Al Gore is a self-loathing hack...

dcwrestlefan

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Posts
1,215
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
you've been watching fox news way too much.

al gore is alot of things, but he is not responsible for thousands of people being killed in a war based on lies and misinformation. it will pay negative dividends for years to come.

you can argue with the exact figures, but one thing is well known if you know anything about atmospheric chemistry. carbon dioxide retards the amount of infrared radiation being returned to space - this is how the earth cools. a professor of mine years ago disputed the global warming theory by saying a warming planet creates more clouds because evaporation is increased, so the heating would be mitigated. i can buy that, but its just a theory by one man.

all in all, i'd rather us fuck with the planet less than we do. its better for everyone that way except maybe exxon and toyota etc. the technology exists for us to be less filthy; they could make money on it, but corporations are not inclined to do anything that won't instantly line their pockets with $$$$$$, and the current administration certainly isn't going to provide
incentives for it. they don't give a damn. neither do most americans because we are selfish and stupid when it comes to the environment and other people. not to worry. most of us won't live to see the end result.

shelby, i love the way people are re-writing history about reagan. he had a big hand in running our deficit through the roof and did nothing about AIDS until 30000 americans were dead. and then there is iran/contra. "i didn't know". bullshit. remember nancy whispering in his ear the answer to a reporter's question because he was clueless? a great president? not at all.

signed, a sleepy minion.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
COLJohn said:
I have an ongoing debate with a conservative friend who is convinced that the warming is real but part of a natural cycle despite all the evidence to the contrary. There are enough people convinced that the problem isn't nearly as severe as it is to allow it to go unchecked.
the most amazing contribution to this "debate" i've heard was some senator from a pigfucker state announcing, on live international tv, that there couldn't be "any way that god is just gonna let the earth burn up!"

the fact that such a serious issue as global warming can be reduced to a political buzz-point is a sickening demonstration of how politics - and especially the politics of fear and greed - has gained too much leverage over the real world, in which politics has no use or relevance.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
134
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
dcwrestlefan said:
HAHAHAHAHAHA. do i have permission to use this expression in the future? love it.

with my blessing.... Great post by the way.

Dr. Rock sums it up to such a degree that it brings any real 'debate' as he calls it to a screeching halt.

Thanks Doc :wink: I admire often your powers of objective discernment.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Articles in popular journals and discussions like this in forums are interesting, but none of them are science. On complicated issues like this, you will find all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas weighing in with different opinions.

But at some point, it goes beyond opinion. When the weight of evidence is high enough, the major scientific institutions form a consensus. These institutions come from all kinds of areas, such as the government (e. g. National Research Council), universities, and research institutes.

On this issue, the major scientific institutions in the industrialized nations as well as the developing nations have issued a consensus that global warming is an imminent threat to life on the planet, with the major cause being the staggering output of greenhouse gasses due to human industrialization.

The US's own Climate Change Science Program, commissioned by the current administration, is the latest to weigh in with a definite statement.

When scientific institutions all over the world, coming from so many different economic and political agendas agree on something like this, such that they issue definitive statements and introduce major legislative changes in their own countries, you have to conclude that this is a global consensus.

Its either a true consensus, or its a global conspiracy of scientists from all around the world, who meet in a secret chatroom to fabricate their lies because they have nothing better to do. You start thinking this, and its time to start wearing your tin-foil covered hats.
 

brainzz_n_dong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
226
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
Funny...there is so much talk these days about all that Bush is doing to either, supposedly, violate the Constitution or do end-runs around Congress (or both), I guess it's been forgotten that Kyoto was begat, essentially, by Clinton doing an end-run around the Senate in 1997. Kyoto wasn't the first thing out of FaceKing's cut and paste, but it is the template that much of this is argued on by those sympathetic to Gore's 'vision'.

Anyway...the Senate is pretty proud of that 'consent' and 'advice' role in all treaty matters afforded it by the Constitution. Typically, the executive branch does not 'consult' until the treaty matter is completed, though. When Congress had a global warming convention before it in the early 90's, it was agreed then by the Bush I Admin that any instrument entered into by that or any future President that set targets and timetables for emissions inside the U.S. would have to receive advice and consent from the Senate before proceeding.

