An Inconvenient Hypocrisy

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Thursday, April 19, 2007 19:15
VIEWED: 5660
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

KANEMAN

Sunday, March 4, 2007 10:53 PM

"why isn't Bush getting any of the praise ?"

You already know that answer AU........

CITIZEN

Sunday, March 4, 2007 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What are the real differences between the 2? If Bush's place uses a considerable amount LESS than Gore's , as suggested , why isn't Bush getting any of the praise ?

Well Bush's is considerably less enviromentally friendly, as noted, but also the vast amount of hot air expended in 'Bush love' does some what make up for any gains there maybe.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, March 4, 2007 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm just curious. Which uses more power, Bush's ranch down in Crawford,TX, or Gore's place in Tennessee.

I'm just curious. Which man made decisions that got the most Americans killed, Bush or Gore.

The answer?
Gore.
Why?
Because he (and Clinton) didn't get Bin Laden, and let him set up 911, making it LOOK as if it happened on Bush's watch- but it didn't REALLY, because Bush is such a God-fearing patriot, and he would never let something like that happen- so it was the Dems fault after all.
It's all so clear. Like sea-glass.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, March 4, 2007 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"why isn't Bush getting any of the praise ?"

You already know that answer AU........

You know, Kaneman, I think...
oh, wait...we're not supposed to feed the trolls.
Nevermind.

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, March 5, 2007 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
PS- left-wing apologist? Uhhh, not really (one of my favourite films IS Demolition Man, 'cause the Left is capable of the same nonsense, just in different venues).
"We're Police Officers; we're not trained to deal with this level of violence!"

Yeah, the left-wing apologist bit was probably harsh. Sometimes, I sense the bullshit rising and start channeling Nicholas Cage, sorry.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your point that the message is important, but Al Gore couldn’t really care less about the message. Remember that IPCC report that the media was fawning over a few weeks ago, the one the said that the IPCC was now 90% certain that the current warming trend had an anthropogenic component (as if somehow that is news)? Guess what Al Gore will never tell you. The same IPCC report decided that the rising sea levels that they once predicted could reach 20+ feet above average, will now only reach 20 cm. Less then a foot of sea level rise. Isn’t that news, Chris? At least as much news as the IPCC being 90% certain of what we’ve suspected for years? Shouldn’t that be part of the global warming “message?” It should be if you’re serious about it. But people like Al Gore are not serious about it. Sure, they talk a big story, while they drive their SUVs and live in their 10,000 sqrft houses.

So instead of rational thought and constructive plans, we run off half-cocked like we did with Kyoto, then what? Do you know what Kyoto did for the environment? It helped bolster the Chinese and Indian Industrial revolution, thereby making them two of the largest producers of CO2 in the world. That, so far, has been the legacy of Kyoto. The global warming doomsdayers are wrong. Their message is no different then the message of a few dispensationalists Christians, that I know: “the Apocalypse is coming so repent or burn in hell.”

It is never a good idea to run blind; and I’m sorry that we aren’t learning fast enough to suit some people’s political agendas, but there is plenty to do in the meantime and if half of the people who bitch about Global warming did what they tell other people to do, we would go far further to making a dent then waiting for world-wide socialism to hand us a solution.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 5, 2007 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the left-wing apologist bit was probably harsh.

No worries, mate. Like I said, in light of my gloss-over of Gore's hypocracy- totally understandable. Besides, I've been known to hurl around labels some, and in somewhat stronger language. I take the way you put it as a kindness

.

Quote:
The same IPCC report decided that the rising sea levels that they once predicted could reach 20+ feet above average, will now only reach 20 cm. Less then a foot of sea level rise. Isn’t that news, Chris? At least as much news as the IPCC being 90% certain of what we’ve suspected for years? Shouldn’t that be part of the global warming “message?”

Yep.
But 'knowledge' is changing constantly. It should all begin with: "As of this moment, calculations predict..."
We only KNOW something is happening, and the current change from x-time ago status.
Absolutism has absolutely no place in language concerning the predictions of what is to come.

Absolutely Chrisisall

MRIG

Monday, March 5, 2007 6:50 AM

A few things, apologies if it makes me a little angry, but this story has done that to me.

1. Al Gore is only 3%, not 20%, above the national average if you calculate it by his climate zone, because energy costs are higher there than they are in the rest of the country.
2. Considering that his house is also his office, and he has concerns that we don't (like security) that's pretty good.
3. A lot of that is green, he's on a program that provides renewable energy.
4. The energy he does use is negated because he purchases carbon offsets. For that matter, the same is true for the movie and the book. You can argue that carbon offsets are ineffective, but you can't pretend that they don't exist, or that he doesn't use them, because they do and he does.
5. The message is more important than the messenger. As a rule, if you can't find a way to fight the message, you shoot the messenger. It's an effective tactic, but not a substantial one. It doesn't tell us anything useful and it doesn't add anything new or interesting to the discourse.

If you don't like Gore, fine. If you don't like his message, fine. But don't attack one and think you've debunked the other.

Whew. That was cathartic. I'm done now.

"I have to understand the world, you see."
~Richard Feynman

KHYRON

Monday, March 5, 2007 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MRig:
1. Al Gore is only 3%, not 20%, above the national average if you calculate it by his climate zone, because energy costs are higher there than they are in the rest of the country.

Where did you get this from? And the issue is that his household uses 20 times as much energy, not 20%. Heck, I'd be absolutely fine with it if it were to use just three times as much energy. But I haven't seen the regional comparison that you have.

Quote:
A lot of that is green, he's on a program that provides renewable energy.

