[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

All the cites in the thread are evidence

It's pretty easy to tell they aren't evidence of carbon offsets when none of them even mention carbon offsets.

Just admit it, you made up how prohibitively expensive and worthless carbon offsets were without doing even the slightest bit of fact-checking, just because your gut feeling told you Gore must be wrong.
"And it would take a small country to offset the Gore-On's carbon footprint"

[Macrobat]

I never said a damned thing about the monetary costs of carbon offsets. I said that they are a boondoggle, and they are - the concept is akin to purchasing dispensations from the Pope to "offset" one's sins in the Middle Ages.

Please, if you believe in HCGW (which I don't) you should be even more outraged, not defending this goob. His position is that he can continue to live VERY high on the hog, while preaching to others to scrimp, cut down on their emissions, etc. It seriously looks as if he wants all the rest of the residents of the planet to do as he says, so he can continue to live his life without giving up a single thing.

Al Gore's Carbon Footprint Is Big.

Bob Krumm � debunking a rather lame debunking

While you're laughing, why don't you read the numerous reports of how big Ole Al's "carbon footprint" is, then figure out how many trees one has to plant to "offset" it - then shut up.

The truly funny thing is you (and other apologists) actually defending him for doing the EXACT opposite of what YOU (the collective you) have repeated over and over - ad nauseum - right here on this very forum, with the Reverend Shortcut to Moncton taking the pseudo-scientific lead in the sermons.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

And cue more excuses...

"B-but... the dog ate his homework!"

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

From that Travolta article:

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.

But of course! The nature of HIS business means he can use all the energy he pleases. It's just the nature of EVERYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS that doesn't matter a hill of beans. It's all those silly pleebs who aren't movie stars or movie-making politicians that need to do all the conserving, not these folks who actually have "IMPORTANT" jobs.

So typical! ALWAYS an excuse, ALWAYS a self-created exemption from these folks ever practicing what they preach.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I never said a damned thing about the monetary costs of carbon offsets.

"And it would take a small country to offset the Gore-On's carbon footprint"

Whether you were measuring in money or not isn't relevant to what I said, which is that you didn't check your made-up facts.

I said that they are a boondoggle, and they are - the concept is akin to purchasing dispensations from the Pope to "offset" one's sins in the Middle Ages.

And the whole concept of "sins" is a boondoggle too. That doesn't mean they can't add "offsets" to the concept.

... while preaching to others to scrimp, cut down on their emissions, etc.

"etc." must be your code word for "buying carbon offsets," because he encourages people to do that too. If buying carbon offsets is part of his message, and you're complaining about him buying carbon offsets, then what you're complaining about does not include him being inconsistent with his message.

It seriously looks as if he wants all the rest of the residents of the planet to do as he says (including buy carbon offsets), so he can continue to live his life without giving up a single thing (except buying carbon offsets), as can everyone else.

fixed.

While you're laughing, why don't you read the numerous reports of how big Ole Al's "carbon footprint" is, then figure out how many trees one has to plant to "offset" it - then shut up.

According to Al Gore's website's carbon calculator (which is the only source you can use to argue what he's telling others to do), the average American emits 1250 pounds of CO2 per month, and according to google (carbonfootprint.com) a single tree absorbs about 730 kg of CO2 total. That calculates to 10 trees per year for the average american, or if Gore uses 20x that much, 200 trees per year. That's a damn small country indeed! That's smaller than even the smallest country, I'd say. He can probably plant that many just on his property.

The truly funny thing is you (and other apologists) actually defending him for doing the EXACT opposite of what YOU (the collective you) have repeated over and over - ad nauseum - right here on this very forum, with the Reverend Shortcut to Moncton taking the pseudo-scientific lead in the sermons.

Not me, buddy. But Shortcut has said he offsets his carbon too. Offsetting is part of the message. It's not "the EXACT opposite" of what they repeat over and over, it's exactly the same. Oops.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But of course! The nature of HIS business means he can use all the energy he pleases. It's just the nature of EVERYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS that doesn't matter a hill of beans. It's all those silly pleebs who aren't movie stars or movie-making politicians that need to do all the conserving, not these folks who actually have "IMPORTANT" jobs.

I completely agree. But the nature of extravagance also allows those people who do it to buy extravagant amounts of carbon offsets too.

exemption from these folks ever practicing what they preach.

Since what they preach includes cabon offsets, what they're doing is exactly what they preach, if they're buying carbon offsets too.

[Macrobat]

Um, I know you aren't actually this thick. you just play it on the internet when it suits your needs.

I was talking about the number of trees that would have to be planted in order to "offset" his "carbon footprint" and the amount of LAND it would take to contain them. So, you can check your little "made-up facts" Bull Screed at the door. Thanks for playing.

What AlGore is saying is that he wants the REST of us to generate "carbon offsets" so that he, and others can purchase them BY scrimping, cutting down on our electric, gasoline, natural gas, etc. usage.