With Kyoto "brewing" in mid 1997, the Senate passed a resolution, 95-0, sponsored by Robert Byrd and Chuck Hagel, that directed President Clinton NOT to sign an agreement that would (1) cause serious harm to the U.S. economy or (2) that did not include all countries that were 'parties to the convention'.

What happened? Gore went to Kyoto and instructed the U.S. delegation to "show increased flexibility". A few hours later the Kyoto Protocol was born and signed within a year by the Clinton Admin. What did this agreement mean? Well, the treaty provisions to reduce greenhouse gases applied to ONLY the United States and other developed countries - not now or in the future, to countries like Brazil, India, South Korea, and China. Gee, why is that? Is it because that the steps necessary to either come down to Kyoto levels, or make sure you never get there, are such that they are economy-destroying?

It also meant that U.S. gasoline prices would increase, permanently, by no less than 70 cents per gallon and that "pad" would increase over time. Gee, that was done when prices were about $1.15 a gallon. That "70 cents" piece of info comes not from Rush Limbaugh, but rather the Energy Information Agency under Clinton.

It would also, according to independent economic studies, knock several MILLION jobs out of the U.S. economy. And, it excluded 130 countries and a vast majority of the world's population from its provisions. Hmm, all of that does seem to violate the resolution sponsored by Byrd and Hagel and passed 95-0 juuuust a little bit.

Any even-handed model for climate change definitely will have to show the unbiased effect of mankind inside the model. Doing research like that allows scientists to report that carbon dioxide levels have gone from 280 to 387 parts/million by volume since the 1800's. However, if you isolate that lone fact, it can't account for what warming has taken place.

To me, that means there is a "rest of the story" lurking out there. To the Al Gore's of the world it means the debate is over and the U.S. needs to be punished as, of course, we're responsible for everything.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
"Drive by shitting". Thats priceless. You can tell if its true when he doesn't come back to defend his statements.

His method is similar to what the anti-evolutionists use. Its based on the criminal trial principle that all you have to do to win an argument is create a reasonable doubt about the evidence. This doesn't mean a warranted doubt. It just means slinging as much bullshit against the wall on each point so that the laymen walk away thinking there is a real controversy. It only works when the laymen are the jury (such as they are when they are the voting public). This is why it always happens outside of peer reviewed scientific journals (with such action defended by the claim that the scientific community is dogmatic or conspiritorical).

Reasonable doubt is not a factor in scientific work. This is because any claim is always on trial and the jury never retires. If you don't want to participate in that rigorous activity then you are just a pathetic whiner and in some cases causing great harm to the world by spreading your influence of ignorance.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
ben11 said:
Gore’s the hack?? Let’s dig up who your source is.
Your post is a cut and paste from an article by Iain Murray that was in the National Review, the fine Journal that employed Steven Glass, who established the gold standard of journalistic fabricators. Murray is a "Senior Fellow" (aka hired gun) for CEI, a special interest group that represents business interests. He and others at CEI are paid to refute the findings of scientists, government agencies and to challenge legal decisions that are not favorable to their clients. Tobacco, alcohol and the auto industry are among the industries they have represented. Recently, they have been helping the auto industry keep mileage standards down by arguing that auto safety is compromised. I can assure that if the market continues to pressure Detroit to offer more fuel efficient cars CEI will be there doing the reverse argument that mandated safety features add to the cars weight and therefore affect their fuel standards.

This is a direct quote from Iain Murray in response to the controversy over syndicated columnists being paid to write favorable opinion-editorial (“op-ed”) pieces for a business or government agency (most times the conflict of interest is not disclosed). “An opinion piece—whether an individual op-ed or a column—exists to promote a point of view by argument. It does not seek to establish a fact, but to win people over to a particular viewpoint or opinion.”

Note that Murray clearly indicates that facts are not important, the opinion is. Talk about herding sheep!!

