Al Gore is a self-loathing hack...

[findfirefox]

I say we all take mass transit and burn all cars!!!!!!!!

Mwhahahaha!

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

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.

I was wondering how long it would be before something like the words "oil lobby" and "regime" got thrown about.

Yes, if we'd spent the equivalent of $500 B on tougher CAFE regulations over 3 years, we would definitely have a much lower demand for oil. We'd likely have witnessed all the major car companies declare bankruptcy and completely shut down. There is nothing wrong with talking increased efficiency standards, for both autos and industry. But any changes there should be phased in slowly, not dropped like bricks from the sky if you value keeping the industries that will be affected by them viable. You support them for purely environmental reasons, I'd support a version of them for strategic reasons. Either way we might meet in the middle on that one.

What is over is the era of cheap, easily recoverable oil, NOT the era of oil itself. This country still has massive reserves if only we'd get over our haughtiness and develop them. Our coastal areas, the ANWR region of Alaska, and our lower 48 still have huge reserves, but all have been cordoned off by short-sighted politicians over time. Not to mention that we have utterly massive oil shale deposits in our Western states that could total in excess of a trillion barrels of oil that could be developed like Canada is doing to their tar sands deposits.

We have the world's largest economy. It is supported by coal, natural gas, and oil, and to a lesser extent nuclear. To pretend that an alt fuels miracle is going to occur and we'll all be able to shut the oil wells down two weeks from next Friday is simplistic. If the market is allowed to do its job, what will slowly happen is this technology or that process will be developed and as they are introduced and improved upon, we will have something that will legitimately contend with the oil/gas/coal/nuclear "table legs" that have been supporting us all this time.

In the meantime, there is absolutely nothing wrong with further enhancing what has gotten us this far, namely our oil producing capacity...for both economic and national security reasons. If any American enjoys shelling out billions upon billions to a bunch of crackpots in the Middle East and the fundamental Islamic crap they foment against the world I've yet to meet one. Furthermore, if you feel the US is only in the ME because of protecting the oil lanes, then developing our native supplies should be a priority of yours until the future (alt fuels) arrives. After all, if we could develop all the oil we'd need domestically or even hemispherically, then fewer of our men and women would come home with desert sand in their boots.

If you leave it up to the government to choose where and how to fund research that supposedly leads to the replacement of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power as the sources of energy in our country...the same government that isn't even ready for a Cat 4 hurricane this year...then you deserve all the blessings that would bestow upon you.

 

[Dr Rock]

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

well gravity must be bullshit, or else how do angels fly

RIDDLE ME THAT, DARWIN

Our coastal areas, the ANWR region of Alaska, and our lower 48 still have huge reserves, but all have been cordoned off by short-sighted politicians over time.

yeah, it's real short-sighted to make some attempt to protect our environment and wildlife from the waste-everything juggernaut of industrial exploitation

developing our native supplies should be a priority of yours until the future (alt fuels) arrives. After all, if we could develop all the oil we'd need domestically or even hemispherically, then fewer of our men and women would come home with desert sand in their boots.

gonna arrive on its own, is it? relying on the Magic of the Marketplace™ is a funny argument to hear from someone who's just accused others of being short-sighted and complacent.

 

[madame_zora]

rock is pretty smart.​

Yeah, he's just bored with us most of the time.

 

[madame_zora]

gonna arrive on its own, is it? relying on the Magic of the Marketplace™ is a funny argument to hear from someone who's just accused others of being short-sighted and complacent.

Any argument that sides against prioritising innovation and science must necessarily lead to fanaticism eventually. Every important thing we've learned about our world has been through science, so by this admin taking a stance against the scientific community, they are in fact against progress, intelligence and reality. Real news flash, eh?

 

[headbang8]

If you leave it up to the government to choose where and how to fund research that supposedly leads to the replacement of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power as the sources of energy in our country...the same government that isn't even ready for a Cat 4 hurricane this year...then you deserve all the blessings that would bestow upon you.

Dear Americans,

Fix your government. It's a democracy. Remember?

Sincerely,

HB8
American, and citizen of another country that actually kinda works.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

yeah, it's real short-sighted to make some attempt to protect our environment and wildlife from the waste-everything juggernaut of industrial exploitation


gonna arrive on its own, is it? relying on the Magic of the Marketplace™ is a funny argument to hear from someone who's just accused others of being short-sighted and complacent.