Sorry, the concept of sin is NOT a boondoggle to the VAST majority of this planet, your usage may vary.

And you didn't "fix" anything, since my argument is that carbon offsets are so much BS in the first place. All you did is insert your own disingenuous blather into my post.

Sorry, continuing to live any damned way you please and simply buying "carbon offsets" is NOT the way to affect the kind of change all you Warmers claim is needed. There are only so many "offsets" in the world and they don't actually "offset" anything you Warmers hold dear in the first place.

Please show me statistics that prove what Al has offset and how he did it, not simply money transfers. You are all so fond of your "science," please show us exactly what portion of Al's CF has been successfully "offset." Where is this massive forest located? Where is the actuall proof that any carbon has been "offset?" Simply pointing to one's checkbook and saying "I bought 'em" does NOT suffice. Not when you (again the colletive you) keep preaching to us about the severity of the emergency and cite reams of "facts" to support it's existence. Where is the same level of due diligence to PROVE the offsets both A) exist in the first place and B) are actually DOING one damned thing?

It's just like all the environuts who go out, buy a Prius, then start preaching the evils of every other kind of vehicle on the planet. Well, here's a shocker for you, the production of a Toyota Prius is worse on the environment than that of a Hummer (or any other vehicle).

The Recorder

Of course, the real question no Warmer has been able to successfully answer is:

"What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?

The Earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is now. Are humans so arrogant as to assume that the ideal temperature of the Earth is simply what it has been in recently recorder history as opposed to any other time in the chronology of the planet?

please, do edify us.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I was talking about the number of trees that would have to be planted in order to "offset" his "carbon footprint" and the amount of LAND it would take to contain them.

And I told you

What AlGore is saying is that he wants the REST of us to generate "carbon offsets" so that he, and others can purchase them BY scrimping, cutting down on our electric, gasoline, natural gas, etc. usage.

That makes zero sense in light of the fact that he helped found one of the companies that sells the offsets.

It sounds very much like you have fabricated some argument you think Gore is making, and are railing against that made-up argument.

Sorry, the concept of sin is NOT a boondoggle to the VAST majority of this planet, your usage may vary.

And the concept of carbon offsets is NOT a boondoggle to the VAST majority of people who give a crap about this topic, which would be anyone who thinks that man-made CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Do you get it now?

And you didn't "fix" anything, since my completely unsubstantiated argument is that carbon offsets are so much BS in the first place.

fixed.

You can't claim something is evidence against the validity of carbon offsets when that thing doesn't mention carbon offsets even once. And simply stating your claim again and again while ignoring challenges to it does not constitute an "argument."

Sorry, continuing to live any damned way you please and simply buying "carbon offsets" is NOT the way to affect the kind of change all you Warmers claim is needed.

I agree (though I'm not one of the "warmers," whatever those are). I don't think focusing solely on CO2 is enough to change anything, and I don't think offsets are enough to change even CO2 levels much, though I don't have proof either way. But that doesn't change the fact that Gore has been consistent to the contrary (not a hypocrite).

[Macrobat]

The argument is only unsubstaintiated to you members of the Warmers religion, stop attempting to put words into my mouth.

He "founded the company." Whoopeeshit, where are the offsets and of what are they composed, thin air? It's not a "made-up" arguement, it's an accusation of falsehood and fraud.

The only way to GET "carbon offsets" to buy is for someone else to be using less than their arbitrarily assigned amount, so he can purchase their "excess."

I don't give a rat's patoot what you "told me," that was what my post meant - get over yourself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

He "founded the company." Whoopeeshit, where are the offsets and of what are they composed, thin air?

It was argued in this thread that they were funding development of technologies that would increase energy efficiency and/or improve alternative energy sources. In the end, planting trees is a temporary strategy that only works until the trees die. The goal is to use that to buy time to develop technologies that free us from fossil fuels. In that respect, funding development of those technologies is a more effective measure than just planting trees.

I'm not saying I believe it, but that is the "carbon offsets" party line.

It's not a "made-up" arguement, it's an accusation of falsehood and fraud.

...

The only way to GET "carbon offsets" to buy is for someone else to be using less than their arbitrarily assigned amount, so he can purchase their "excess."

This is the part that's made-up. That statement is completely false.

I don't give a rat's patoot what you "told me," that was what my post meant - get over yourself.

You asked how many trees it would take and I told you (here's a hint: it was 200). The fact that you "don't give a rat's patoot" about the facts honestly doesn't surprise me in the least. You strike me as someone who cares about nothing but proving Gore wrong. Sorry you haven't been successful.

[Macrobat]

200? LMAO! For which WEEK of AlGore's life? We have his incessant jetting to and fro, his energy use at home, his zinc mine, his two-block limo rides, etc., etc., etc.

Try again - that figure is utterly laughable.

Okay, where is this R&D done and who is doing it? What is the progress of it? What specific products, technologies, services is it creating? How is this carbon being "offset?" Where is this envionmental bonanza that is magically erasing all his energy-hog activities?

