[OldManMac]

Ah, yes, the Dredge the Bottom Report. Big deal. Gore will deal with Dingell just fine. Gore's forgotten more about global warming than Dingell ever knew in the first place. Besides, this is all just showmanship on Dingell's part. Nothing serious is going to get resolved in a 30 minute meeting, other than to show his constituents that he's "doing something."

It's interesting how Dredge always sensationalizes things. "Developing.......blah, blah, blah,........more later,...........blah, blah, blah, . It's a typical sensationalism site that manages quite nicely to hook some in, as it's easier to listen to others than it is to do some research and reach one's own conclusions.

[OldManMac]

It's always easier to call people names, isn't it?

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/storie...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Zoning Rules Thwart Gore's Solar Dreams

By ERIK SCHELZIG
Associated Press Writer

BELLE MEADE, Tenn. (AP) -- Zoning rules in Al Gore's upscale Tennessee neighborhood have prevented the former vice president and environmental activist from installing solar panels on his roof.

Gore bought his multimillion dollar home in 2002 in Belle Meade, an exclusive city encircled by metropolitan Nashville, and he has embarked on an ambitious renovation. But his contractors ran into a legal barrier last summer when they sought to apply for a permit to install solar panels on the roof.

Terry Franklin, Belle Meade's building officer, said the town only allows power generating equipment to be placed on the ground level. "Solar panels are generators," Franklin said.

"We told them they couldn't do it," he said. "They wanted to try anyway, but we convinced them it was something the board wouldn't allow."

A conservative group that disputes the findings about global warming criticized Gore last month, complaining that his home uses too much electricity.

Belle Meade, the nation's fifth-richest town according to the 2000 Census, developed the zoning rules because many of its homes have backup electric generators. The area has several tall trees and residents have discouraged Nashville Electric Service crews from pruning those near power lines. Power outages from falling branches have forced several residents to purchase backup generators.

Gore's contractors had argued that silent solar panels should not be equated with noisy gas- or diesel-powered generators, but they ultimately agreed not to press the issue while the city considered changes to the code.

New rules on April 1 will allow homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs. But there's a caveat: "Solar panels may be installed upon the roof of a building so long as they are not visible from the street or from any adjoining property," according to the ordinance.

Gore's roof does have flat areas where the panels could be placed, Franklin said.

The builders at Gore's home plan to make the application for solar panels once the new ordinance goes into effect.

"We just sort of had to wait until they caught up with things," said Steve Rick, Gore's architect. "I didn't think it was worth fighting because we knew the change was coming."

Gore, who starred in the documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" about global warming, has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008 although he repeatedly has said he has no plans to join the race.

[itistoday]

That's what happens when you don't research what the other side has to say.

[besson3c]

I still believe that it is completely and utterly counter-productive to shoot the messenger and disregard the message.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

When a huge part of "the message" is blatant hypocrisy, of course "the messenger" can be disregarded.

Funny how I see people saying that respect for an office or someone's standing must be earned (usually when it comes to Bush)- and actually, that sentiment is correct. But here, we're just supposed to take the word of a shameless partisan who considers an opposing viewpoint "balance as bias" merely because he says so.

Riiiiight.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Was that an admission that you're wrong?

greg

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Was that an admission that you're wrong?

No, but thanks for what was pretty much a textbook example of purposefully misinterpreting something in order to reach a desired conclusion.

[Buckaroo]

GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

WASHINGTON, DC – Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

When a huge part of "the message" is blatant hypocrisy, of course "the messenger" can be disregarded.

Why? Why aren't we capable of judging the message on its merits alone rather than putting the messenger under a microscope? Sure, it makes the person's point stronger to practice what they preach, but it doesn't falsify their message if they are not living examples of it.

What about Christians that turn out to be into little boys? Does this mean that anything they've ever said about God is completely false?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why? Why aren't we capable of judging the message on its merits alone rather than putting the messenger under a microscope? Sure, it makes the person's point stronger to practice what they preach, but it doesn't falsify their message if they are not living examples of it.