This 'wasteful industrial exploitation juggernaut' is what's given people the chance to have the ability to come to places like this and bitch about how evil big business is. Damn those industrial exploiters...

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help". If you think truer words have never been spoken, then more power to you.

________________________________

MZ: Arguing against the gov't attempting (no doubt badly) to lead us around by the nose and tell us what is best for us doesn't mean one is against science and innovation. We need more of it in this country and will probably have to, among other things, manipulate the tax code to make sure that happens. I know you have your list of grievances against Bush + the subject of science. I'm just narrowly arguing where we stand now on alt fuels versus where it might end up and the best way to get there: Big gov't or private industry. I just think that, with all its warts, private industry has the lesser FUBAR potential on something like this.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Our coastal areas, the ANWR region of Alaska, and our lower 48 still have huge reserves, but all have been cordoned off by short-sighted politicians over time.

Despoil game refuges or national parks so my neighbor can afford to drive her kids to soccer practice in her Hummer each day? I think not.

The 1970s oil embargo should have been a warning. We had 30 years to improve energy efficiency and alternative sources. Instead, we just built bigger cars.

What's short sighted is for the U.S. to continue consuming oil like there's no tommorrow while blithely assuming a market force "miracle" someday in the future will make up for decades of myopia, denial and poor energy planning by U.S. administrations.

 

[Freddie53]

A lot has been said here both pro and con Al Gore. Much of it is politically motivated. Some defending and some attacking purely on political grounds.

However, change is the one constant there is. And there can be lots of factors, some of which we control and some which we have no control over.

Ancient Mesopotamia was once a very vertile country producing all kinds of agricultural products. Ancient Mesopotamia is in Iraq. The soil was not fertilized properly, too much salt was allowed to enter the land from the irrigation ditches and mistakes made by the people thousands of years ago that didn't know the consequences of their farming techniques.

So now what was once a very beautiful land is now a barran desert. The once fertile dirt is sand. Climatic changes haven't been that great. So what when wrong, improper farming techniques is considered the culprit.

I learned this years ago in the study of ancient history. I don't have the sources that I learned then. I'm sure all of it can be documented without a problem.

There are many examples of human attempts to change or use the earth that have had disastrous consequences. In New Orleans, water was pumped out of the ground throught the well systems. And the dikes and levees have been placed all along the Mississippi River. Now the River is higher than the French quarters.

Of course the earth is always undergoing climatic change. Some of it has nothhing to do with humans use or non use of the earth. Yet to suggest that humans have had no effect on climate or on the topography of the earth is total nonsense.

And while we may not be able to stop the natural rise and fall of temperatures that occur of great lengths in time, we certainly can learn to adapt better and not do thiings that harm the earth that otherwise would not have happened.

The earth has great renewing capacity. As our human population increases the earth's capacity to regenerate is going to be compromised more and more. On any graph, there is a point where two things can merge. Certainly, there is a point where over use of the earth's resoruces, the failure to recycle things we use, and the failure to find alternate ways to provide for our standard of livng can and will have dire consequences to the point that the earth or a small section of it can have what in human terms is failure. Failure to be able to provide the necessary things we have to have to live.

This has happened over and over on a small scale in areas such as Ancient Mesopotamia. For all we know it has happened in the past in some great civilization thousands or millions of years ago.

More importantly, it might happen right now to this civliization.

I wish I had the scientific knowledge to know to really get into the current discussion and be able to speak with unquestioned authority on Al Gore's predictions. I can't. I don't have that great of a grasp on each individual situation.

But I do understand the gravity of the situation. I did study environmental sicence in college and learned what scientists of the early 70's were predicting then and were studyting then about the effects of over use of the earth's natural resources. I doubt that it has changed much since then.

Any ecosystem of the earth can become overburdened and fail. This is not a theory, this is fact.

While we discuss this all from a political standpoint and line up as Deomcrats and Republicans, always careful to spout the party line, Nehro fiddles, and Rome burns.

 

[madame_zora]

MZ: Arguing against the gov't attempting (no doubt badly) to lead us around by the nose and tell us what is best for us doesn't mean one is against science and innovation. We need more of it in this country and will probably have to, among other things, manipulate the tax code to make sure that happens. I know you have your list of grievances against Bush + the subject of science. I'm just narrowly arguing where we stand now on alt fuels versus where it might end up and the best way to get there: Big gov't or private industry. I just think that, with all its warts, private industry has the lesser FUBAR potential on something like this.

BnD, can I get some clarification on the part I bolded? I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're arguing against the government leading us around by the nose, then you're probably for science, right?

I think you're right that the private sector is far ahead of the gov right now, but my bitch with the administration (of which you are probably aware) isn't their anti-science opinions only, it's the outright way that bush disallowed the scientific community from even convening here via his use of the patriot act. If ever there was a president against science and reality, it's him. I honestly can't remember any other pres doing as much damage to our education system as systematically as he has. If the average person knew what "No Child Left Behind" had done, we'd be suicidal.

I know I sound like a lunatic with all my jumping up and down, but my frustration level at the sheer stupidity of it all and the degree to which mainstream america has been willing to take it up the ass and smile has reached it's load limit. Perhaps I'd do well to just suck my thumb and stare out the window.

 

[Freddie53]

. I honestly can't remember any other pres doing as much damage to our education system as systematically as he has. If the average person knew what Behi"No Child Left nd" had done, we'd be suicidal.

I know I sound like a lunatic with all my jumping up and down, but my frustration level at the sheer stupidity of it all and the degree to which mainstream america has been willing to take it up the ass and smile has reached it's load limit. Perhaps I'd do well to just suck my thumb and stare out the window.

The main purpose of the "No Child Left Behind" act is to ultimately destroy all public schools. The real purpose is to reduce all learning to the level that the slowest child in the room can travel. I have yet to met an educator that can give one good reason for this act or name one good benefit that will come from it.

 

[madame_zora]

Freddie, that was a beautiful post, completely.

Yes, the Earth has great regenerative properties, so do our own bodies. That doesn't mean it can't be hurt, or that it can heal itself of everything. I also lack the specific scientific knowledge to get in depth, but I find it prudent to err on the side of caution. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics, or even Al Gore as a person. Who gives a fuck about who he is or what party he's from? He's bringing a situation to light using his fame, and that's a good thing. Better him than Tom Cruise. It's something that needs to be addressed, discussed and WORKED OUT.

Perhaps Gore should take a lesson from Clinton and lock arms with a famous republican so it will be clear that this is a PEOPLE issue, or it will be dismissed as a party issue, which is very sad for all of us. Honestly, I don't care how it gets addressed, as long as it does.

edit- I was addressing Freddies' earlier, longer post #49. Apparently we were writing at the same time.

 

[JustAsking]

Freddie,
Your post on the limits of the self-correcting ecosystem is excellent. Its even more alarming if you consider that the earth's climate is a "chaotic" system, where small changes in things like the average temperature of the earth can produce very dramatic changes in climate. Because of this, dramatic changes in climate could happen in a person's lifetime rather than the hundreds of years that most people imagine it might take.

You are right about the earth having some ability to self-correct, but those mechanisms can be easily broken faster than people might think. Its easy for us to relate to rising temperatures causing polar ice melting and the ocean's level rising over hundreds of years. But its harder for people to understand that a few degrees change could cause the North Atlantic current to just stop, for example. Such a thing would be devastating to the habitability of the UK and Europe.

Anyway I have a story to tell. In 1981 I bought a Honda Civic to commute back and forth to work in. It got 44 mpg on the highway, in some part becuase it was a 5 speed and the 5th gear was extremely tall. I think it had a carbeurator instead of fuel injection and still managed to get that kind of mileage. That was during the 15 minutes or so that Americans were concerned about energy consumption and Honda was playing into that with this great gas mileage.

Eight years later, it was time to replace this car and it served me so well, I went looking for another one. Imagine my disappointment when the mileage ratings on the new models were down in the low 30s. It seems that Americans conveniently forgot about gas consumption so Honda and all the others retooled their cars to have more power and acceleration. I could still buy a 5 speed, but looking at the ratios it was obvious that now the 5 speed ratios fit into the same range as the 4 speed. The point of the 5 speed was now better accelleration, rather than better fuel economy.

Its funny to see that some of the new hybrids have only just achieved the gas mileage my cheezy 1981 Honda Civic was getting. Does it ever occur to us that we are being scammed?

 

[faceking]

Forza Italia!!!!!

 

[Freddie53]

FBut its harder for people to understand that a few degrees change could cause the North Atlantic current to just stop, for example. Such a thing would be devastating to the habitability of the UK and Europe.