Besides, how can anything that YOU YOURSELF even agree there is no evidence for be a "fact" in the first place?

"Made-up" argument, huh?

Carbon offset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emissions trading markets, such as the voluntary Chicago Climate Exchange, allow companies which have reduced emissions below a specified target to sell their remaining allowances to other companies which did not reach the target. Hence, this increases the monetary incentive for conservation. Systems like the European Union Emission Trading Scheme and the Clean Development Mechanism operate in a similar fashion at the inter-governmental level.

Need a tissue for that egg on your face?

And now, we have him actually over in Europe campaigning for the Nobel Peace prize as if it were some sort of high school student council election!

The guy is an utter assclown, but he is the Warmers' Messiah.

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

From that Travolta article:

But of course! The nature of HIS business means he can use all the energy he pleases. It's just the nature of EVERYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS that doesn't matter a hill of beans. It's all those silly pleebs who aren't movie stars or movie-making politicians that need to do all the conserving, not these folks who actually have "IMPORTANT" jobs.

So typical! ALWAYS an excuse, ALWAYS a self-created exemption from these folks ever practicing what they preach.

Too true. I guess you've given up on Gore, so fat mouth eTravolta is close enough.

Actually, if Travolta cared, he could offset his emissions as Gore does. It is pretty cheap, something like $15 to offset a flight across the US (last time I checked). Even if you travel a lot for your job, it isn't difficult to neutralize your net carbon emissions so you aren't contributing to global warming.

Am I missing something on this limo ride? Isn't a two-block limo ride about as short as it can be? Are you arguing it should have been longer, or that Gore shouldn't be allowed ever to ride in a limo?

[Macrobat]

The point is, he didn't have to ride in the limo in the first place. Plus, being as he is the former VP of the US, it's NOT just a limo, since he has a full-time SS contigent, as well as his personal staff. They literally climbed into cars simply in order to exit at the red carpet entrance. He's the one preaching "walk, ride a bike."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I completely agree. But the nature of extravagance also allows those people who do it to buy extravagant amounts of carbon offsets too.

So basically, everybody has their out. Here's the flipside: everyone else DOESN'T live so extravagantly, so they DON'T need to buy any friggen carbon offsets, they can just keep right on doing everything they've been doing also. Which is all basically to say: leave mankind alone, we're not the cause of any Global warming doomsday bullshit.

By the way, I agree with this. I just begs the question- what the F*** are all the Global Warming wankers going on about then? Everyone has their own self-invented out that they 'believe' exempts them, then everyone's covered. Problem solved. Either lead by an actual example, or STFU about it then.

Since what they preach includes cabon offsets, what they're doing is exactly what they preach, if they're buying carbon offsets too.

We've been over the issue of 'belief' vs. reality before- Travolta's a guy who 'believes' in another religion invented by a science fiction writer, as well as the Global Warming one.

He can "believe" the moon is made out of green cheese for all I care. It doesn't change the fact that his 'carbon offset' nonsense belief or believing that we need to dump our trash on mars or whatever, doesn't do JACK SQUAT in reality to change the fact that HE is a huge perpetrator of the very thing he's ranting about.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

200? LMAO! For which WEEK of AlGore's life?

It's 20x what his website says the average person would have to do. The entirety of this thread's objection was that he is using 20x what the average person uses, and that he's not carrying the burden he's asking the average person to carry. That's false, because the burden he's asking the average person to carry is far less than you seem to think it is. It's about 10 trees worth per year, roughly estimated.

We have his incessant jetting to and fro, his energy use at home, his zinc mine, his two-block limo rides, etc., etc., etc.

Would you say it's fair to call that 20x what the average person spends on those things? If so, my rough calculation still stands. PS: no one in his camp has suggested offsetting work-related energy use (IE zinc mines). All the carbon footprint calculators I've seen only deal with personal home energy use.

Try again - that figure is utterly laughable.

Haha! Beautiful. My "gut feeling" comment about you was dead on after all (it was just a guess). Rather than check into the facts yourself, even a little bit, you've opted to disregard the figure out-of-hand based on your gut feeling that it simply couldn't be that easy. Well done.

Okay, where is this R&D done and who is doing it? What is the progress of it? What specific products, technologies, services is it creating? How is this carbon being "offset?" Where is this envionmental bonanza that is magically erasing all his energy-hog activities?

Um, do your own homework?

Besides, how can anything that YOU YOURSELF even agree there is no evidence for be a "fact" in the first place?

I didn't say there was no evidence for it (there is), there's just not enough evidence to convince me personally. I can see how the evidence might be enough to convince others (like Gore). But the only "fact" I'm arguing here is that Gore is consistent with his message, namely that CO2 is the heart of the problem, and it can be fixed if everyone "offsets" their CO2 emissions, like he is doing.