YOU are free to judge his message however you want.
I'M free to do the same, and free to point out his being a hypocrite.

What about Christians that turn out to be into little boys? Does this mean that anything they've ever said about God is completely false?

That's actually a perfect example of EXACTLY the person anyone sane wouldn't trust their kids with, NOR seek religious advice from.

Emphatically, NO, I wouldn't trust a single shred of anything that such a person claims to know, or says about God, when clearly that person living by their own belief system, thinks it's okay to mess with little boys.

[besson3c]

There is a difference between an incident like this making an individual such as this less of an authority versus literally making what they say false.

If this person said that God is a loving God that does great things (or *insert any other standard Christian sentiment*), would this be false?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is a difference between an incident like this making an individual such as this less of an authority versus literally making what they say false.

If this person said that God is a loving God that does great things (or *insert any other standard Christian sentiment*), would this be false?

Your argument’s a bit strange. You’re asking a theological question that relies almost entirely on individual interpretation.

Even so, the logic doesn’t jibe.

The more direct correlation would be: do I trust a person who molests kids, to be a childcare authority? Do I want that person as a self-appointed dictator of policy on the care of children?

You see, THAT in this equation would be the issue, not the person’s theological beliefs, or whether whatever they say about any other subject is ever correct or not.

My answer of course would be: of course not. This person has no business what-so-ever dictating policy on childcare, and that is, even IF everyone else really needed to be dictated to by self-anointed blowhards on that or any other subject. (The answer to that, is also no.)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No, but thanks for what was pretty much a textbook example of purposefully misinterpreting something in order to reach a desired conclusion.

I wasn't misinterpreting. I was sarcastically pointing out that all your talk about Gore's hypocrisy seems to be slightly misguided.

The more direct correlation would be: do I trust a person who molests kids, to be a childcare authority? Do I want that person as a self-appointed dictator of policy on the care of children?

Doesn't make sense, and it isn't the argument. This thread is about Gore being a "convenient liar" and the "master of hyprocrisy." He isn't a dictator of policy on global warming, or a global warming authority the last time I checked (however much he uses his popular public image as such).

This thread attacks Gore's message by attacking Gore, the man. And let's face it, his message doesn't suffer from such an attack.

GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE

Ridiculous. So now Gore has to sell off his houses and his personal property in order to try and use as much energy as the average $40k-a-year American? So he can't take more than 2 flights a year I suppose?! So. incredibly. stupid.

greg

[besson3c]

Or, you could look at exactly what is said, and decide for yourself whether it is factually sound.

A great many heretics were right, but vilified at the time of them making a claim. Galileo is an example...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I wasn't misinterpreting. I was sarcastically pointing out that all your talk about Gore's hypocrisy seems to be slightly misguided.

Gore's a hypocrite. He doesn't practice what he preaches. Your supporting him doesn't change that. Sorry it's so personal for you.

Doesn't make sense, and it isn't the argument.

Follow more closely. Besson asked me if a person being a pedophile was reason enough to discredit them on everything they ever said about religion. I pointed out that in regard to this argument, it's apples and oranges. A person being a pedophile IS reason enough to discredit them on matters of childcare. (See, those things are directly related.)

You may as well ask, does gore being a hypocrite on the environment mean everything he's ever said about God isn't true? Who cares. We're not talking about his religious beliefs, we're talking about his environmental hypocrisy. (Well, actually, they may in fact be the same thing). So on subject, no, he has no automatic right to be taken seriously on that issue.

This thread is about Gore being a "convenient liar" and the "master of hyprocrisy."

Titles he seems to have earned.

He isn't a dictator of policy on global warming, or a global warming authority the last time I checked (however much he uses his popular public image as such).

Absolutely, and for that and MANY other reasons, his opinions on the environment count about as much as Ken Lay's on how to run a legitimate business.