Its funny to see that some of the new hybrids have only just achieved the gas mileage my cheezy 1981 Honda Civic was getting. Does it ever occur to us that we are being scammed?

Your point about the effect of the North Atlantic drift and also the Gulf Stream is vastly understated. The United Kingdom is located well north of the United States. Arkansas where I live is on the same latitude as Jerusalem, Israel.

The Island of Great Britain has the climate it does because the the ocean currencts and the Gulf air stream which are interconnected. Should those currents fail, Great Britian would become a virtual ice cap. The change in climate would be so extreme that the number of people that could live there would be drasticaly reduced. And Scandinavia countries would reap an even worse fate.

On the other hand. melting ice caps could flood The Netherlands, the city of New Orleans and other low lying coastal cities if the sea level were to rise several feet.

People assume that sea level is a constant elevation. Wrong. A thousand timese wrong. During the ice age it was low enough that the continentes of North America and Asia were connected. There is some evidence that the Mediteranian Sea might have even been landlocked.

The United States has the capacity to grow tremendous amouints of food in the great berad basket that it shares with Canada. Climatic changes could causge that bread basket to vanish. A major disaster fo rthe Untied States.

And as you said, it only takes minute changes in temperature to cause extreme climatic changes.

Yet, we are spending billions on terroriest who would be happy to stay at home and out of our hair if they were free and had prosperity in their own country. But we worry about places half way around teh world, and forget all about what could happen here at home that could cause millions to die.

Jana,

I think your idea of getting a prominent Republican to do a duo with Gore is brilliant. Spector and McCain are two that come to mind. Thsoe are two Republicans I don't always agree with, but I respect as thinking for themselves instead of being part of the mass hysteria crowd mentality.

 

[Dr Rock]

This 'wasteful industrial exploitation juggernaut' is what's given people the chance to have the ability to come to places like this and bitch about how evil big business is.

no, not really. if you bother to study social history instead of just regurgitating drool-soaked political soundbites, you'll find that it's a lot more the other way around. regardless, the fact remains that we should - and could - have outgrown that development model by now.

 

[JustAsking]

Freddie,
Did you say in a previous post that you had a disadvantage in this area due to the lack of a scientific background? If that is true, you make up for it with your very strong intuitive grasp of the subject and a truly eloquent ability to articulate it. Yes, I agree with everything you said, and I bow to your superior ability to express it.

In fact expressing it well is just as important as the scientific work that is being done on the issue. What is needed more are people who can popularize and evangelize on it. We need to effect a tipping point in the public's perception of the gravity of the problem. Al Gore's movie, a recent Oprah show, and even BP ads asking you about your carbon footprint are all good signs that this can happen in the near future. Real change won't happen until there is a cultural change.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Al Gore may be "self-loathing" if he's feeling guilty about all his oil money. Or rather, his father's oil money. But no matter. Were enthusiasm a substitute for fact, all the world's problems would be so much more tractable. And nobody would have to bother with expensive, time-consuming things like degrees, and research programs, and, you know, that "science" stuff in general.

I liked Richard Lindzen's item in the July 2 WSJ better than Gore's, mainly because Lindzen has done his scientific homework (that is, he has professional qualifications which required decades of dedication and work, rather than a little light reading in the Sunday science supplements, or a couple of TV specials), and is thereby perhaps just a little bit qualified to have an opinion about certain scientific matters. Which won't keep people from insisting that he's stupid, or doesn't want to face the facts, or (fill in the smear du jour here). (Full Disclosure - he's a prof at my alma mater, so naturally I rate him far higher than I do a dilettante like Gore).

I also have the distinct impression from this thread that none of the commentators have any idea what peer review is (as in, a - swoon - "peer reviewed journal"), what its intended benefits are, and what its actual successes and failures are. It's another thing where enthusiasm is a poor substitute for experience and knowledge.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

BnD, can I get some clarification on the part I bolded? I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're arguing against the government leading us around by the nose, then you're probably for science, right?

I think you're right that the private sector is far ahead of the gov right now, but my bitch with the administration (of which you are probably aware) isn't their anti-science opinions only, it's the outright way that bush disallowed the scientific community from even convening here via his use of the patriot act. If ever there was a president against science and reality, it's him. I honestly can't remember any other pres doing as much damage to our education system as systematically as he has. If the average person knew what "No Child Left Behind" had done, we'd be suicidal.

I know I sound like a lunatic with all my jumping up and down, but my frustration level at the sheer stupidity of it all and the degree to which mainstream america has been willing to take it up the ass and smile has reached it's load limit. Perhaps I'd do well to just suck my thumb and stare out the window.

Zora,

Yes, I'm a conservative that has no problem working with the scientific community. For instance, if I were sick with cancer, I'd want the best options that the scientific community has to offer and couple that with my religious faith to fight the rest of the battle. That, to me, is "intelligent design".

I don't discount studying global climate change. But, when the scientific community can go from stating we are in the midst of global cooling to global warming in the span of 12 years (1976-1988) I think it fair to say let's make darn sure of the facts before having this or that country rip apart their economy on the basis of science that could change given a dozen or so years.

One middle ground solution is higher efficiency standards. Whether you view it strategically or environmentally, they serve to lessen our carbon footprint. If done right, higher eff. standards can wring a lot of oil usage out of the economy if consumers and industry are given time to adapt AND you avoid a lot of the economy-ripping potential that a "boom, here it is" kyoto-style agreement would entail (and never have a chance of passing).

I look at it this way: When it comes to energy, we know where we are and we can see the future. But you can't just insert the phrase "then a miracle occurs" between those goal posts to cover up the reality of the situation. As much as many people might want A.F's now, it will be many years before they are developed in sufficient quantities to tip the scales in this country. A.F.'s will one day become a touchable reality. Science and the market have to have time to get it right, not just "get 'er done" as Bush might say.

Until the future arrives, it might be a nasty thought, but we need access to more oil here. Oil that isn't located in places whose current names end in Arabia or whose ancient name is Mesopotamia or whose leader's names would cause Vanna White to have a breakdown on the Wheel of Fortune. We have that oil within our borders and should be investing in getting it NOW, not later.

Which is potentially the worse fate? Using drilling techniques that have improved vastly since the Alaska pipeline was constructed and extract oil from beneath our own soil and off our own shorelines or getting involved in what will eventually be a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf and doing God knows what kind of damage to the Earth as a whole? I'd just as soon tell those fucktards (if I may borrow your commonly used word, Zora in the Mid East to go jihad themselves as to pay them any more American dollars.

The oil industry isn't perfect and you can all recite accidents they've been responsible for. But if environmental perfection is the gold standard then we'll never get anywhere. Many of the alt fuels, as they stand now, pose their own environmental hazards if you could just snap your fingers and make them wholesale replacements for oil.

______________________

I agree with you, the NCLB act was one of the worst things that could have been done to Am Education. I hope Kennedy and Bush at least kissed and had a nice dinner when they crawled into bed with each other. Cause it's our kids and our system that got the fucking.

 

[chico8]

Which is potentially the worse fate? Using drilling techniques that have improved vastly since the Alaska pipeline was constructed and extract oil from beneath our own soil and off our own shorelines or getting involved in what will eventually be a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf and doing God knows what kind of damage to the Earth as a whole? I'd just as soon tell those fucktards (if I may borrow your commonly used word, Zora in the Mid East to go jihad themselves as to pay them any more American dollars.

[The oil industry isn't perfect and you can all recite accidents they've been responsible for. But if environmental perfection is the gold standard then we'll never get anywhere. Many of the alt fuels, as they stand now, pose their own environmental hazards if you could just snap your fingers and make them wholesale replacements for oil.

There are a couple of problems with your scenario. The Alaska pipeline is in serious danger. Due to global warming, whether natural of human caused, the permafrost that it's on is melting, large portions of the pipeline are in danger of sinking into the ground. The expense of fixing this problem means the pipeline and therefore oil from ANWR or what remains on the north slope is economically unviable.

The Gulf of Mexico is also an extremely dangerous place to be drilling for oil. With increased hurricane activity, the financial risk much less the potential environmental risk is simply too great. Another Katrina or Rita and you'll find that oil drillers will be looking for new fields. Increased drilling in the Gulf means increased risk of destroying Florida's tourist industry. What's the point?

The US' outdated laws regulating extraction means that many thousands of acres of western land have been destroyed, killing off hunting and fishing in many areas along with destroying something that's infinitely more precious and valuable than oil: water.

Your "solutions" are simply big business talking points and serve no useful purpose whatsoever. If you want the US to become energy independent and remain at the top of the economic food chain, Kyoto and conservation are the only way forward.