I've seen An Inconvenient Truth. I know there are positions Gore has taken that can be challenged. For example, global warming is only one reason for Kilimanjaro’s retreating snow, but it is a reason based on my research. Gore’s research is fact based and not a bunch of sound bites strung into an article by a hack like Iain Murray.

I thought Glass worked at the New Republic. and... as far as the gold standard for fabricators... I gotta give props to Jayson Blair, because I went to school with him. Centreville High School Bullshitters represent!!!
 

dcwrestlefan

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Posts
1,215
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Stronzo said:
with my blessing.... Great post by the way.

Dr. Rock sums it up to such a degree that it brings any real 'debate' as he calls it to a screeching halt.

Thanks Doc :wink: I admire often your powers of objective discernment.

continued debate is good, but i don't see anything wrong with being kinder to mother earth in the meantime. we don't have to produce filth and trash to the extent that we do. and americans are unmatched. except maybe china. the place seems to be turning into a cesspool in the name of economic progress while their citizens make 25 cents an hour making cheap clothes and walmart shit for us in the west. i blame both clinton and bush for this.

fact...the united states eats more gas per capita than any nation on earth.
we don't have to.

fact...this produces more co2 as a result.

its not hard to do something about this. and since we are the big boy on the planet these days, we can start the process.

not sure what the propaganda gas post was about by brainzz. but the 300 percent price increase we are experiencing now has little to do with the kyoto summit gore/clinton was involved in. we don't abide by anything proposed there to the best of my knowledge. typical republican response, when something bad is thrown at you, blame a democrat, whether it was 5, 10 or 30 years ago.

but yes, senator robert byrd is an ass.
 

brainzz_n_dong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
226
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
Sorry you mistook my post DC. I don't think it to be as propagandishly gassy as you do, but rather the farts of economic truth. Oh well...

No, luckily we DON'T abide by the Kyoto protocols. There is a difference between making our country more energy-efficient and cutting off its nose to spite its face ala Kyoto. In my post I was revisiting the last occasion that Al Gore had, when in government office, to put his stamp on the subject. What a stamp it was.

With him releasing a movie, popping up on tv screens everywhere talking about it, and quite possibly running for Prez again, it (being Kyoto) is worth revisiting as something he'd likely use as a template for how he'd approach "the problem" if he ever makes it back to elected office. I was rather praising the senate democrats (and republicans) from 1997 as they moved in lockstep and said that any treaties negotiated should not wage economic war upon this country and exempt the rest of the world.

If allll of that comes across as "blaming democrats"...
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
brainzz_n_dong said:
bunch of spoon-fed political pap
... none of which mental masturbation excuses the fact that right now, the US (alongside china and russia) is industriously engaged in punishfucking the environment for profit harder than ever. what the fuck is the point of agreeing to pollution regulations if you just "relax" them 5 years later? in some areas we're suddenly looking at levels of emissions that haven't been topped since the early 60s. and i don't give a fuck whose job is on the line - if we weren't so wilfully dependent on fossil fuels and "waste" industries, maybe those people would have jobs that didn't involve pumping toxic crud into the air, water and soil all the time. why the RUNNY BEAR SHIT are we still burning coal and oil in power stations in the year 2006??

and who really gives a crap about al gore? as far as i'm concerned, a politician in a serious debate is about as welcome as a turd in a footbath - and significantly less helpful.

Stronzo said:
Thanks Doc :wink: I admire often your powers of objective discernment.
yeah, me too
 

ben11

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Posts
80
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
153
NineInchCock_160IQ said:
I thought Glass worked at the New Republic. and... as far as the gold standard for fabricators... I gotta give props to Jayson Blair, because I went to school with him. Centreville High School Bullshitters represent!!!

You are absolutely right about Glass. My error.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
BnD, I see this as a good start. I understand your objection to the Kyoto treaty, but if WE are the worst offenders, it does the most good to hold OURSELVES accountable first.

Clearly, this shouldn't be a political issue, as what happens to the planet affects us all. I think the thing that gets me most incensed is the religous wingnuts who choose voluntary ignorance over science, believing bullshit like "God wouldn't let the planet burn up". Fuck you assholes- you have no right to sacrifice all of our futures based on your own stupidity.