And now, we have him actually over in Europe campaigning for the Nobel Peace prize as if it were some sort of high school student council election!

link?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The point is, he didn't have to ride in the limo in the first place. Plus, being as he is the former VP of the US, it's NOT just a limo, since he has a full-time SS contigent, as well as his personal staff. They literally climbed into cars simply in order to exit at the red carpet entrance. He's the one preaching "walk, ride a bike."

What we've learned here is that in order to exempt yourself from causing global warming, you simply have to "believe" you're exempt.


And so, certainly if energy hogs like alGore and Travolta are, then EVERYONE is!

Problem solved.

[Macrobat]

Your link:

Nobel Committee Head Attends Talk by Nominee Gore - March 30, 2007 - The New York Sun

ABC News: Nobel Candidate Gore Speaks Before Prize Chairman

Pick one.

I tried to find what you would consider "credible" sources.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So basically, everybody has their out. Here's the flipside: everyone else DOESN'T live so extravagantly, so they DON'T need to buy any friggen carbon offsets, they can just keep right on doing everything they've been doing also.

I think they would probably add that you should buy the carbon offsets, which won't be nearly as expensive if you don't live extravagantly.

what the F*** are all the Global Warming wankers going on about then?

Yeah, pretty much.

We've been over the issue of 'belief' vs. reality before- Travolta's a guy who 'believes' in another religion invented by a science fiction writer, as well as the Global Warming one.

Ok, let's try again. If he believes getting rid of "engrams" will solve global warming, and he preaches to everyone else that they need to "offset" their CO2 by destroying "engrams," and he uses lots of CO2 but destroys lots of extra "engrams" in exchange, is he a hypocrite? Or is he just wrong?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think they would probably add that you should buy the carbon offsets, which won't be nearly as expensive if you don't live extravagantly.

But since this is all just based on silly beliefs, all I have to do is counter by saying that I believe my using paper rather than plastic every now and then is my 'offset'. So now I'm covered, if I want to leave the AC running full tilt 24/7 and fly around in 4 or 5 jets and drive the biggest, gas hog cars on the planet, don't bug me about Global Warming. I've done my part to 'offset' what I do, so leave me alone. If it works for Gore and the rest of the Global Warming 'elite' then it works for everyone else.

Ok, let's try again. If he believes getting rid of "engrams" will solve global warming, and he preaches to everyone else that they need to "offset" their CO2 by destroying "engrams," and he uses lots of CO2 but destroys lots of extra "engrams" in exchange, is he a hypocrite? Or is he just wrong?

Please show me where alGore has ever stood up and said, "All anyone needs to do is buy carbon offsets, and there's no Global Warming problem. That's it. That's all we have to do."

If what you're saying is truly the case, and he's not a hypocrite- then there's ABSOLUTELY NO CRISIS! It's certainly not "the biggest moral issue" of all time, nor any other of the inflammatory nonsense Gore has floated.

So which is it? There's either this huge, earth-destroying 'crisis' in which something must be done immediately or else we all die, or there's no problem at all that's anything more than a minor inconvenience that we can all buy our way out of, while we use as much energy and resources as we feel like. Which is it?

The later HAS to be the case in order for Gore not to be a hypocrite, but I don't think you believe for a SECOND that he's been preaching anything of the sort.

[Macrobat]

Funny, Gore tells everyone else (on his official website) to reduce their emissions. There is no mention of carbon offsets. THAT is what he preaches, and THAT is what makes him a hypocrite, because he hasn't reduced a single erg (in fact he's increased).

An Inconvenient Truth > Take Action

Unc, your argument falls flat on its face because Gore does NOT preach offsets, he simply uses them as his excuse/justification whenever he gets called out about his own energy usage. If he actually DID preach/hawk/sell carbon offsets, you would have a leg to stand on - but he doesn't. He simply uses them as a crutch.

The priorly used argument that "he runs a business out of his home" is also pure escuse-ism, since (from all appearances) he runs that business out of a private jet and hotel rooms.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The point is, he didn't have to ride in the limo in the first place. Plus, being as he is the former VP of the US, it's NOT just a limo, since he has a full-time SS contigent, as well as his personal staff. They literally climbed into cars simply in order to exit at the red carpet entrance. He's the one preaching "walk, ride a bike."

I think you disproved your own point in your post - The Secret Service.

Like it or not, Gore is a former VP and much of the logisitics concerning his travels are dictated by them. As far as I know, Gore doesn't really have a say with respect to his own security. If he wasn't a former VP, then I can see how his "do as I say, not as I do" actions could be seen as hypocritical. His hands, however, are tied on this one.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But since this is all just based on silly beliefs, all I have to do is counter by saying that I believe my using paper rather than plastic every now and then is my 'offset'. So now I'm covered, if I want to leave the AC running full tilt 24/7 and fly around in 4 or 5 jets and drive the biggest, gas hog cars on the planet, don't bug me about Global Warming. I've done my part to 'offset' what I do, so leave me alone. If it works for Gore and the rest of the Global Warming 'elite' then it works for everyone else.

Remember that these last 9 pages have just been about whether Gore's a hypocrite. If you do what you just described, you wouldn't be a hypocrite.