This thread attacks Gore's message by attacking Gore, the man.

So what. Neither is above being called out for what it really is.

So now Gore has to sell off his houses and his personal property in order to try and use as much energy as the average $40k-a-year American? So he can't take more than 2 flights a year I suppose?! So. incredibly. stupid.

Ohhh the horror! eGore being challenged to actually lead by example, and put his money where his fat mouth is, rather than just dictate to everyone else. He's the one running around preaching gloom and doom and the end of the world (crowned by that spectacular bit of downright shameful fear-mongering and ranting today before congress).

Yes, Virginia, its up to him to lead by example if he's so committed to his fire and brimstone cause. Meanwhile, it's not on anyone else to take anything he has to sell with anymore weight than they give a friggen late night snakeoil infomercial. If that's just "boooooo hoooooo" too much for eGore to live up to, then tough.

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Ohhh the horror! eGore being challenged to actually lead by example, and put his money where his fat mouth is, rather than just dictate to everyone else. He's the one running around preaching gloom and doom and the end of the world (crowned by that spectacular bit of downright shameful fear-mongering and ranting today before congress).

eGore and his fat mouth? Yeah.

I think Gore challenged Congress to act on global warming.

Here's a great quote from Inhofe:

In closing, I will simply say that I find it ironic that the liberals are so openly crafting programs to directly benefit powerful corporations and interest groups at the expense of the poor, elderly and working class.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Why do you lie about what I did?

Sorry I caught you on it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

eGore and his fat mouth? Yeah.

I think Gore challenged Congress to act on global warming.

Good example of his fat mouth. No one elected him to challenge congress to do squat, and certainly not to dictate diddly-squat to the American public.

Here's a great quote from Inhofe:

Sounds about right. And his challenge to eGore stands.

[tie]

Talking to Congress when invited gives him a "fat mouth"? Yeah.

He isn't dictating anything, but is trying to present the science. Good for him -- it's an important issue which the oil companies and corrupt politicians have been too successful at suppressing.

When Inhofe was committee chair, he invited (fat mouth) novelist Michael Crichton to testify on the science.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

Talking to Congress when invited gives him a "fat mouth"? Yeah.

No, challenging Congress or anyone else to take up his pet cause when even he doesn't live by his own example gives him a fat mouth. Do try and focus, as hard as it may be for you.

corrupt politicians

...and that's just what we need to "challenge" corrupt politicians- another corrupt politician!

When Inhofe was committee chair, he invited (fat mouth) novelist Michael Crichton to testify on the science.

He sounds about as qualified as eGore, probably more so. Oh but wait, you should accept whatever he has to say on the subject, because how dare you attack the messenger!

Classic!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

He sounds about as qualified as eGore, probably more so. Oh but wait, you should accept whatever he has to say on the subject, because how dare you attack the messenger!

Are you familiar with the story of Galileo? I"m guessing not, or else you might not be continuing in this vein.

He claimed that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than vice versa. The church thought this was absolute heresy since the bible said otherwise and condemned him to the point where they literally forced him to come out and say he was wrong. About 400 years later, the church issued a public apology to him, posthumously.

Regardless of the skeletons in Gore's closet, the real question of importance is whether he is wrong or right, not how clean his nose is. He'll be dead before too long anyway. Besides, he is far from the only one making these claims, do you intend to put everybody under some sort of microscope before you believe a word of this? How counter-productive....

I'm assuming you are carrying on like this because you wish for him to be wrong?

[besson3c]

Crash, how DO you account for every other scientist that has been saying the same things as Gore? Are they all hypocrites too? Have you scrutinized each of them?

I hope you are starting to see the lack of productivity in doing what you are doing.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[QUOTE=CRASH HARDDRIVE;3333944]Gore's a hypocrite. He doesn't practice what he preaches. Your supporting him doesn't change that. Sorry it's so personal for you.[quote]
It's so personal for me? I don't support Gore. I support what he's preaching, though.