Yeah, I know, evloution and gravity are just "theories" too.:rolleyes:
 

ledroit

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Posts
809
Media
1
Likes
58
Points
248
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
faceking said:
for all the mindless sheeply minions still hanging on...
....

Weak people attack other people, instead of attacking problems.

Take a look at the total carbon emissions produced by Texas, compared to the rest of US. Texas dwarfs even CA. So then take a look at the US, compared to the world. The US dwarfs everybody. Then take a look at China in 2030, compared to the US. China will match the US--but I think this is a conservative estimate.

And then, if you think there is anything in the world that gives you the right to attack Gore, or anybody else, instead of attacking this problem--well then I respectfully submit that you are not a man.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
We could start looking for solutions rather than slinging mud if we weren't so financially tied to the oil industry. Well not all of us, just the people making the decisions.:rolleyes:

There are companies making progress on this: http://www.biodiesel.com/
but we have better places to invest our money, like KILLING BROWN PEOPLE TO GET MORE OIL!!!!!!11111!!!11!

No, no- why would we want to actually try to solve a problem by investing money in it and setting timetables to have the auto industry produce vehicles to meet with the new specs whether they be electric, biofuel, or any clean air solution that would put us in a position to tell the middle east to fuck off? Hey, maybe, just maybe we could have farmers GROWING CROPS rather than being paid not to! But bush knows best, right? If he says we need to fight terrrrrrrrrrrrrrism, then he must be right.


Oh, I watched Meet the Press last night to see what those whacky libs were up to. That fucktard McConnell must have mentioned four or five times that "we haven't had a terrorist attack here in America since 9/11" as if that was proof that they were doing the right thing. Of course the stupid twat failed to mention that we never had one before 9/11 either. I really hate these asswipes.
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
brainzz_n_dong said:
With Kyoto "brewing" in mid 1997, the Senate passed a resolution, 95-0, sponsored by Robert Byrd and Chuck Hagel, that directed President Clinton NOT to sign an agreement that would (1) cause serious harm to the U.S. economy or (2) that did not include all countries that were 'parties to the convention'.

One of the greatest fallacies regarding Kyoto is the idea that any pollution controls would harm the US economy.

When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the US poured billions of dollars into science and was rewarded a hundred times over economically.

Many European countries are engaged in large scale alternative energy projects. Germany has become the world's leader in manufacturing wind generators, generating many millions of euros in exports every year. Japan's push for solar means that Japan is doing the same with solar panels.

Meanwhile, Detroit is unable to do anything to fight off the onslaught of Japanese and German cars that get exceptionally good mileage and are more in demand by Americans than ever before. If it weren't for the hundreds of thousands of Big 3 employees who are forced to drive a Detroit product, US car sales would plummet.

Progress is built upon the back of innovation, not retrenchment. Unfortunately, too many in big business today are scared to death that their profits might by impacted by innovation or alternative energy, when, in fact it's the only hope their children might have a job when they reach maturity.

You can blather on all you want about the right/left divide and Gore's sensationalism, but the fact is, the US is falling behind and will continue to do so if arm chair economists continue to spread lies about the "costs" of innovation.
 

brainzz_n_dong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
226
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
Chico8,

We just come at this from two different pov's. And, it's more than partisan blathering. I think you are being simplistic if you feel that implementation of something like Kyoto would be just another Monday morning to the U.S. economy.

About the auto industry, you ignore the fact that employees of a given company have employee pricing incentives that make it very appealing to buy one of their own versus another mfr's vehicle. Also, these are incentives. Yes, you will have peer pressure to buy one of your own, but I offer up my cousin near St. Louis as an example. He works for Chrysler at their Fenton plant. When he started that job, and for a good time after it, he drove a Ford truck. Nobody demanded he buy a Chrysler product on day 1 in order to work there or anything like that. He owns their products now, but I can't hardly blame him with what he can save.