Please show me where alGore has ever stood up and said, "All anyone needs to do is buy carbon offsets, and there's no Global Warming problem. That's it. That's all we have to do."

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeact...rboncalculator
"We all contribute to global warming every day. The carbon dioxide you produce by driving your car and leaving the lights on adds up quickly. You may be surprised by how much Co2 you are emitting each year. Calculate your personal impact and learn how you can take action to reduce or even eliminate your emissions of carbon dioxide."

If what you're saying is truly the case, and he's not a hypocrite- then there's ABSOLUTELY NO CRISIS!

If everyone buys carbon offsets to be carbon neutral, yes I believe Gore would say "problem sovled" and go home. I don't think very many people are buying it yet, hence his crisis.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The point is, he didn't have to ride in the limo in the first place. Plus, being as he is the former VP of the US, it's NOT just a limo, since he has a full-time SS contigent, as well as his personal staff. They literally climbed into cars simply in order to exit at the red carpet entrance. He's the one preaching "walk, ride a bike."

Minor point, but he does not get Secret Service protection, and the president only gets it for ten years after he leaves office, which actually helps your case. You're welcome. United States Secret Service: Protection

Today, by law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect;

Former presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse remarries. In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former president leaves office

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

I think you disproved your own point in your post - The Secret Service.

Like it or not, Gore is a former VP and much of the logisitics concerning his travels are dictated by them. As far as I know, Gore doesn't really have a say with respect to his own security. If he wasn't a former VP, then I can see how his "do as I say, not as I do" actions could be seen as hypocritical. His hands, however, are tied on this one.

Incorrect. See my reply to Macrobat.

[Buckaroo]

Here's another one:

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming | Showbiz | This is London

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Remember that these last 9 pages have just been about whether Gore's a hypocrite. If you do what you just described, you wouldn't be a hypocrite.

Sure I would be, if I made a living preaching gloom and doom to others. And around and around you go...

An Inconvenient Truth > Carbon Calculator
"We all contribute to global warming every day. The carbon dioxide you produce by driving your car and leaving the lights on adds up quickly. You may be surprised by how much Co2 you are emitting each year. Calculate your personal impact and learn how you can take action to reduce or even eliminate your emissions of carbon dioxide."

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me, since he's doing very little to "reduce or even eliminate" his emissions.

Anyway, you can keep spinning that fact all you like, but we're just going around in circles. I'm getting deja vu again! Didn't I read this SAME thread page several pages ago?

In any event, I'm just waiting for eGore to retitle his movie "A Minor Inconvenience" since by his own "logic" that's all Global Warming is.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

I think you disproved your own point in your post - The Secret Service.

Like it or not, Gore is a former VP and much of the logisitics concerning his travels are dictated by them. As far as I know, Gore doesn't really have a say with respect to his own security. If he wasn't a former VP, then I can see how his "do as I say, not as I do" actions could be seen as hypocritical. His hands, however, are tied on this one.

Nice try, but no dice. I was mistaken, as has been pointed out.

Go apologize elsewhere.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Would you say it's fair to call that 20x what the average person spends on those things? If so, my rough calculation still stands. PS: no one in his camp has suggested offsetting work-related energy use (IE zinc mines). All the carbon footprint calculators I've seen only deal with personal home energy use.

I think Macrobat's imagination has upped Gore's energy usage. After all, he rode in a limo for two whole blocks! If that isn't a small country's worth of CO2 emissions, I don't know what is. What a hypocrite.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Nice try, but no dice. I was mistaken, as has been pointed out.

Go apologize elsewhere.

Sorry, I was just going off your assumption.

Thanks, KarlG. Learn something new everyday.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sure I would be, if I made a living preaching gloom and doom to others...

...with the caveat that others' "offest" could be the same as yours. I don't know why this is so hard for you to get, but I'll try again: Catholics are preached at to not commit sins, but if they do commit sins, they can go confess and wipe their record clean. To us outsiders, this whole "confession" thing sounds like a ridiculous scam. But even so we don't think it constitutes hypocrisy, because the same ridiculous rule applies to everyone. Same with Gore. Just because I don't believe in confession for sins doesn't mean I don't understand the consistency of it, and just because I don't believe that carbon offsets will prevent global warming, doesn't mean I don't understand that consistency of that either.

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me, since he's doing very little to "reduce or even eliminate" his emissions.

In context it's obvious that they mean "reduce or eliminate" the net carbon production, i.e. carbon offsets. Best I can tell from the evidence available, he's doing that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Funny, Gore tells everyone else (on his official website) to reduce their emissions. There is no mention of carbon offsets.
...
An Inconvenient Truth > Take Action

Except that on that very page it says: "After reducing your emissions you can do even more by going "carbon neutral.""

This quite obviously refers to carbon offsets, because those words (above it) are a link to the carbon footprint calculator which describes carbon offsets and allows you to buy them directly.