You may as well ask, does gore being a hypocrite on the environment mean everything he's ever said about God isn't true? Who cares. We're not talking about his religious beliefs, we're talking about his environmental hypocrisy. (Well, actually, they may in fact be the same thing). So on subject, no, he has no automatic right to be taken seriously on that issue.

I still have no idea where we're getting the "Gore is a hypocrite" thing. Everything in this thread indicates that he uses less energy than other people in his "class," and is working actively to reduce that further.

Ohhh the horror! eGore being challenged to actually lead by example, and put his money where his fat mouth is,

When did you guys become socialist?! Rich people have to give away all their money and land and live like "average" Americans and all that? It's caused the downfall of your society and your politics already, you know.

[besson3c]

Moncton;

If you defend Gore's energy usage, people like Crash are just going to want to pick him apart even further. To me, this is just a waste of time, and probably exactly what Crash had hoped for.

The bottom line is that:

1) Gore is right
2) There are a number of other scientists with the same message as Gore. If Gore really really bothers you that much and you simply can't move past this, listen to somebody else
3) The bottom line remains: we need to do something about this problem
4) Gore is offering some solutions, which are in the end more productive than trying to put his life under a microscope

[Orion27]

I still have no idea where we're getting the "Gore is a hypocrite" thing. Everything in this thread indicates that he uses less energy than other people in his "class," and is working actively to reduce that further.

Amazing, so Gore can tell the masses to string close line, ride a bike to work and turn the thermostat down in the winter, because as you say, he uses less energy than others in his class? I've got mine so now I'm closing the door whle still being the profligate I am because of my "class". Well, I might aspire to be a little upwardly mobile, but the door is now closed? Your insight must be perculiarly Canadian, but here in the United States, economic freedom, and upward mobility happens to be the hallmark of our success. I can assure you, as soon as Gore articulated his prerogative of class, which by the way I may share with you, there is not a snowball's chance in hell he be taken seriously. Prophet or no. And by the way, does that status afford him the right to pollute the streams and river caused by his zinc mine? http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/mining.html

So Shortcut, since when have you started to embrace government from the top down? Oh that's right,
aren't you still a colony of England, under a Sovereign Queen? How quaint.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Moncton;

If you defend Gore's energy usage, people like Crash are just going to want to pick him apart even further. To me, this is just a waste of time, and probably exactly what Crash had hoped for.

The bottom line is that:

1) Gore is right
2) There are a number of other scientists with the same message as Gore. If Gore really really bothers you that much and you simply can't move past this, listen to somebody else
3) The bottom line remains: we need to do something about this problem
4) Gore is offering some solutions, which are in the end more productive than trying to put his life under a microscope

Before you follow false prophets, try to do a little reading. It's all about modeling the major green house gas Water Vapor: You can start here at NASA: NASA satellite temperature measurements fuel Global Warming debate

Also, I think this may be directly related to your other thread on Science and Politics

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Also, I think this may be directly related to your other thread on Science and Politics

Yes and no... Sometimes science and politics are forced to intersect, but there is no intrinsic or implicit connection.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sorry I caught you on it.

You "caught" nothing, it flew right over your head, actually. Why don't you do a little research into where the quote came from, then feel free to feel far less smug about being so very wrong.

Also, a new article:

Truth About Global Warming Too Inconvenient for Gore

No less an entity than NASA blames the sun:

JPL.NASA.GOV: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records


And, Greg, the vast mountain of evidence supports exactly the opposite of your contention that Gore uses less energy than others in his "class." Rather, the evidence proves he uses far more, then cynically purchase "carbon offsets" from himself further excerbating his hypocrisy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Amazing, so Gore can tell the masses to string close line, ride a bike to work and turn the thermostat down in the winter, because as you say, he uses less energy than others in his class? I've got mine so now I'm closing the door whle still being the profligate I am because of my "class". Well, I might aspire to be a little upwardly mobile, but the door is now closed? Your insight must be perculiarly Canadian, but here in the United States, economic freedom, and upward mobility happens to be the hallmark of our success. I can assure you, as soon as Gore articulated his prerogative of class, which by the way I may share with you, there is not a snowball's chance in hell he be taken seriously. Prophet or no. And by the way, does that status afford him the right to pollute the streams and river caused by his zinc mine? The Real Al Gore on the Environment

So Shortcut, since when have you started to embrace government from the top down? Oh that's right,
aren't you still a colony of England, under a Sovereign Queen? How quaint.

*Sigh*

If you want to debate the scientific validity of Gore's arguments, that is one argument, and this should be discussed.

To say that everything Gore and several others are saying is false because of the alleged actions of Gore is just dumb, dumb, dumb... Sorry to be so blunt. You can ridicule Gore all you want, I don't really care, but you can't use this to discount what he is saying, particularly since he is far from the only one saying this.

If Einstein slept with hookers, would that falsify everything he said? No... just like Gore, it would tarnish his reputation and perhaps make it difficult to listen to him, but if he is right he is right. How about we just focus on whether or not he is right? Otherwise, this might as well just be a celebrity gossip thread.

If you guys want to keep on this, you are most welcome, I'll just stop paying attention to this thread. The cleanliness of Gore's nose is not a particularly interesting issue to me.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*Sigh*

If you want to debate the scientific validity of Gore's arguments, that is one argument, and this should be discussed.

To say that everything Gore and several others are saying is false because of the alleged actions of Gore is just dumb, dumb, dumb... Sorry to be so blunt. You can ridicule Gore all you want, I don't really care, but you can't use this to discount what he is saying, particularly since he is far from the only one saying this.

If Einstein slept with hookers, would that falsify everything he said? No... just like Gore, it would tarnish his reputation and perhaps make it difficult to listen to him, but if he is right he is right. How about we just focus on whether or not he is right? Otherwise, this might as well just be a celebrity gossip thread.

If you guys want to keep on this, you are most welcome, I'll just stop paying attention to this thread. The cleanliness of Gore's nose is not a particularly interesting issue to me.

First You don't even respond to your own threads. Second, I referenced the science with a link and paper
from NASA. Did you read it and not respond again?

Second, our friend from Alberta ( have you fled Moncton to the relatively laissez fair Alberta?) responded with an inane track on how given that Gore is royalty,and uses less energy than other royals and thus has a right to preach on high to the proletariate. I responded to his inanity. Now you can respond if you wish:
Did you read the NASA paper?
Do agree since Moncton says Gore uses less energy than others in his "class", he can ignore and distort the science and politicize the debate and by dint of his exalted status preach about how the rest of us should live our lives?

[besson3c]

I haven't read the paper yet, nor am I arguing about the science itself, merely the act of dissecting the messenger, whomever that happens to be, in general...

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I haven't read the paper yet, nor am I arguing about the science itself, merely the act of dissecting the messenger, whomever that happens to be, in general...

Don't feel bad, most here probably haven't read the science either. That doesn't seem to disqualify them from the debate though. So how do you propose then, not having read the science, to render an informed opinion on Al Gore's "end of the world as we know it" scenario? And please don't tell me you saw the Oscar winning movie that explained everything.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Don't feel bad, most here probably haven't read the science either. That doesn't seem to disqualify them from the debate though. So how do you propose then, not having read the science, to render an informed opinion on Al Gore's "end of the world as we know it" scenario? And please don't tell me you saw the Oscar winning movie that explained everything.

Me personally? I'm not a qualified scientist, so I have no clue what to think really... I've decided to go with the consensus, according to the global U.N. counsel.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You "caught" nothing, it flew right over your head, actually. Why don't you do a little research into where the quote came from, then feel free to feel far less smug about being so very wrong.
...
And, Greg, the vast mountain of evidence supports exactly the opposite of your contention that Gore uses less energy than others in his "class." Rather, the evidence proves he uses far more, then cynically purchase "carbon offsets" from himself further excerbating his hypocrisy.

Why should I do research as to where the quote came from? It didn't come from where you said it did.

Gore doesn't buy carbon offsets from himself. Where did you read that, the Drudge? I remember there was a thread on that not too long ago, and it turned out to be wrong. Perhaps you missed Drudge's correction. I still have seen no evidence for Gore's "hypocrisy."

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why should I do research as to where the quote came from? It didn't come from where you said it did.

Gore doesn't buy carbon offsets from himself. Where did you read that, the Drudge? I remember there was a thread on that not too long ago, and it turned out to be wrong. Perhaps you missed Drudge's correction. I still have seen no evidence for Gore's "hypocrisy."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...58075474834657

http://billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

...as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore's spokesperson said Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said...
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

[tie]

It turned out in the one of the other threads that this story was in error. Of course, this is the thread that survived. Maybe run a search? I never understood why we had a half-dozen threads on Gore anyway.

Edit: Here it is: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...y/#post3316474

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

It turned out in the one of the other threads that this story was in error. Of course, this is the thread that survived. Maybe run a search? I never understood why we had a half-dozen threads on Gore anyway.

Edit: Here it is: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...y/#post3316474

I went back to it myself and it wasn't the link I posted. Don't know what happened.

Look Here: Investor's Business Daily

BillHobbs.com - "News Offsets" from Nashville.

[tie]

That's not new information, is it? I looked at the second link and it seemed to be reading off the same talking points. The first link is dead.

As far as I know, Gore is buying offsets through his company, not from his company. None of your sources contradict this, as they are all just repeating themselves. I don't see any hypocrisy on Gore's part.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why should I do research as to where the quote came from? It didn't come from where you said it did.

Gore doesn't buy carbon offsets from himself. Where did you read that, the Drudge? I remember there was a thread on that not too long ago, and it turned out to be wrong. Perhaps you missed Drudge's correction. I still have seen no evidence for Gore's "hypocrisy."

"He" (actually Paramount Classics, the producers of his film buy them) buys his carbon offsets from a venture-capital investment company that he co-founded, or didn't you even bother reading the article this entire thread is about? His offsets aren't even really offsets, rather they are STOCK purchases, which turn him a profit. He is even now in negotiations to reopen a zinc pit mine on his property, which is a notorious polluter.The Real Al Gore on the Environment
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe - USATODAY.com

Yeah, no hypocrisy from good-old green Al.

Get this, his HOA will not LET him install the much-touted solar panels, because his neighbors feel it would devalue their properties and there is an actual town ordinance AGAINST their installation. He KNEW this when he moved there, btw. The ordinance states that all generators and alternate power sources MUST be located below ground level and not visible from the street or anyone else's property. Guess what, more of the Gore-on's hypocrisy. He KNEW he couldn't install the solar panels, just paid lip-service to it.

ALL the evidence of Gore's hypocrisy will be ignored by you, as it is a side-effect of drinking the kool-aid.

And yes, the quote I used came PRECEISELY from where I said it did, with people HERE in the RDU area using the race card, ignoring evidence and accepting rumor as fact in the Duke Lacrosse case. It was coined by the News and Observer to describe the "false but accurate" nature of the nuancing of the case by those who wished to make it a new racial thing. Just because you are desperate to come up with some sort of "gotcha" you simply IGNORe what I posted and argue in the dir3ection you wish I had used the quote.

Just a recap - I used the "wrong but accurate" in quotation marks to describe your argument - that plain enough English for you?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

"He" (actually Paramount Classics, the producers of his film buy them) buys his carbon offsets from a venture-capital investment company that he co-founded, or didn't you even bother reading the article this entire thread is about? His offsets aren't even really offsets, rather they are STOCK purchases, which turn him a profit.

As I said, I thought the original article had been shown wrong, and that he buys his offsets through his company not from it. Do you have supporting evidence? As far as I can tell, the subsequent articles have all simply repeated the original assertion. See for example Orion27's links.

Just a recap - I used the "wrong but accurate" in quotation marks to describe your argument - that plain enough English for you?

You are talking about a different quote -- why would I care about "wrong but accurate" in quotation marks? I was talking about your "money quote" which you apparently fabricated and then later edited your post to delete. Then you had the nerve to write, "You 'caught' nothing, it flew right over your head, actually. Why don't you do a little research into where the quote came from, then feel free to feel far less smug about being so very wrong." Feel free to edit that post, too.

What does zinc have to do with global warming? I miss the connection.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

So Shortcut, since when have you started to embrace government from the top down? Oh that's right,
aren't you still a colony of England, under a Sovereign Queen? How quaint.

Nope.

America has a long and proud history of "ruling elite." In the past 40 years it has just chosen to pretend otherwise, that's all. There are many effective arguments that blame America's political-life and public-life downward spiral on the fall of that elite class since the "power to the people" democratic revolution of the 1960s.

I see nothing wrong with recognizing the reality of an American aristocracy, or professional elite. Through most of modern history, it was that class that had a strong sense of public duty, that was expected to do the right thing not only for themselves but for those around them as well. It was a class that was educated at the most expensive boarding schools, where near-spartan living conditions were supposed to teach them the values of good morals, a strong upbringing, and to be "good and useful." Try to ignore your British background all you want, but it comes straight from the English gentry – public service without pay was expected for a time amongst George Washington's Virginia landed elite, whether it be as local militia commanders, justices of the peace, etc. What, you think it was mere coincidence or a revolutionary idea that he returned to his farm after two terms in office?? You can look at Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Benjamin Harrison, or the Roosevelts if you want more examples.

You think there isn't a coincidence in the difference between today's legal environment, and Elihu Root's early-twentieth-century-statement "half the practice of a decent lawyer consists of telling his client he's a damned fool and should stop"? Welcome to "power to the people" democracy, baby.

You want a good quote?

We have freed our upper classes of any sense of responsibility and they have happily reciprocated. In modern discourse they are just like any of us, regular folk. We behave as if society is so democratic and so dynamic that it doesn't actually have a governing elite. But it does. The rich and the powerful will always be with us. We can only ask that they recognize that with their privileges come responsibilities. Social conventions, professional associations, moral strictures, prep schools, the gentleman's code – all were attempts to civilize the strong. In the past, American society expected these men and women to behave themselves and in some way participate in the public life of the land.

[Greg's Note: regarding the movie Titanic, where the first-class male passengers take up lifeboat room, and real life, where they put the women and children in instead and proudly drowned]
Near East Potomac Park in Washington, D.C., stands a haunting monument, a statue of a man with arms outstretched, Christ-like, with an inscription on its pedestal: "To the brave men of the Titanic, who gave their lives that women and children might be saved." It was erected by voluntary donations from 25,000 women across the United States. When leaders of society lived up to their ideals they were honored. When they did not it was a matter of deep disappointment. Today, by contrast, we expect very little of those in positions of power, and they rarely disappoint us.

In any case, it's kinda irrelevant to this thread. But I for one don't have any problem admitting that Al Gore will always have a different "status" than I. I think this gives him (and his ilk) a standard to uphold. I don't think this thread has proven either way whether that standard is being met.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Before you follow false prophets, try to do a little reading. It's all about modeling the major green house gas Water Vapor: You can start here at NASA: NASA satellite temperature measurements fuel Global Warming debate

*snort*

Perhaps you failed to note that your "little reading" is from 1997, and some of the information presented is from the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment?

