Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Al Gore Part 2: Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Al Gore Part 2: Liar Liar Pants on Fire (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.”
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
One of their government policies is to retain these government scientists, why wouldn't they maintain the right to scrutinize what their own bureaucracy is producing?
How is that any different from a business employing scientists wanting to scrutinize what their employees are saying? Basically, you've just said that it's wrong for a company to suppress the scientific opinions of it's employees, but that it's OK for government to suppress the scientific opinions of *it's* employees.

I can only imagine the noise you'd be making if the current conservative Canadian government supported AGW theories and was suppressing it's scientists who didn't support those theories.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Feb 19, 2012 at 11:41 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 01:42 PM
 
Now even the Heartland Institute is working to suppress opinions:
Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents - Slashdot
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
How is that any different from a business employing scientists wanting to scrutinize what their employees are saying? Basically, you've just said that it's wrong for a company to suppress the scientific opinions of it's employees, but that it's OK for government to suppress the scientific opinions of *it's* employees.
Given that you've resorted to the lame tactic of putting words in my mouth, I'll let you carry the remainder of the conversation with yourself. If I wanted this, there's a wealth of other trolls with which I could engage conversation here.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Given that you've resorted to the lame tactic of putting words in my mouth, I'll let you carry the remainder of the conversation with yourself. If I wanted this, there's a wealth of other trolls with which I could engage conversation here.

In his defense, your argument is actually pretty cryptic.

I don't know if you are:

- anti AGW period
- anti alarmist AGW (but inconsistently okay with alarmist Iraq war drum beaters)
- anti science stifling of stuff against AGW
- anti all science stifling
- anti/pro whatever is the opposite of a common liberal position
- anti giving pithy answers

When I said that your tactics have changed, part of this is in increase in crypticness, just FWIW...
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 06:41 PM
 
My argument was missed. A government that sponsors the science will maintain the message that comes of it. This can include suppression of information yes, but in Wiskedjak's example little more was offered than "there's a policy of suppression" to protect Canada's poor stewardship of their environment and related policies with no mention of what those policies are and in spite of the fact that you'll find few countries with a better environmental record. In Wiskedjak's case (whose contribution I often appreciate even in disagreement) it had become apparent that once again, I was giving more time to others' sources of information than they were willing not only to give mine, but even their own.

3c's query;
  • anti AGW period - This is science and I would not be so hasty in simply saying; "I'm anti-AGW, period." I'm skeptical because I believe the state of the science and related modeling do not properly reconcile with the populist AGW message as pedaled by the government entity most cited and given the most authority on the matter.
  • anti alarmist AGW (but inconsistently okay with alarmist Iraq war drum beaters) - This is trollish. I clearly explained that my support for action in Iraq was not borne of fear, but of geopolitical pragmatism. Give my posts a little more time besson.
  • anti science stifling of stuff against AGW - I do not appreciate the suppression of scientific data that challenges former conclusions. Science cannot grow this way. When an article complaining of this suppression mentions Kyoto as if it's relevant at all, it smells more of political hype than any real concern for the state of the science and peaks the ol' skeptic meter. That's all.
  • anti all science stifling - No, just the fun, hyper stuff that doesn't advance the discipline or adequately represent the state of or the work of the science.
  • anti/pro whatever is the opposite of a common liberal position - You're acknowledging this is a common liberal position and given your propensity to toe the liberal narrative with a degree of loyalty and shamelessness matched by few others; I'll assume you're projecting here.
  • anti giving pithy answers - Sometimes the proper answer does not occur in a tidy little box, portioned for the short attention span.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 06:50 PM
 
So then ebuddy, how do you feel about scientific studies that are not sponsored by government but point to AGW being a serious threat, or studies that point to AGW being a serious threat where a government would prefer that these conclusions were different? In Canada's case, it is in their best interest for AGW to be a fraud so that the conservative party can carry on with their Alberta tar sands endeavors, so Wiskedjak's article, assuming that the information is true, is an example of government stifling AGW evidence when it is in their best interest for this evidence to not exist.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So then ebuddy, how do you feel about scientific studies that are not sponsored by government but point to AGW being a serious threat, or studies that point to AGW being a serious threat where a government would prefer that these conclusions were different? In Canada's case, it is in their best interest for AGW to be a fraud so that the conservative party can carry on with their Alberta tar sands endeavors, so Wiskedjak's article, assuming that the information is true, is an example of government stifling AGW evidence when it is in their best interest for this evidence to not exist.
That wasn't Wiskedjak's example and there was no particular policy presented. The concern was over a salmon population and the response was that the Ocean and Fisheries Dept literally hears and responds to hundreds of these reports annually. With regard to the tar sands, is it possible that the government of Canada is making a calculated decision to move forward with energy development at a time when demand grows for it and their economy could really use it? You may have forgotten the sewage backing up vs the bacteria on the sewer grate down the street litmus. Do you know the conservative government is wrong in this or are you just assuming they are because their conservatism was of some importance here. Otherwise, like I said before; you'll not find many countries with a better track record on the environment than Canada. The problem is they don't support the ridiculous distribution of multi-billions of dollars through an international, environmental oversight bureaucracy.

Most private entities are merely concurring with the assessments made by the IPCC Summary statement and those entities with a proven track record of tribalism should be regarded with a healthy degree of discrimination and yes, skepticism.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 07:44 PM
 
I'm confused, ebuddy. You posted a handful of quotes from scientists commenting that other scientists are having their anti-AGW opinions suppressed by their employers. And then, on the same page, you defended the Canadian government's right to suppress the scientific opinions of it's scientists. These two positions seem to be contradictory to me; I don't see the difference between a business as an employer of scientists and a government as an employer of scientists.

If anything, I would think there is a stronger argument for an employer to stifle an employees opinions should they contradict the company's business model. I can say that in my telecom career, I'm reluctant to publicly voice any opinions that might contradict my employer's business model (I even debated about typing that sentence).

I also generally appreciate what you have to say, since you are usually quite even handed and well informed. My position is often swayed as a result of your arguments. Lately, however, I've found your arguments less even handed and more confrontational. I've also found you to be lately resorting to vague arguments that are easy to say "that's not what I meant" when presented with counter arguments.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2012, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm confused, ebuddy. You posted a handful of quotes from scientists commenting that other scientists are having their anti-AGW opinions suppressed by their employers. And then, on the same page, you defended the Canadian government's right to suppress the scientific opinions of it's scientists. These two positions seem to be contradictory to me; I don't see the difference between a business as an employer of scientists and a government as an employer of scientists.
Governments are going to do this. In other words, they may be able to address the salmon issue without creating a scare that also destroys an important Canadian commodity. A government is going to do things like this. I'm not defending them and in fact am using them to indicate what a governmental body (like the one I've been complaining most about) is capable of doing with science. It may have come off as defensive because in this case your article wreaked of the bias I'm talking about and while the Canadian government's MO was supposedly to hide bad environmental policy, no specific environmental policy was called into question and few countries have a better track record on environmental policy.

If anything, I would think there is a stronger argument for an employer to stifle an employees opinions should they contradict the company's business model. I can say that in my telecom career, I'm reluctant to publicly voice any opinions that might contradict my employer's business model (I even debated about typing that sentence).
Same career, same problem although this comes from a strict e-policy with my employer. Science is supposed to be different. If it's a company employing scientists and those scientists must only produce work that bolsters the company's bottom-line (say Exxon Mobile for example), their work should be met with enhanced scrutiny. If evidence of suppression is apparent, their work should be met with outright skepticism. In the case of IPCC, I've been very clear. They are tasked with a very specific scientific discipline and that is to assess the data around anthropogenic climate change and draft legislation to address it. I don't see a lot of room in this commission for dissent which produces the enhanced scrutiny. I think the evidence of suppression is clear which produces the outright skepticism. The consensus touted is almost invariably referring back to the body of work produced by this intergovernmental panel.

I also generally appreciate what you have to say, since you are usually quite even handed and well informed. My position is often swayed as a result of your arguments. Lately, however, I've found your arguments less even handed and more confrontational. I've also found you to be lately resorting to vague arguments that are easy to say "that's not what I meant" when presented with counter arguments.
First, thank you.

I'm going to respond to posters in the exact manner they've either engaged me or are engaging the forum Wiskedjak. I do this to establish rapport with those who may need to read the heavy-handed stuff and/or to provide an image of that poster to themselves. It's an election season and things are beginning to ratchet up with the folks that I'm engaging. However, In this case there seemed to be a relentless pursuit for the "gotcha" moment with little regard for what I'm actually saying which leads to the ideal that I'm not being consistent. In this case you asked me for an example, I gave you one, and instead of addressing any of that provided a link of your own to alleged suppression of science by the Canadian government. I don't like the Canadian government suppressing science. I don't like anyone suppressing science, but the evidence of it in this case is sketchy at best and the complaint seems to be more about an official interview policy of the Canadian government and not a specific environmental policy; other than withdrawal from Kyoto that is. If the Canadian government retains these scientists to bolster their own arguments for funding of this type or that and it turns out dissent is going to cost them in ways that run counter to their agenda, it may be dealt with in the same manner that an intergovernmental panel may address its inconvenient dissent. With regard to the political MO of climate change, I just haven't seen much that rivals climategate, that's all.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2012, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
there seemed to be a relentless pursuit for the "gotcha" moment
Wow, highly reminiscent of ... something ... I just can't put my finger on it
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2012, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
With regard to the political MO of climate change, I just haven't seen much that rivals climategate, that's all.
So what extreme conservative websites besides the Heartland Institute are you reading where "climategate" is somehow still relevant? Or have you simply been unaware for the past 4 years that "climategate" was completely debunked?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2012, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Wow, highly reminiscent of ... something ... I just can't put my finger on it
I'll take my lumps. I probably need a break, but for whatever reason the view of the train-wreck is best from the caboose.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2012, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
So what extreme conservative websites besides the Heartland Institute are you reading where "climategate" is somehow still relevant? Or have you simply been unaware for the past 4 years that "climategate" was completely debunked?
Conservative websites are boring. I have more fun talking to you about SCIENCE!™ Where the said is unsaid and the done, undone.

What about global tensions warming? You and I are getting along swimmingly well.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2012, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'll take my lumps. I probably need a break, but for whatever reason the view of the train-wreck is best from the caboose.
Is C3PO in the caboose with you?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2012, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I have more fun talking to you about SCIENCE!™ Where the said is unsaid and the done, undone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

When you put your big boy pants on, we can continue this later.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2012, 11:22 PM
 
ebuddy, I agree with Wiskedjak. You're my favorite conservative in here and the only conservative I feel like I can have a productive conversation with, but lately you seem to be frustrated a little more often, like you have an axe to grind and steam to blow off or something. Your posts also seem more cryptic lately than usual.

If you could go back to your older awesome ways, I will be so happy! You want to make me happy, don't you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2012, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you put your big boy pants on, we can continue this later.
Big boy pants? From your article;
However, the reports criticised climate scientists for their disorganised methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency. The report added that "scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics." The committee criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to deal with such requests.

I saw from your article that there were 8 committees that investigated the affair and on a hunch I just grabbed one of them and dug for approximately 5 minutes to find the Science Assessment Panel; chaired by Lord Oxburgh who is well known for his work as a public advocate in both academia and the business world in addressing the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and develop alternative energy sources. C'mon man.

You're surprised this circle-jerk of cronies found no impropriety? I'm certainly not. Regardless, their findings seem exactly as I've suggested; failure to comply with FOI requests, tribalism, and poor methodology... among other things.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2012, 05:10 AM
 
B-but why won't you believe the whiney libs, ebuddy? They are super cereal!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2012, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
B-but why won't you believe the whiney libs, ebuddy? They are super cereal!
That's easy: he prefers conservative whine to liberal whine.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2012, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
That's easy: he prefers conservative whine to liberal whine.
Whine gives me a headache in general.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2012, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Whine gives me a headache in general.
Agreed. More accurately, I was just trying to point out to CRASH that whining is not exclusive to libs.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2012, 04:18 AM
 
Yeah but you guys do it better. And more cereal.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2012, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Yeah but you guys do it better. And more cereal.
Not so certain about that. I've heard some *really* whiny conservatives over the last 3 years.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2012, 04:17 PM
 
Sounds like you're whining about it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2012, 06:05 PM
 
Yep, I'm whining about how much you whine about how much liberals whine.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2012, 07:14 PM
 
I have a headache.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2012, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Yep, I'm whining about how much you whine about how much liberals whine.

You watch your step, or else I'll start whining about how much you whine about Crash whining about liberals whining.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2012, 09:42 AM
 
Whine-ot just agree that we all hate whining, except when we're doing it ourselves?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 12:22 AM
 
Algore sell Current TV to Al Jazeera. The press grills him not because Al Jazeera promotes jihad, but because Al Jazeera is funded by Qatar and it's oil money.

Tough questions follow Al Gore book tour - Patrick Gavin - POLITICO.com
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 03:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Algore sell Current TV to Al Jazeera. The press grills him not because Al Jazeera promotes jihad, but because Al Jazeera is funded by Qatar and it's oil money.

Tough questions follow Al Gore book tour - Patrick Gavin - POLITICO.com
Holy crap, welcome to four weeks ago, Chongo!

Hilariously, FoxNews also moaned aggressively about this "scandalous" news, and they were pilloried for it because they too are co-owned by foreign oil interests.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 05:32 AM
 
Gore is a hypocrite? That's hardly news.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Holy crap, welcome to four weeks ago, Chongo!

Hilariously, FoxNews also moaned aggressively about this "scandalous" news, and they were pilloried for it because they too are co-owned by foreign oil interests.
Pure silliness. Of course, you wouldn't have a clue what FoxNews has to say on anything and since FoxNews isn't wholesale abandoning its cause du jour with their source of funding, it's certainly not as tasty a story nor are they anywhere near as chronic in their hypocrisy as it turns out Gore is. But then, since the news is four weeks old now -- you already know that much.

Nice redirect.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Holy crap, welcome to four weeks ago, Chongo!

Hilariously, FoxNews also moaned aggressively about this "scandalous" news, and they were pilloried for it because they too are co-owned by foreign oil interests.
I was waiting to see if any of the greenies would start a thread. (that wasn't going to happen since Algore is their Pied Piper)

You're cool with Algore selling out to Qatar? (big oil and al-Qaeda supporters)
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2013, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You're cool with Algore selling out to Qatar?
Yes, absolutely. It's called "foreign investment," something I thought you free market idolaters claimed to believe in.

Your problem and ebuddy's problem is your binary thought process. You both think pro-environmentalism is anti-oil industry. It's not. You can be pro-environmentalism and pro-industry at the same time. Virtually no one is against the oil industry, but everyone should be against allowing them to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without regard for consequences. That's plain common sense, something lacking in the "free market religion" you guys ascribe to.

Al Gore isn't against the oil industry, he's in favour of improved environmental standards. Until you realize the absurdity of your binary worldview, you'll be incapable of recognizing your error.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Yes, absolutely. It's called "foreign investment," something I thought you free market idolaters claimed to believe in.

Your problem and ebuddy's problem is your binary thought process. You both think pro-environmentalism is anti-oil industry. It's not. You can be pro-environmentalism and pro-industry at the same time. Virtually no one is against the oil industry, but everyone should be against allowing them to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without regard for consequences. That's plain common sense, something lacking in the "free market religion" you guys ascribe to.

Al Gore isn't against the oil industry, he's in favour of improved environmental standards. Until you realize the absurdity of your binary worldview, you'll be incapable of recognizing your error.
No, by suggesting he's not "against the oil industry", you'd have us believe that he's actually a big fan of plastics or something. Nice try. He's "against the oil" industry for opposing the usage of crude oil to burn for energy. Is that more clear? He has been championed by the left who absolutely want to see the end of fossil fuel use because it is destroying the planet and Al Gore has been THE loudest spokesperson on the issue. He's being lambasted by left and right alike for hypocrisy because the hypocrisy is so blatantly apparent that the only ones denying it are those entirely bereft of news in general.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 08:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, by suggesting he's not "against the oil industry", you'd have us believe that he's actually a big fan of plastics or something. Nice try. He's "against the oil" industry for opposing the usage of crude oil to burn for energy. Is that more clear? He has been championed by the left who absolutely want to see the end of fossil fuel use because it is destroying the planet and Al Gore has been THE loudest spokesperson on the issue. He's being lambasted by left and right alike for hypocrisy because the hypocrisy is so blatantly apparent that the only ones denying it are those entirely bereft of news in general.

It's funny that this is your response to an accusation of being binary.

Why would Al Gore be against burning of all fossil fuels, particularly when the technology isn't here yet to replace oil in all cases? He's simply an advocate for clean energy, which is pretty common sense stuff even if you don't believe in global warming.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 11:40 AM
 
I thought "clean energy" was incompatible with oil. "Clean coal" is contentious, but at least exists. I've never heard of "clean oil." What am I missing?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I thought "clean energy" was incompatible with oil. "Clean coal" is contentious, but at least exists. I've never heard of "clean oil." What am I missing?
It's only incompatible when it's convenient and profitable. Meanwhile, we ordered a 5kWh fuel cell to power the garage and security system, to put our money where our mouths are. If that works well, we may just switch completely.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It's funny that this is your response to an accusation of being binary.
I didn't get the accusation when he used it and I still don't. Would you at least admit that Al Gore has been a disappointment to you in this regard? And then, would you acknowledge that a large share of those on the left have elevated him to a champion of green energy and as such, an antagonist of big oil? Does he not get any credit for this branding success? I would think the more binary of views would enjoy a smaller scope of disappointment in the man. Would you treat a public figure you disagreed with, even half this much respect? On a third the evidence. You guys are killin' me.

Originally Posted by Al Gore
“Virtually every news and political commentary program on television is sponsored in part by oil, coal and gas companies — not just during campaign seasons, but all the time, year in and year out — with messages designed to soothe and reassure the audience that everything is fine, the global environment is not threatened.”
Including his?!? The same guy in Washington lobbying to replace "carbon-based fuels" with Green energy? Advocates civil disobedience against coal plants? Pioneering in the purchase and sale of a new commodity in direct competition with the fossil fuel industry?

I think you and mckenna may be struggling with the fact that the only thing more important than the planet is Al Gore. Trust me, he's actively involved in attempting to rid the planet of the burning of fossil fuels. A great deal of his speaking career and writings and life's work have been in criticizing and attempting to undermine fossil fuels because of his concern for their impact on the planet among other things. This struggle against the fossil fuel industries is supposed to be the Inconvenient Truth. Little did we know he'd give us such an apt example.

It's really simple, he had a buyer for his media outlet and that's all that mattered. I don't think it's as much binary thought as it is 20/20 vision.

Why would Al Gore be against burning of all fossil fuels, particularly when the technology isn't here yet to replace oil in all cases? He's simply an advocate for clean energy, which is pretty common sense stuff even if you don't believe in global warming.
Why don't you ask the producer of his film's cover piece? He might be able to explain the plumes of hurricane-shaped smoke billowing out of large industrial stacks. C'mon man. Otherwise, it makes even more sense when you're heavily invested in a green energy commodity. No one's calling him an idiot.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 11:08 PM
 
To be honest, I don't really give a fire about Al Gore, and I don't understand your fixation on him.

Your fixation on him while criticizing people for fixating on Glenn Beck seems a little hypocritical to me too, but never the less, the reason why I don't care about him is because he is far from the only person advocating clean energy. Clean energy doesn't really need an advocate for the concept to stand on its own, but if an advocate is truly needed, there are others to choose from.

Why does what Al Gore say or do matter so much?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
To be honest, I don't really give a fire about Al Gore, and I don't understand your fixation on him.
It's not a fixation on him, it's a thread on Al Gore that has been resurrected when the man makes news.

Your fixation on him while criticizing people for fixating on Glenn Beck seems a little hypocritical to me too, but never the less, the reason why I don't care about him is because he is far from the only person advocating clean energy. Clean energy doesn't really need an advocate for the concept to stand on its own, but if an advocate is truly needed, there are others to choose from.

Why does what Al Gore say or do matter so much?
Funny you should bring up Glenn Beck as this probably demonstrates your hypocrisy problem best of all. Frankly, I'll generally ignore the little hit and runs on Glenn Beck altogether. I do not start Glenn Beck threads. I do not generally talk about Glenn Beck. I do not invoke the names of Glenn Beck or Abe in threads that have nothing to do with these people such as thread on gun control for example. This is an Al Gore thread. I'm contributing my views on Al Gore in the Al Gore thread, not using his name like a conjunction any time I want a cheap dig on liberals.

If you want to talk about Glenn Beck or Abe, start a thread and talk about them as you have done before. Otherwise, this is a thread for decrying Al Gore's folly. If you want to defend Al Gore, be my guest, but your presence here is no less a fixation on the man than mine. Glenn Beck and Abe would be proud of you for your new, disciplined approach.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 08:59 AM
 
Umm, yeah, I had to make sure we're in the right place. This is an Al Gore thread, right?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 09:26 AM
 
No threads about other members HOLY SHT! If Al Gore becomes a member here, then we wouldn't be able to keep having threads about him! Someone get on the phone
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2013, 09:20 PM
 
Well,

CNN is now postulating that the Earth will get hit by an asteroid because of global warming.

CNN anchor questions whether global warming to blame for asteroid | Fox News
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2013, 09:40 AM
 
#thanksobama
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2013, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Well,

CNN is now postulating that the Earth will get hit by an asteroid because of global warming.

CNN anchor questions whether global warming to blame for asteroid | Fox News
Jesus, CNN is such an amazing shithole anymore.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2013, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Jesus, CNN is such an amazing shithole anymore.
Yeah. Just about the funniest thing I've seen this week.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2