Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

[Professor S]

I'm all for using "greener" energy sources for many reasons, both environmental and political. I love nature and have lived in rural areas all my life. But what I am wholeheartedly against is the use of environmental politics to control our lives "for the greater good." In this argument, the left is guilty of the same offences that they claim the right is with the war on terror. "An Inconvenient Truth" follows the poor example of Michael Moore: it takes a considerable topic with valid points and then exagerrates them to the point that it alienates those that are reasonable ignore your argument all-together. Remember the vision of New York under 20 feet of water? Yeah, try at most 2-3 feet if that. Gore even admitted to the exagerration.

This isn't about saving the world. Its about Al Gore screaming and banging on the door try to get out of his cage of obscurity (ooooh, I like that!). He's been doing this same presentation, which used to be a literal slide show, for 20 years. Its about the government dictating to us what cars we can drive, what fuel we use to heat our house and most importantly its about telling us all how bad everything is and is going to be unless THEY run things. Just like the far right does with terrorism, and we actually have real tangible evidence for that at least.

Most importantly, this is a veiled attack on capitalism. Why? What do you think is going to happen if those like Al Gore get their way? They are going to regulate fuel and energy until only those that are "green" (translated to "chosen by them") will be allowed to sell to the public. Like all regulated industry, it will fall into corruption filled with kick-backs and sweetheart deals. Its an attempt to convert us to a semi-socialist state, and socialism is NOT a destination... it is a toll booth.

Right now we are already seeing change, and it has nothing to do with Al Gore or government regulation. The powers of capitalism are already giving us the ends that Gore wishes for. High oil prices are pushing industry to greener fuel alternatives and the hybrid cars and industry. Increased regulation would most likely only increase the conversion process and limit our choices.

I'll leave you with a quote from Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:

“So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

“First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade.

“Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.”

[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Right now we are already seeing change, and it has nothing to do with Al Gore or government regulation. The powers of capitalism are already giving us the ends that Gore wishes for. High oil prices are pushing industry to greener fuel alternatives and the hybrid cars and industry. Increased regulation would most likely only increase the conversion process and limit our choices.

Err...wait a second. Are you saying that capitalism is already correcting for global warming because higher oil prices are pushing us to greener energy? Because the connections don't quite flow through in that logic.

Also, the success of hybrid cars does not actually have all that much to do with gas prices. Hybrid cars cost significantly more than regular cars of the same type, and the increased gas mileage isn't enough to save you any money in the long run, even taking $3 per gallon gas into account. Economically, there is no reason for anyone to buy a hybrid car — unless they want to support green energy alternatives on principle. It's safe to say that if it hadn't been for activists and campaigners who made carbon pollution a mainstream topic of debate, hybrid cars would still sell but not nearly as well as they have.

Also, regulation doesn't always have to mean banning certain fuels or mandating certain technologies. One of the things I really like about the network of pollution credits that's being set up around the world is it essentially leverages capitalism. A set number of pollution credits are given out and those companies which have a surplus of pollution credits can trade them away to those who need them and in that way everybody is in competition to innovate and create new, cleaner technologies.

I could get into all your comparisons between environmentalists and the far right, Michael Moore and Al Gore and so on, but I realized that those are red herring issues which don't have much to do with the topic at hand. I could delve into how Steven Milloy (writer of JunkScience.com) is documented to be a paid advocate of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris and that his website has attempted to debunk evolution and the purported ill effects of smoking. But even if all that is true, it's beside the point because what he's saying on this issue is worth reading and talking about and not simply dismissing out of hand (and to be fair, Steven Milloy also has two science degrees from Johns Hopkins and a law degree from Georgetown. He's no idiot, that's for sure). Just because the messenger's not perfect doesn't mean we should go throwing out the message, too.

[KillerGremlin]

...all gonna blow ourselves up...

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Err...wait a second. Are you saying that capitalism is already correcting for global warming because higher oil prices are pushing us to greener energy? Because the connections don't quite flow through in that logic.

Tell that to the car companies who use their hybrid's MPG as the main marketing tool and conveniently never mention the increased maintenance cost. Whether or not its more economical is irrelevant. People are buying those cars because they think its more economical and the superior feeling of "doing the right thing" is just an added bonus along with fear of the middle east. People vote and purchase with their wallets, not their good intentions. And in the end, its better for the environment.

It's safe to say that if it hadn't been for activists and campaigners who made carbon pollution a mainstream topic of debate, hybrid cars would still sell but not nearly as well as they have.

Actually, its not safe to say that. At all. Green cars (remember the electric car?) and alternative fuel strategies have been around for DECADES, as have these wonderful activists, and now during this oil crisis is the time when everyone grows a ecological conscience. The bottom line is people are feeling the pinch in their wallet and the violence in the middle east and they think they can alleviate both by going hybrid. And honestly, car pollution is a scientific joke when it comes to polltution and global warming as car exhaust contributes to a minute % of greenhouse gasses. Industry, and not even AMERICAN industry, are the big culprits. We can regulate all we want while China and Eastern Europe pump out black smoke by the cubic meter, and it won't mean a damn thing.

[quoteAlso, regulation doesn't always have to mean banning certain fuels or mandating certain technologies.[/quote]

Not if you listen to Gore and some of the public tatements he's made. I agree government regulation isn;t always bad, but to the point that HE wants to stretch it IS.

I could get into all your comparisons between environmentalists and the far right, Michael Moore and Al Gore and so on, but I realized that those are red herring issues which don't have much to do with the topic at hand.

They have more to do with how the left shoots themselves in the foot with outrageous comparisons and statements that have more to do with fantasy than fact. My point int mentioning this is that they kill their own VALID argument by exagerrating it. In that, it is perfectly on topic and I don't think I was trying to create a red-herring at all as the two topics are related and have everything to do with politics.