Your statement Progress is built upon the back of innovation, not retrenchment grasps the truth but you put your faith in the wrong place to be looking for proof. We won't be saved by the U.S. government backing this or that alt fuel program ala Japan Inc. Bush II has already spent over $10 B on AF research and we have a rechristened program to push Ethanol, as a sop to corn farmers (of which members of my family make a living doing) on the American public to show for it. With a 51 cent per gallon subsidy. And it currently costs MORE than oil. And gets less mpg than oil and returns less power than oil. That's the kind of help government is good at.

If you want the spirit of Progress is built upon the back of innovation, not retrenchment, look at the venture capital market. With oil prices at the levels they've been at the past 18 months, there has been more $$$ spent by VC firms on alt fuel research than the previous 20 years combined. That is the marketplace's way of saying that 60-80 dollar oil makes us want something else. I'd rather bet my money on that research yielding results than another $100 billion by "bureaucrats-r-us" types in DC. Before you know it, they will develop an aparatus to attach to the asses of cattle, pigs, sheep, etc., to try and capture the essence of a fart and process that to run your car.
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
brainzz_n_dong said:
We just come at this from two different pov's. And, it's more than partisan blathering. I think you are being simplistic if you feel that implementation of something like Kyoto would be just another Monday morning to the U.S. economy.

About the auto industry, you ignore the fact that employees of a given company have employee pricing incentives that make it very appealing to buy one of their own versus another mfr's vehicle.

Your statement Progress is built upon the back of innovation, not retrenchment grasps the truth but you put your faith in the wrong place to be looking for proof. We won't be saved by the U.S. government backing this or that alt fuel program ala Japan Inc. Bush II has already spent over $10 B on AF research and we have a rechristened program to push Ethanol, as a sop to corn farmers (of which members of my family make a living doing) on the American public to show for it. With a 51 cent per gallon subsidy. And it currently costs MORE than oil. And gets less mpg than oil and returns less power than oil. That's the kind of help government is good at.

If you want the spirit of Progress is built upon the back of innovation, not retrenchment, look at the venture capital market. With oil prices at the levels they've been at the past 18 months, there has been more $$$ spent by VC firms on alt fuel research than the previous 20 years combined. That is the marketplace's way of saying that 60-80 dollar oil makes us want something else. I'd rather bet my money on that research yielding results than another $100 billion by "bureaucrats-r-us" types in DC. Before you know it, they will develop an aparatus to attach to the asses of cattle, pigs, sheep, etc., to try and capture the essence of a fart and process that to run your car.

Sure, incentives are appealing but you won't find the concentration of American vehicles that you do in the "heartland" anywhere else in the US. One only has to look at Detroit's plummeting sales to realize that the innovators lost out for lack of innovation.

Biodiesel and methanol are only stopgap measures and indeed are sops to the powerful farming lobby. My mom's acreage is rented out to a soybean farmer and none of it ends up as human or even cattle feed. The push for methanol and biodiesel will only drive up food costs in the US. Good for the farmers and maybe even the consumer as well, cheap, heavily subsidized food has led to the current rates of obesity in this country and devastated countries that don't subsidize their farmers.

The market only ever reacts and currently it is reacting to 3 things: Iraq (caused by US imperialism) the growth of China and India and the declining production of oil due to depletion. If the $500 billion that has been spent on Iraq had instead been poured into increased efficiency standards in cars, trucks and anything that consumes energy, it's highly likely that our dependence upon foreign oil would have plummeted. Our economy would gain by not having to borrow so heavily on world markets to buy oil from tinpot despots.

There's not much we can do about the growth in China and India and we're already starting to see stiff competition from China especially in the oil markets. It's a no win situation and our only hope is simply to get over our addiction to oil

The oil companies have too much invested in infrastructure and of course, their lobby in this regime is simply too powerful. Rather than look to the future and begin to invest in alternative energy, they're simply lobbying the govt for even more subsidies and tax breaks.

The market place never does anything unless it is primed in some way shape or form by the government. Anyone who would leave our future up to the oil companies, deserves all that would occur.