You might want to try reading, you know, the Fourth Assessment. You know, that new one? It might update your information just a little.



greg

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I still have no idea where we're getting the "Gore is a hypocrite" thing. Everything in this thread indicates that he uses less energy than other people in his "class," and is working actively to reduce that further.

LOL! You folks just keep coming up with excuses! First it was the carbon offset nonsense, now it's "...in his class!"

What's next? The dog ate his homework?

Even Bush uses less energy than eGore, and yet Bush isn't the one marching around pretending the world is coming to an end. He's probably in the same or well beyond whatever 'class' eGore is in.

I notice there's ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, without fail a list of excuses that keep you 'believers' from ever practicing what you preach. I've said it before, and it always holds true: the loudest, most rabid envio-blowhards -like Gore- and the sanctimonious loudmouths that blindly follow them, are generally the LAST people that actually take care of the environment themselves. They've ALWAYS got a bunch of excuses and dodges to let themselves out, and yet are ALWAYS preaching endlessly about what everyone else has to do to save them from their little fire and brimstone doomsday scenario.

When did you guys become socialist?! Rich people have to give away all their money and land and live like "average" Americans and all that?

When they preach doomsday nonsense and advocate for everyone else to do things they are unwilling to do themselves, absolutely. As I said before, if this is too BOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOO *sniffle* much for the likes of eGore to live up to, then he can STFU about what he thinks everyone else needs to do. The same goes for his loudmouth followers as well.

It's caused the downfall of your society and your politics already, you know.

That made no sense.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you familiar with the story of Galileo? I"m guessing not, or else you might not be continuing in this vein.

Comparing eGore to Galileo! HAHAHAHA!!

That's an absolutely ass-backward comparison without a leg to stand on. First off, (I mean, where do you even start with such a dippy comparison?) Gore's no scientist. He has no true qualifications at all. He doesn't even quote the science he tries to spew accurately- hense glaring fear-mongering like claiming sea level rises of 20 feet when no one else claims anything close.

Also, Gore's trying to claim the consensus- he's trying to be the mainstream and shut everyone else up. He'd be one of the ones holding himself up as some all-knowing deity, and insisting that not only is the world flat, but that everyone is going to die unless they bow down to his whims. He'd be the one trying to SHUT DOWN people like Galileo and anyone else for having an opposing viewpoint that's outside his shoved-down-everyone-else's-throat 'consensus'. The "bias of balance" as he puts it.

It just amazes me the absolute worship of useless politicians who really have no credentials that some people have, to even make such a comparison as this. It's just weird, but illustrates the cult of celebrity pretty clearly.

[besson3c]

Good luck Greg, I don't see this conversation going very much further

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Even Bush uses less energy than eGore, and yet Bush isn't the one marching around pretending the world is coming to an end. He's probably in the same or well beyond whatever 'class' eGore is in.

But does Bush offset his emissions? It is his carbon emissions which matter, not his energy usage.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't get the "eGore" thing. What's it supposed to mean?

Edit: a family friend went to Gore's estate to some seminar about how to give talks presenting the science of climate change (or something). If Gore is using his estate as a base of operations for fighting climate change, you can't very well blame him for using more energy at his than people who just eat and sleep in theirs. Just sayin.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

But does Bush offset his emissions? It is his carbon emissions which matter, not his energy usage.

Boy did someone really fall hook, line, and sinker for that one!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

you can't very well blame him for using more energy....

What was I just saying about their ALWAYS being an excuse? ALWAYS!

Simply amazing.

Yeah, we know. The dog ate eGore's homework.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't get the "eGore" thing. What's it supposed to mean?

Crash just likes to call people names. He's a big fat mouth.

Edit: a family friend went to Gore's estate to some seminar about how to give talks presenting the science of climate change (or something). If Gore is using his estate as a base of operations for fighting climate change, you can't very well blame him for using more energy at his than people who just eat and sleep in theirs. Just sayin.

And he offsets his carbon emissions. The man's a saint.