At this point renewable energy has very limited availability, so by using so much of it he's basically restricting the amount available to others. Plus his message in this regard seems to be "as long as it's green, you can use as much as you like", which is wrong as long as green energy isn't ubiquitous.

Quote:
The message is more important than the messenger. As a rule, if you can't find a way to fight the message, you shoot the messenger. It's an effective tactic, but not a substantial one. It doesn't tell us anything useful and it doesn't add anything new or interesting to the discourse.

If the between-the-lines message is "do as I say, not as I do", then that is not a very effective way of getting the main message across to the skeptics, which is what's at stake here.

Quote:
If you don't like Gore, fine. If you don't like his message, fine. But don't attack one and think you've debunked the other.

I haven't heard anybody say "Gore uses more energy, so global warming isn't happening". The issue is hypocrisy. I personally like Gore a lot (as far as politicians go), but I dislike hypocrisy in people who I like even more than I dislike hypocrisy in people who I don't like.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

KJW

Monday, March 5, 2007 3:05 PM

While I do enjoy the RWD threads, I rarely join, but this thread bothered me enough to participate.

After reading the links for the articles in this thread, including Sevenpercent's rebuttal article and a quick scan of the Internet which revealed that the group that originated the story is anti-Gore I am confused on the hypocrisy claim.

OK Gore has a big house (darn him for his success) which also serves as offices for him and his wife and no doubt has considerable security concerns. Additionally, heating costs do vary from region to region, trust me in Florida my heating bills in the winter were nearly nonexistent, but now that we are in Maryland it is considerably higher. Further, he uses renewable energies that cost him considerably more than it would if he didn't. I don't understand; is he to live in a hut in Hawaii and play charades for entertainment purposes? This would be pretty green, but ridiculous. Let's face it, he is doing more to be green and help the environment than probably anyone participating on this thread or all of us combined.

Also on the limited availability of renewable energy and that Gore is stealing from others who need it more, that argument is absurd. If there is significant enough demand then free market forces will expand the amount of renewable energy. Even ignoring basic economics the argument here is that Gore shouldn't be using renewable energy at all? Does that make any sense? No not really.

As for the issue being hypocrisy versus global warming, that is also ridiculous. Obviously, when you look at the articles and the information out there you come up with the conclusion that he is at least attempting to be green and that people are attacking him to undermine his message. This is politics anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty naive. If you disagree with his views on global warming you can't seriously attack the science (which is a losing argument), but to shoot the messager is effective. This is a standard, and effective, conservative technique; it demolished Kerry in 2004 and is already being used on Clinton, Obama, and Gore. Of course, Gore isn't running for president (or any public office for that point), but he is the symbol of an issue that could hurt republicans.

KHYRON

Monday, March 5, 2007 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KJW:
... a quick scan of the Internet which revealed that the group that originated the story is anti-Gore I am confused on the hypocrisy claim.

Doesn't matter if it's anti-Gore as long as the basic facts they reported are true (Gore's utility bills), and as I far as I know those bills haven't been disputed.

Quote:
OK Gore has a big house (darn him for his success) which also serves as offices for him and his wife and no doubt has considerable security concerns.

Yes to all of that, but how much more energy usage is reasonable and how much more is too much?

Exactly how big is his office at home? That's not rhetorical, it's a serious question, I'd really like to know. Does he have 20 people working there every day? I find that hard to believe. Does he maybe have just three personal assistants working there?

Here's my take on what would be a reasonable amount, and I feel I'm being quite generous on some of these:

Household: 3 x NA
Offices: 2 x NA
Guest house: 1 x NA
Security precautions: 2 x NA
Security personnel: 2 x NA

Total: 10 x NA

So, 10 times the national average, and seeing as I was pretty generous already, that should be a strict upper limit. But he uses twice that amount.

Quote:
Additionally, heating costs do vary from region to region, trust me in Florida my heating bills in the winter were nearly nonexistent, but now that we are in Maryland it is considerably higher.

I agree with that too. Does somebody have figures for Tennessee specifically? As far as I know the climate there isn't extraordinarily hot or cold, so I'd be surprised if the state average were to lie far from the national average, but it'd be interesting.

Quote:
Further, he uses renewable energies that cost him considerably more than it would if he didn't. I don't understand; is he to live in a hut in Hawaii and play charades for entertainment purposes? This would be pretty green, but ridiculous.

We're not saying he should be using 0 times the national average, just a more reasonable amount.

Quote:
Let's face it, he is doing more to be green and help the environment than probably anyone participating on this thread or all of us combined.

In terms of being an environmental activist, absolutely. That's why he needs to be careful to practice what he's preaching.

Quote:
Also on the limited availability of renewable energy and that Gore is stealing from others who need it more, that argument is absurd.

It is, but nobody made it. I said that the amount of renewable energy is limited and that using an unreasonable amount of it won't give a good impression to the general public of how one should use an as-yet limited resource responsibly.

Quote:
If there is significant enough demand then free market forces will expand the amount of renewable energy.

Let's hope so.

Quote:
Even ignoring basic economics the argument here is that Gore shouldn't be using renewable energy at all? Does that make any sense? No not really.

You like straw men, don't you?

Quote:
As for the issue being hypocrisy versus global warming, that is also ridiculous. Obviously, when you look at the articles and the information out there you come up with the conclusion that he is at least attempting to be green and that people are attacking him to undermine his message. This is politics anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty naive.

Yeah, it's inspired by politics, but what bugs me is that in this case the conservatives actually have a bit of a point. What bugs me the most is that this will in all likelihood make him less credible to people who are on the fence about global warming, and it's these people who are his target audience.

Quote:
If you disagree with his views on global warming you can't seriously attack the science (which is a losing argument), but to shoot the messager is effective. This is a stan

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME