[UNTeMac]

Drudge...master of logical fallacy:

Tu quoque (Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions.

For instance, "Reverend Bob claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Bob himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?"

(From Wikipedia)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by UNTeMac 

Drudge...master of logical fallacy:

Tu quoque (Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions.

For instance, "Reverend Bob claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Bob himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?"

(From Wikipedia)

The Drudge article does nothing of the kind.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Is a person's home the only energy they use?

No, but as we found out last time this debate happened, Gore also takes his airfare and other expenditures into account when he calculates his carbon neutrality.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It was perfectly possible for someone with the money to be "off the grid" 20 years ago.

Not through solar panels. Solar panels 20 years ago simply didn't put out enough power. They would help lessen your power needs, but they couldn't completely fulfill them.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All it takes is to live life wastefully, but pay high taxes? I thought the earth was in dire straights? We can STILL pollute to our hearts content as long as we pay for other people not to? Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me. If Gore believes what he says, he's PAY AND cut resources. Of course, he doesn't believe that HE should have to sacrifice. Paying out cash is no sacrifice for him. He's a gazillionaire. On the other hand, it would be a sacrifice for most other people.

Sounds like you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is. Gore may be using energy, but he isn't emitting any net carbon. That's all that matters. And yes, this is called setting an example. If everyone did it, then we wouldn't have a problem.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Not through solar panels. Solar panels 20 years ago simply didn't put out enough power. They would help lessen your power needs, but they couldn't completely fulfill them.

Yes I know. I have been off the grid for 17 years.

The point is not the solar panels themselves. It's that he didn't do anything about his own power until after GPP came about.

[tie]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Me making a lot of money every year and getting to keep all of it without paying extra taxes because I'm successful sounds fair, too.

But your post hits it on the head. You see, according to your logic, people like Algore can be fat, rich, successful, and do whatever the hell they want as long as they give $$$ to some organization or say they plant a frakking tree. But of course, when I do that -- being the Capitalist, White, High-Income, Conservative I am -- I'm a dirtbag and my efforts are in vain because my views don't jibe with the Socialists' and Commies'.

You really have an irrational hatred of Gore. He's fat, rich, successful -- and a Democrat. So he's automatically your archnemesis.

Gore can buy carbon credits if he wants. It's his money!! You and stupendous are the socialists here.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Or, is this some kind of feel good scam where rich folks pay double for their power hog-age, go ahead and pollute the environment, but pay cash to some dubious agency which funds more expensive and less productive forms of energy so that they don't really have to sacrifice anything substantially? Someone the "little people" wouldn't be able to afford to do.

Yeah, that one.

I have zero impact too. I use electricity, and pay my bill for it. There. Same logic.

Kyoto wants me to pay a higher bill for less electricity AND wants me to feel guilty about doing it, and pay for a lot of other people's electricity too. Oh, and slow down evolution so everyone else can catch up -- while I pay for that investment. Way to go, Al.

He lives comfortable in the knowledge that he will never have to live under the system he espouses.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yeah, that one.

I have zero impact too. I use electricity, and pay my bill for it. There. Same logic.

Well, unless you're paying credits for your carbon emissions, you are not zero impact. I'm not sure if you are saying you have green power.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Kyoto wants me to pay a higher bill for less electricity AND wants me to feel guilty about doing it, and pay for a lot of other people's electricity too. Oh, and slow down evolution so everyone else can catch up -- while I pay for that investment. Way to go, Al.

Why would you feel guilty about doing the right thing? I don't get it. Slwo down evolution? Fossil fuels are not our only source of power.

Originally Posted by finboy 

He lives comfortable in the knowledge that he will never have to live under the system he espouses.

He lives under his own system now.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by tie 

You really have an irrational hatred of Gore. He's fat, rich, successful -- and a Democrat. So he's automatically your archnemesis.

Gore can buy carbon credits if he wants. It's his money!! You and stupendous are the socialists here.

For the record, I kept saying "fat, rich" etc., because that's what so many of us White Capitalist Republican Pigs are called.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Is a person's home the only energy they use?

No, they also fly to LA for the Oscars. In a private jet, no doubt.

[SirCastor]

I was interested in this, so I contacted the people responsible for the research to find out their sources. They just got records from utilities companies. We don't know what percentage of that energy is coming from where. I suppose, if someone is feeling proactive, you could go get a copy of that stuff yourself and post it up here for the rest of us to analyze and misinterpret

All the information that we referenced in our press release, “Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use is His Own ‘Inconvenient Truth,’” was collected through public records requests. We used public information requests often in out work.

In this case we requested – and received – the information from public utilities.

A great resource for anyone interested in open records laws is the Investigative Reporters and Editors website. This site has resources about open records and the federal Freedom of Information Act. You can check it out at IRE || Freedom of Information and First Amendment.

One of the missions of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is greater open government and better access to open records. We encourage voters and taxpayers everywhere to use their right to access government records – which are your records.

We are available to assist any Tennessean who seeks access public records or who has questions about the state’s public records laws.

Contact Trent Seibert at [email protected].


Nicole Williams
VP of Operations

Tennessee Center for Policy Research
PO Box 121331
Nashville, TN 37212

[Buckaroo]

What'd I tell you.

Ecotality � Why the Gore Story Matters

It's all a scam.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

What'd I tell you.

Ecotality � Why the Gore Story Matters

It's all a scam.

Ok. So he buys the offsets from a company he is on the board of. So what?

Is this more jealousy that *gasp* he is making money? And that, gosh darn it, it's possible to actually make money from Carbon offsets? Say it ain't so!

In the end, this means nothing about his environmental concerns. Gore, more to the point of the original topic, is still carbon neutral. If anything, this is proof the original post here is bunk.

[Buckaroo]

He's a liar, scammer, and bullshiter.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

He's a liar, scammer, and bullshiter.

a) Was he part of the company before he started preaching global warming?
b) Does he fund any of the global warming studies?
c) How much of the company does he own?

Gore is still carbon neutral. This is the proof.

Plus, do you actually think Gore is making money on this. He'd have to nearly own the whole company to make money. But he doesn't. Has the right really forgotten how business works?

[Buckaroo]

It dosent' matter. He's the sam looser that claimed he invented the internet.

[Buckaroo]

It's a scam, because he stands to profit by scaring people into paying into the same bullshit.

[Buckaroo]

This is all about Gore's energy scam.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

It's a scam, because he stands to profit by scaring people into paying into the same bullshit.

Really? You act like it's uncommon for... oh... I don't know... companies to bring people onboard who are familiar with what they sell?

Christ sakes. A company brings on someone who is an expert on what they do in order to advise them. What is this world coming to?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

My fave eGore quote that pretty much sums up how far out into crazy leftyloonland he's gone:

'I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action,' Gore said. 'There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen balance as bias.'



So "balance" (as in failure to bow down and swallow hook, line and sinker) to eGore and his envirobible-thumping Church of the Holy Global Warming is considered 'bias'! Too damn funny!

I guess if he had been elected, *shudder* he'd take measures to keep those pesky infidels from speaking out against the one true faith. After all, we can't have *gasp* BALANCE to anything eGore et al spout as the absolute gospel!

Un-freakin'-believable.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

My fave eGore quote that pretty much sums up how far out into crazy leftyloonland he's gone:

'I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action,' Gore said. 'There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen balance as bias.'





So "balance" (as in failure to bow down and swallow hook, line and sinker) to eGore and his envirobible-thumping Church of the Holy Global Warming is considered 'bias'! Too damn funny!

I guess if he had been elected, *shudder* he'd take measures to keep those pesky infidels from speaking out against the one true faith. After all, we can't have *gasp* BALANCE to anything eGore et al spout as the absolute gospel!

Un-freakin'-believable.

And the one of his screaming of George Bush "...he played on our fear..."

[Buckaroo]

As the news media swarmed around the story of Gore’s gargantuan energy consumption yesterday, Gore’s people touted his purchase of “carbon offsets” as evidence that he lives a “carbon-neutral” lifestyle, but the truth is Gore’s home uses electricity that is, for the most part, derived from the burning of carbon fuels. His house gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning power plants. Which means most of the power being consumed at the Gore mansion comes from carbon-emitting power sources.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

As the news media swarmed around the story of Gore’s gargantuan energy consumption yesterday, Gore’s people touted his purchase of “carbon offsets” as evidence that he lives a “carbon-neutral” lifestyle, but the truth is Gore’s home uses electricity that is, for the most part, derived from the burning of carbon fuels. His house gets its electricity from Nashville Electric Service, which gets its from the Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces most of its power from coal-burning power plants. Which means most of the power being consumed at the Gore mansion comes from carbon-emitting power sources.

...Someone doesn't know what carbon-neutral means. Google it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

...Someone doesn't know what carbon-neutral means. Google it.

Yes. Carbon neutral is where someone tells everyone they've paid proxies to allegedly take steps that offset their ridiculously high and unnecessary carbon output.

Isn't that about right?

[Buckaroo]

[itistoday]

Wow, a lot of people are saying "Gore lies," but aren't backing that up with anything. Everything in his movie came from scientific data.

And so what if his house isn't green? He probably doesn't have time to bother with it. As a Berkeley professor said: "I don't vote in elections because it's simply stupid. The difference my vote makes is close to 0%. However, I can have a much larger impact on the result of the race by telling you all [referring to classroom] who to vote for while abstaining from voting myself."

I think that pretty much sums it up. Gore's little Nashville house has 0 effect on Global warming, why should he care about it other than to shut you idiots up? He has a much larger effect by doing his Keynote presentation. However, yes, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't lead by example, but again, that has no effect on the truth of the scientific data he presents.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

And so what if his house isn't green? He probably doesn't have time to bother with it. As a Berkeley professor said: "I don't vote in elections because it's simply stupid. The difference my vote makes is close to 0%. However, I can have a much larger impact on the result of the race by telling you all [referring to classroom] who to vote for while abstaining from voting myself."

I think that pretty much sums it up. Gore's little Nashville house has 0 effect on Global warming, why should he care about it other than to shut you idiots up? He has a much larger effect by doing his Keynote presentation. However, yes, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't lead by example, but again, that has no effect on the truth of the scientific data he presents.

That's awesome! Justification for "do as I say, not as I do."

I guess it's ok then when a priest does the same thing.

Or George W. Bush.

Being a lying hypocrite is ok, as long as you mean well. Fantastic.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Being a lying hypocrite is ok, as long as you mean well. Fantastic.

Hey, I never said that. I said quite the opposite:

Originally Posted by itistoday

However, yes, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't lead by example, but again, that has no effect on the truth of the scientific data he presents.

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes. Carbon neutral is where someone tells everyone they've paid proxies to allegedly take steps that offset their ridiculously high and unnecessary carbon output.

Isn't that about right?

That's right. Now explain it to Buckaroo, who thinks that carbon neutral means you can't use any energy sources which emit CO2. Wrong; it means you have to offset any such emissions.

[Buckaroo]

I don't think so. His spun data to reflect his objective. And most of the data is very questioinable.

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Wow, a lot of people are saying "Gore lies," but aren't backing that up with anything. Everything in his movie came from scientific data.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I don't think so. His spun data to reflect his objective. And most of the data is very questioinable.

You're gonna have to do better than that, because I'm not going to take your word for it, and I doubt anyone else will. This is what scientists like to call "presenting evidence," so far you have presented none to back up your claims.

[Buckaroo]

Well, lets start with the ice shelf that was breaking off, as a sign of global warming.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Well, lets start with the ice shelf that was breaking off, as a sign of global warming.

Which ice shelf? Do you have a link to a scientific article arguing that it wasn't a sign of global warming? And don't you think that a single ice-shelf is hardly relevant in light of the primary evidence for global warming presented in the film?

[Buckaroo]

I think South Park was right about Al Gore.

[tie]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Which ice shelf? Do you have a link to a scientific article arguing that it wasn't a sign of global warming? And don't you think that a single ice-shelf is hardly relevant in light of the primary evidence for global warming presented in the film?

Is there more than one?

[Doofy]

OK, so there's a link to a carbon footprint calculator at the top of page 2.

An Inconvenient Truth > Carbon Calculator

Where's the question about how many trees I have or plant? Where's the question about whether my food generates methane/CO2 while it's growing?

It's *all* BS.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK, so there's a link to a carbon footprint calculator at the top of page 2.

An Inconvenient Truth > Carbon Calculator

Where's the question about how many trees I have or plant? Where's the question about whether my food generates methane/CO2 while it's growing?

Uh huh. If you're concerned about how they calculated it, you could read this. It was a link at the bottom of the page that said "How was it calculated?". Notice how it also says that it's an estimate, and if you read the explanation, you'll see it's a fairly reasonable one.

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's *all* BS.

No. What's BS is people like you, who will completely dismiss hard facts, sound science, solid evidence, expert opinions, and will instead label it as "political propaganda." The concept is very simple, I don't know why people have a hard time accepting it:

1) CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as Methane trap heat.
2) Since the industrial revolution we have drastically increased the amount of CO2 while cutting down the resources that absorb it:




Google maps of deforestation in Brazil

3) Many other potent greenhouse gases, such as methane (more potent than CO2 in terms of greenhouse effect) have also increased. However there is about 220 times more CO2 than methane in the atmosphere so CO2 still plays a larger role in global warming, and it is certainly the most abundant out of all the other greenhouse gases:




4) The amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases therefore affect global temperature, and this can be plainly seen in graphs such as these:

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

No. What's BS is people like you, who will completely dismiss hard facts, sound science, solid evidence, expert opinions, and will instead label it as "political propaganda." The concept is very simple, I don't know why people have a hard time accepting it.

No. Until that page allows me to go into a negative CO2 footprint because my property more than sinks my CO2 output by virtue of a crapload of trees, it's all political propaganda bullshit. The concept is very simple, I don't know why people have a hard time accepting it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

And for once why don't you open your eyes and look at that graph? CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

[Orion27]

As I've pointed out before: Green plants are a major source of methane. There is debate, Max Plank Institute if the carbon uptake is more or less able to compensate for the production of methane. Inedependent of the natural effects of forest as heat sink ( forests absorb and store heat ) and independent of water vapor, the largest green house gas, reforestation my actually do the opposite of what carbon offset policy ( Kyoto) intended. Desserts, would actually have a more cooling effect, being dryer, and unable to trap heat. It's a complicated world..

[Montezuma58]

This carbon neutral concept reminds me of the logic my wife uses when she shops. She'll spend $60 on a pair of shoes then claim she saved $40 because the shoes were priced at $100 with 40% off. She did not save $40. She spent $60.

Offsetting is not conserving. If you burn a gallon of gas it's gone just like the $60 from my checking account. No amount of offsets purchased will magically unburn that gallon of gas and recover the emissions generated.

Just as my wife could do without a new pair of shoes, Gore could move into smaller house. He would actually consume less. Instead he chooses to live basically the same as he has and play some sort of shell game to make it appear as if he's having no impact.

[Buckaroo]

The Great Global Warming Swindle from Channel4.com

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And for once why don't you open your eyes and look at that graph? CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

How does that work?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58 

Offsetting is not conserving. If you burn a gallon of gas it's gone just like the $60 from my checking account. No amount of offsets purchased will magically unburn that gallon of gas and recover the emissions generated.

Follow me carefully here, and you will see magic!

Step one: Burn a gallon of gas.
Step two: Plant one tree. Wait five years for it to grow bigger.

Result: Magic! The emissions have been recovered! It's a difficult concept, but carbon is a remarkably versatile (magical?) element.

I do not know how Gore's offsets work, as there have been two conflicting reports (in this thread or one of the other two or three on the same subject). But there is nothing at all wrong with the concept of offsetting emissions; it is nothing at all like your example.

It should be noted, though, that offsetting burning that gallon of gasoline might help prevent global warming, but will not reduce the US dependency on oil (and the corresponding national security threat). For this, we need to find alternative energy sources, and conserve.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. Until that page allows me to go into a negative CO2 footprint because my property more than sinks my CO2 output by virtue of a crapload of trees, it's all political propaganda bullshit. The concept is very simple, I don't know why people have a hard time accepting it.

No, that's BS. Tell me what the science has to do with your trees.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, that's BS. Tell me what the science has to do with your trees.

How inane, Tie. Do your research and read the science.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, that's BS. Tell me what the science has to do with your trees.

Wow... Your memory is short...

Originally Posted by tie 

Follow me carefully here, and you will see magic!

Step one: Burn a gallon of gas.
Step two: Plant one tree. Wait five years for it to grow bigger.

Result: Magic! The emissions have been recovered! It's a difficult concept, but carbon is a remarkably versatile (magical?) element.

There ya go.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

How does that work?

No idea. But look at the graph. CO2 is following temperature, not the other way around.

So... ...this couldn't all be something to do with the Sun (rather than us), could it?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No idea. But look at the graph. CO2 is following temperature, not the other way around.

Well you better get an idea or you stand to make a fool out of yourself. Scientists have a very good explanation for why temperature follows CO2, not the other way around, so if you're going to claim the opposite, you'd better do better than, "No idea."

Originally Posted by Doofy

So... ...this couldn't all be something to do with the Sun (rather than us), could it?

Shootin' in the dark there Doofster?

[Orion27]

More CO2< more green plants, more forests, bigger heat sinks, more methane , more water vapor, more greenhouse effect, higher temperature, bigger storms, more clouds, the earth starts to cool green plants dies, less carbon, and the cycle repeats.