I could delve into how Steven Milloy (writer of JunkScience.com) is documented to be a paid advocate of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris and that his website has attempted to debunk evolution and the purported ill effects of smoking.

Oh could you delve into it? My my, thank you for taking the HIGH ROAD by NOT delving into it... oh wait... you just did (talk about passive-agressive). I quoted the author because the science was valid. There were a whole lot of articles that weren't, so I didnlt meantion them. Any comment about the professor from MIT I quoted, and how he is a stooge for Karl Rove and Big Oil? Or does he touch puppies in naughty places?

You do a wonderful job of saying a whole lot without ever taking credit for saying anything at all.

[Xantar]

Tell that to the car companies who use their hybrid's MPG as the main marketing tool and conveniently never mention the increased maintenance cost. Whether or not its more economical is irrelevant. People are buying those cars because they think its more economical and the superior feeling of "doing the right thing" is just an added bonus along with fear of the middle east. People vote and purchase with their wallets, not their good intentions. And in the end, its better for the environment.

I was confused because it appeared that you were saying that capitalism and the environment are self-correcting mechanisms. In other words, oil prices are reacting to global temperatures which is driving us to create more fuel-efficient cars. I now know that's not what you meant to say, but it seemed to be what you were driving at. We both know that global warming doesn't have all that much to do with the price of oil. And I certainly agree that gas prices have a lot to do with the current popularity of hybrid cars. I wasn't trying to debunk anything you said. I merely wanted to clarify.

Oh could you delve into it? My my, thank you for taking the HIGH ROAD by NOT delving into it... oh wait... you just did (talk about passive-agressive). I quoted the author because the science was valid. There were a whole lot of articles that weren't, so I didnlt meantion them. Any comment about the professor from MIT I quoted, and how he is a stooge for Karl Rove and Big Oil? Or does he touch puppies in naughty places?

You do a wonderful job of saying a whole lot without ever taking credit for saying anything at all.

Your hostility is not called for at all. Yes, I did say that he is a paid advocate of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil. Those are documented facts. I also said that he has science degrees from Johns Hopkins and a law degree from Georgetown and that he's far from clueless about what he's talking about. So I must be passive-aggressively trying to imply that he's a right wing shill, eh? Maybe I just mean exactly what I say: his background and credentials have nothing to do with the validity of what he says. That's it. I can understand how you got the impression you did, but considering how offended you often get whenever I imply that you're a right wing reactionary, I find that you're pretty quick to jump to similar conclusions about me.

As a matter of fact, I have been researching Steven Milloy's article and have been preparing a response to his article. I haven't posted it until now because he has written a lot and there's a lot of evidence to go through. I hope to get a post up some time tomorrow. There are significant rebuttals to a lot of what he claims, and although I'm certainly no expert in the field, I think they are at least as worthy of consideration as his own article. And no, I don't have anything to say in detail about what the MIT professor said. I haven't gotten around to it yet because I'm still working on Milloy's article.

Now, why don't you take your golden baseball bat and go work out your stress on a newbie's head for a while?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Your hostility is not called for at all. Yes, I did say that he is a paid advocate of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil. Those are documented facts. I also said that he has science degrees from Johns Hopkins and a law degree from Georgetown and that he's far from clueless about what he's talking about. So I must be passive-aggressively trying to imply that he's a right wing shill, eh?

My agressiveness was not aimed at your information but rather the way that you put it. You "took the high road" by saying you "could" mention everything that you did, as if it was beneath you, and then mentioned it not mentioning it. So in essence you took the high road by not taking the high road at all. That was a passive-agressive response and is what drew my ire.

Also, the fact that you are doing research and continuing the debate is good, and was my whole point. Gore and his friends are attempting to squelch debate and critical thinking and believe that they can create fact through simply repeating their theory... THEORY... and their evidence over and over again. Then when a response to their claims is made, they simply dismiss it because its not what they think. This is not good for our country or for science.

And I'll swing my bat at anyone I please!!!

[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Professor S

My agressiveness was not aimed at your information but rather the way that you put it. You "took the high road" by saying you "could" mention everything that you did, as if it was beneath you, and then mentioned it not mentioning it. So in essence you took the high road by not taking the high road at all.

Then apparently you don't know how much controversy surrounds Steven Milloy and how much has been written about him. Yes, I mentioned his connections to the oil and tobacco industry. If you want to call it passive-aggressive, then fine. You should also know that those ties, which are public knowledge, are merely the tip of an iceberg of accusations, allegations and probably a good bit of smear, too. So in fact there really is a whole lot of junk that I never brought up at all even with the things that I said. I never claimed to be taking the high road. I just said such things are irrelevant just as it's irrelevant how many houses Al Gore has or how much he resembles Michael Moore. I never intended to bring any of this up again until you started shouting at me.

Now, can we please drop the subject and move on to talking about whether or not global warming is happening?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Now, can we please drop the subject and move on to talking about whether or not global warming is happening?

Sorry, sir. Sorry for implying you had a superiority complex. I'm obviously way off base... Once again, my comments had NOTHING to do with bringing up Milloy and everything to do with HOW you brought him up. Realize it, own it and eventually try and fix it. Now moving on...

My argument never was that there is or isn't global warming global warming. My argument is that Al Gore is trying to turn theory into fact through repetition. He is trying to SILENCE dissent, which is never good in any case. I never said global warming isn't happening. I never posted anything that said it wasn't happening. In fact, the basis of this entire THREAD has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is happening.

The only arguments that I have put forth are those that believe that the subject is still worth discussing, which it is, and also point out possible alterior motives for this sudden push to silence critics. Thats it. Anything else you've read into them is your own creation.

[Crash]

if the world was going to overheat.... it's because the world is going to anyways.