[Buckaroo]

I think I'm going to get in on the scam and start a Carbon Neutral company. Anyone want to become partners? This could be a multi billion dollar business.

[Buckaroo]

They can pay me and I'll plant a tree or bush.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think Macrobat's imagination has upped Gore's energy usage. After all, he rode in a limo for two whole blocks! If that isn't a small country's worth of CO2 emissions, I don't know what is. What a hypocrite.

LMAO! Try and isolate just ONE of the Gore-bot's bs ploys to mean them all. Pretend that was the ONLY thing I mentioned. Too bad you intentiaonally ignore every other argument in order to attepmt to make a point. Perhaps you shoud sit this one out?

Funny, how the apologists argue for PAGES, then get smacked down and move on to the next argument as if the previous never existed.
Tie, you get more pathetic with every keystroke, for example.

And no, Unc, if he meant carbon offsets, he would say carbon offsets, just as he has every single time his own obscene energy usage has been brought up.

By your own admission, no one has EVER proven that carbon offsets do one damned thing except swallow cash. Admit it, you've been caught out. (of course, I realize this is a pipe dream as none of you will EVER admit you've been duped.)

Give it up.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I guess there's no way I could expect you to put 2 and 2 together, but "carbon neutral" always refers to offsetting your carbon emissions, not eliminating them (which is biologically impossible). There's really no other logical interpretation of the term "carbon neutral."

Edit: Also, if you read the phrase "After reducing your emissions you can do even more by going "carbon neutral." you can clearly see that "going carbon neutral" means something other than "reducing your emissions."

...just as he has every single time his own obscene energy usage has been brought up.

I don't think he's ever bit at this "issue." Are you confusing people on MacNN for Gore himself?

[besson3c]

This thread is boring.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This thread is boring.

Your threads smell like poop. This one is nicer. It smells like freshly cut grass.

[smacintush]

So why is it so hard to believe that Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite? Why defend him? It is perfectly possible to admit he's an asshat without compromising your faith in "the cause".

We may not have definitive "proof" that he is lying about his "carbon neutrality", but there is plenty of reason to doubt and there is plenty of evidence. Isn't evidence what is behind this whole global warming business? The only evidence we have that he is being honest is his word, and that's pretty shaky evidence when you consider he is a career politician and he is making money off of what he is preaching.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

no one has EVER proven that carbon offsets do one damned thing except swallow cash.

Isn't it funny how all of mankind's ills always seem to come down to taxes and profits? Nope, not dubious at all.

[tie]

There isn't much evidence at all, and the evidence is getting weaker and weaker. It started with Gore's energy usage. But then it turned out Gore was offsetting his carbon emissions. Now it's down to a two-block limo ride. Macrobat is incensed; I guess he thinks one block should be the limit for any responsible politician.

Although in his latest post, he is laughing at his own argument. That makes a lot of sense now.

LMAO! Try and isolate just ONE of the Gore-bot's bs ploys to mean them all. Pretend that was the ONLY thing I mentioned. Too bad you intentiaonally ignore every other argument in order to attepmt to make a point. Perhaps you shoud sit this one out? [sic]

PS, another stupid name for Gore. That's extra credit!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Catholics are preached at to not commit sins, but if they do commit sins, they can go confess and wipe their record clean. To us outsiders, this whole "confession" thing sounds like a ridiculous scam. But even so we don't think it constitutes hypocrisy, because the same ridiculous rule applies to everyone.

Hate to break this news to you, but a Catholic Priest who runs around preaching not to commit sin to others (and indeed, whose very position is granted to him on the pretext of him being a religious authority figure) IS INDEED A HYPOCRITE when he resorts to molesting choir boys! That's whether or not he "thinks he is" or not, and has absolutely nothing to do with what religion he practices.

As I've said before, you've merely concocted a very weird, self-serving definition of "hypocrite" that virtually no one on planet earth but yourself adheres to, merely for the sake of excusing the Gore-on for his hypocrisy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So why is it so hard to believe that Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite? Why defend him? It is perfectly possible to admit he's an asshat without compromising your faith in "the cause".

Why not ask yourself why it's so hard to believe he's honest? Believe me, I have no faith in "the cause," but my doubt of him isn't enough to accuse him of being a liar. Is it so hard to believe that I'm seeing this objectively, and the objective conclusion is that he's no more or less credible than any other public figure?

We may not have definitive "proof" that he is lying about his "carbon neutrality", but there is plenty of reason to doubt and there is plenty of evidence.

No, there isn't any evidence, aside from people who don't believe in global warming in the first place saying "if I were in his place, I'd sure be lying."

That's a far cry from enough to accuse him of lying, in my book. There are a number of businesses who's sole raison d'être appears to be selling carbon credits. This accusation against Gore, without any evidence, amounts to calling all of them bald-faced liars, no better than nigerian spam-bots. I certainly take their claims with a grain of salt, but there's certainly not any evidence to show they're not on the level after all. If you want to present some evidence against them, I'm all ears, but there hasn't been any yet that I've seen.

The only evidence we have that he is being honest is his word, and that's pretty shaky evidence when you consider he is a career politician and he is making money off of what he is preaching.

That hasn't been enough for you to condemn Dick Cheney, and he's making a lot more money off his word than Al Gore is. Biased much?

Isn't it funny how all of mankind's ills always seem to come down to taxes and profits? Nope, not dubious at all.

What taxes? What profits? Are any carbon offset companies making much profit? Are there any taxes on greenhouse gases in the world (as opposed to general pollution)? Or is this comment a pure knee-jerk? Yeah, that's not dubious either

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Hate to break this news to you, but a Catholic Priest who runs around preaching not to commit sin to others (and indeed, whose very position is granted to him on the pretext of him being a religious authority figure) IS INDEED A HYPOCRITE when he resorts to molesting choir boys!

Molesting, yes. But molesting is like one of the worst sins there is. Al Gore is not doing one of the worst things there is. He's doing roughly the average of the people in his local area. So ask yourself, if a priest committed sins that most people end up commiting, like taking the lord's name in vain, coveting his neighbor's wife, or stealing batteries from Barnes & Noble, then sought confession for them and did penance, would you call him a hypocrite?

How about this, if a president of the united states encourages people to obey the laws of the land, after having an extended history of illegal drug use, would you call him a hypocrite for it?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Molesting, yes. But molesting is like one of the worst sins there is. Al Gore is not doing one of the worst things there is. He's doing roughly the average of the people in his local area. So ask yourself, if a priest committed sins that most people end up commiting, like taking the lord's name in vain, coveting his neighbor's wife, or stealing batteries from Barnes & Noble, then sought confession for them and did penance, would you call him a hypocrite?

Now you're really splitting hairs. A host of things are wrong with your argument.

First off, one doesn't have to do 'one of the worst things there is' to be a hypocrite. Again, you're attempting to redefine hypocrite willy-nilly just to shore up a hopeless argument.

Even as per your meaningless examples, Gore uses more energy than the 'average people of his local area' and probably most of the world. Gore himself preaches that global warming is "The greatest moral issue of all time", so he's hardly comparing it to coveting his neighbor's wife, or stealing batteries or whatever else.

Yes, it's hypocritical of him to preach one thing, and practice another.

I don't know why it's such a hard concept for you to grasp, but I suspect you're just playing dense for the sake of argument.

How about this, if a president of the united states encourages people to obey the laws of the land, after having an extended history of illegal drug use, would you call him a hypocrite for it?

Bad example. Bush no longer uses drugs. Meanwhile, we're not talking about Gore's past- we're talking about him actively being a hypocrite based on what he preaches, and does, right now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

First off, one doesn't have to do 'one of the worst things there is' to be a hypocrite.

No they don't, but just answer if you would consider someone a hypocrite for doing something relatively small, something which their "preaching" allows everyone to do, as long as they make up for it.

I'm curious, do catholics even believe that child molesters should be forgiven at confessional, regardless of their position?

Even as per your meaningless examples, Gore uses more energy than the 'average people of his local area'

I thought there was a statistic in this thread that while he was above the national average, he was right in the middle of properties in his county.

Gore himself preaches that global warming is "The greatest moral issue of all time", so he's hardly comparing it to coveting his neighbor's wife, or stealing batteries or whatever else.

Not quite. In this analogy global warming would be the entire concept of sin in general.

Yes, it's hypocritical of him to preach one thing, and practice another.

He's preaching carbon offsets! I still don't see how what he's practicing even is different from what he's doing.

Let me try to build this up from scratch, and you tell me where you lose track:
A) Many people believe that CO2 is the main cause of global warming.
B) Many of those people also believe that carbon offsets will make a big difference in the CO2 problem and thus alleviate global warming.
C) Gore is one of those people.
D) To anyone who believes these things, it logically follows that any amount of fossil fuel usage is acceptable so long as the CO2 emitted is offset.

I know, it all falls apart without B, and you can't bring yourself to accept B even in a hypothetical. But Gore and his, uh let's call it constituency, do accept B. And if you can force your brain to understand that mentality for just a minute, can you see how for those people who do believe B wouldn't even think Gore is acting hypocritically?

Your whole accusation rests on the invalidity of carbon offsets, and you haven't raised any argument against their validity other than the implication that if you were the one selling them you would just pocket the money. I encourage you to find stronger evidence.

Bad example. Bush no longer uses drugs. Meanwhile, we're not talking about Gore's past- we're talking about him actively being a hypocrite based on what he preaches, and does, right now.

It's a bad analogy to Gore, but it's a good example of how you're trying to fit Gore into the wrong mold just because of his party (after all, of all the things people accuse bush of, "hypocrite" isn't one of them). Remember "it doesn't have to be one of the worst things to be hypocrisy?" Well "it doesn't have to be still going on to be hypocrisy," either. The word includes things that fit those descriptions, but that doesn't mean anything that fits those descriptions is hypocrisy. I'm trying to help you see how partisan you're being.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why not ask yourself why it's so hard to believe he's honest?

I have.

No, there isn't any evidence, aside from people who don't believe in global warming in the first place saying "if I were in his place, I'd sure be lying."

Sure there is, you just don't accept it. Who's right? I don't know for sure and neither do you.

That hasn't been enough for you to condemn Dick Cheney, and he's making a lot more money off his word than Al Gore is. Biased much?

And WHY would I condemn Dick Cheney in an Al Gore thread? And I fully admit my biases. We're all biased in one area or another. Most of you are just too egocentric to admit it. ANYONE who says they are objective is lying either to themselves or everyone else.

What taxes? What profits? Are any carbon offset companies making much profit? Are there any taxes on greenhouse gases in the world (as opposed to general pollution)? Or is this comment a pure knee-jerk? Yeah, that's not dubious either

I regret my wording here. I was referring to the solutions most often proposed to solve the current fad "crisis" that inevitably crops up periodically.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No they don't, but just answer if you would consider someone a hypocrite for doing something relatively small, something which their "preaching" allows everyone to do, as long as they make up for it.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. People can be hypocrites for all sorts of reasons. I can't speak for Catholics, but I would think that even many Catholics would say that anyone who purposefully commits 'sins' that they are hypocrites about, only to go to confessional to be 'forgiven' and use that as their "out" is really just bastardizing the real purpose of confessional. Such a practice in and of itself would have to be rooted in hypocrisy. I suspect (again, can't say for sure) that the belief that Catholics can do whatever they want then just use the confessional to excuse it away, then repeat the same behavior, is more a belief of non-Catholics, not Catholics themselves. Now, I'm not saying their aren't lots of people who do just that- just I don't think it's exactly smiled upon by other Catholics who actually take their religion seriously.

I'm curious, do catholics even believe that child molesters should be forgiven at confessional, regardless of their position?

I don't think the beliefs of Catholics regarding being 'forgiven' at confessional has a thing to do with the definition of hypocrisy. I think that Christians in general believe in the idea of being forgiven for sins, but I don't think that precludes any belief that there's no such thing as earthly punishment for committing crimes either. I know of nothing in Christianity that says one can't be a hypocrite, and also be 'forgiven' for sins.

I thought there was a statistic in this thread that while he was above the national average, he was right in the middle of properties in his county.

Gore believes in GLOBAL warming, not just IN MY COUNTY warming.

He's preaching carbon offsets!

It's already been pointed out to you several times that Gore is NOT just preaching carbon offsets. That's where your whole non-argument falls totally on its ass. Talk about being partisan. You're simply making up Gore's side of the argument in order to float him an excuse for being a hypocrite.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm not familiar with his talk or anything, all I know is what's on his website. And what's on his website clearly says "besides doing that other stuff, you can do [b]even more[/i] by going "carbon neutral."" That tells me his position must be that "carbon neutrality" is more important than conserving, as far as your personal habits go. It suggests that conserving is another alternative for people who don't feel like paying as much as their existing habits would obligate, should they choose to drink the kool-aid.

Now like I said, I'm not familiar with his position. If you can show a place where he said conserving is more important than going "carbon neutral," I'd change my mind.

[Macrobat]

Easy. Look at the video from the Oscars when Melissa Ethridge was singing the theme song for his movie and the GoreMantra was flashing up on the screen behind her, or - if you can stomach it - go see "An Inconvenient Truth."

Kind of funny you would argue in his favor for pages and not be aware of his position - kneejerk, anyone?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Easy. Look at the video from the Oscars when Melissa Ethridge was singing the theme song for his movie and the GoreMantra was flashing up on the screen behind her, or - if you can stomach it - go see "An Inconvenient Truth."

I didn't watch the oscars, and I find award shows where celebrities congratulate themselves all night far less palatable than Gore's movie (which I did watch). Does anyone remember the line from The Critic where that farmer was complaining about "award shows where award shows win awards?" Anyway...
Care to just tell me what that "mantra" was?

Inconvenient Truth as I remember it was annoyingly focused on demonstrating that there is a problem, not on saying what the solution was supposed to be. This trend from all climate change agitators was the main reason I argued against them for dozens of pages here (e.g.). So what is it that you remember about it?

Kind of funny you would argue in his favor for pages and not be aware of his position - kneejerk, anyone?

...Says the guy who argued for pages against carbon offsets without even knowing what they are.

[Macrobat]

BS - I Please point out ANYTHING that proves I didn't know what carbon offsets "are" - I simply pointed out the fact they have the same believability as unicorns. Your attempt to make a point fell (predictably) on its face, once again, since you lied.

Sorry, you're full of it.

I (and every single other person arguing with you) have been telling you for pages what the mantra was, while you stick your head firmly in the sand and attempt to argue about something you have self-admitted you know NOTHING about.

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Transcript Of A Q&A With Director Davis Guggenheim!! -- Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.