Gore’s personal actions undermine his purity, or his nobility, but I don’t think they undermine his message or the impact that message has had–and it is his message/impact that earned his this award, not his personal environmental purity.
[/quote]
Getting back to the original post, it seems that you wouldn’t have a problem if a wife beater got some big award for establishing battered womens’ shelters.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Getting back to the original post, it seems that you wouldn’t have a problem if a wife beater got some big award for establishing battered womens’ shelters.
[/QUOTE]
For the analogy to be proper, it would have to be something closer to “if a wife beater got some big award for getting us much closer to preventing all future wife-beating.”
But even then, I don’t think a carbon footprint is in the same moral category as beating one’s wife, so the analogy is invalid because the nature of the hypocrisy is different. One is intrinsically and directly wrong, the other is, at best, conditionally and indirectly wrong. One can physically compensate for one’s carbon footprint–not so with wifebeating. And finally, wifebeating is a binary activity; if you do it, you’re bad. A carbon footprint is more of spectrum.
If they are in the same moral category, then using Chief Pedant’s logic, we can also say that I don’t have to stop beating my wife until everyone else also stops. That is, of course, absurd (even more absurd than saying the same thing about making sacrifices to conserve).
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
For the analogy to be proper, it would have to be something closer to “if a wife beater got some big award for getting us much closer to preventing all future wife-beating.”
But even then, I don’t think a carbon footprint is in the same moral category as beating one’s wife, so the analogy is invalid because the nature of the hypocrisy is different. One is intrinsically and directly wrong, the other is, at best, conditionally and indirectly wrong. One can physically compensate for one’s carbon footprint–not so with wifebeating. And finally, wifebeating is a binary activity; if you do it, you’re bad. A carbon footprint is more of spectrum.
If they are in the same moral category, then using Chief Pedant’s logic, we can also say that I don’t have to stop beating my wife until everyone else also stops. That is, of course, absurd (even more absurd than saying the same thing about making sacrifices to conserve).
[/QUOTE]
Yes!