An inconvenient Irony [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

View Full Version : An inconvenient Irony

101A

08-10-2006, 08:54 AM

Al Gore's Hypocricy Exposed (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm)

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

spurster

08-10-2006, 09:41 AM

according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.
There had a signup like this in San Antonio. I didn't sign up because I didn't understand how the green energy was going to be routed to my home in place of the non-green energy. Maybe it's hypocrisy, but if I'm going to donate money, it isn't going to be to an energy company.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 10:19 AM

There had a signup like this in San Antonio. I didn't sign up because I didn't understand how the green energy was going to be routed to my home in place of the non-green energy. Maybe it's hypocrisy, but if I'm going to donate money, it isn't going to be to an energy company.

Technically, the green energy isn't "routed" to your house. Electrons are electrons when put into the system, they become indistinguishable from those generated by yucky coal power.

What that green energy does is signal that you are prepared to pay a bit more for green power. More demand for green power=more green power.

It is a bit like donating money, but in the end the money goes to finance new green power generation.

midgetonadonkey

08-10-2006, 10:23 AM

Big fucking deal, the dude hasn't switched electric companies. It doesn't mean he is wrong about the effects global warming has had on our planet.

Mr. Peabody

08-10-2006, 10:29 AM

Spurminator

08-10-2006, 10:34 AM

DarkReign

08-10-2006, 10:47 AM

101A

08-10-2006, 10:54 AM

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

So James Baker was no less an honorable preacher when he banged the hooker?

You have no problem with Clarence Thomas ruling on sexual harrassment cases?

People's actions are irrelevent, ONLY words matter?

Let me know how that works out for you, lemmings.

101A

08-10-2006, 10:59 AM

wow you are dumb

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger [or shooting the messenger], involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

touche

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 12:20 PM

Dont link Wiki. Automatic dismissal of source.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 12:25 PM

So James Baker was no less an honorable preacher when he banged the hooker?

You have no problem with Clarence Thomas ruling on sexual harrassment cases?

People's actions are irrelevent, ONLY words matter?

Let me know how that works out for you, lemmings.

Al Gore's hypocrisy has absolutely nothing to do with the truth/untruth of his arguments or statements.

If he said the sky was blue, would he then be incorrect because he is a hypocrite?

That is the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack. Attacking a person is not the same as attacking an idea.

If James Baker said adultry was wrong and then James Baker commits adultry. If one were to use the same logical structure as you and your quoted post, then that would make adultry right, simply because Baker is a hypocrite.

Since this is obviously false, then so is the dismissal of what Mr. Gore says simply because *he* is a hypocrite.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 12:27 PM

touche [in response to being called dumb]

tou·ché (t-sh) KEY

INTERJECTION:

Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/touche

So you are acknowledging that you are dumb????

:lol

101A

08-10-2006, 12:48 PM

tou·ché (t-sh) KEY

INTERJECTION:

Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/touche

So you are acknowledging that you are dumb????

:lol

No, knowing that elpimp wouldn't respond I did so for him, since he partook in an "ad hominem" attack on me - pointing it out was a "direct hit"; when that was the source of his original criticism of me.

As for what Al Gore is saying; the point of the article is this:

Al Gore is saying the world is in dire straights and we must all committ to personal sacrifice to save it or we are, in fact doomed.

Al Gore is NOT (what with over 20,000 square feet of air-conditioned living space divided up over three residences for he and his wife) sacrificing to the level, apparently, he would ask the rest of us to to prevent this (in fact based on HIS consumption, the rest of us need to sacrifice that much more).

So it is not a criticism of what Al Gore is doing as much as it is an indictment of whether or not he ACTUALLY believes what he is saying. If he did, it would seem logical that he would practice more of what he preached. What he is saying about global warming may be true; but the author questions, based on his actions, whether Al Gore believes his own rhetoric, unless he is anxious to bring about that catastrophic end of the world as we know it?

It is not an ad-hominem attack as an analysis of an argument being made (by Al Gore) - using all evidence available. Based on his chosen lifestyle, Prius or not, I, too, question whether Al Gore believes the arguments put forward in "An inconvenient Truth", or whether it is simply politically expedient for his to sound like he does (based on his name NOW coming up as a potentially strong presidential candidate now, I think it is working).

You go ahead and believe everything Al Gore says, he's counting on you to - whether he does or not.

You obviously believe it.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 01:07 PM

No, knowing that elpimp wouldn't respond I did so for him, since he partook in an "ad hominem" attack on me - pointing it out was a "direct hit"; when that was the source of his original criticism of me.

As for what Al Gore is saying; the point of the article is this:

Al Gore is saying the world is in dire straights and we must all committ to personal sacrifice to save it or we are, in fact doomed.

Al Gore is NOT (what with over 20,000 square feet of air-conditioned living space divided up over three residences for he and his wife) sacrificing to the level, apparently, he would ask the rest of us to to prevent this (in fact based on HIS consumption, the rest of us need to sacrifice that much more).

So it is not a criticism of what Al Gore is doing as much as it is an indictment of whether or not he ACTUALLY believes what he is saying. If he did, it would seem logical that he would practice more of what he preached. What he is saying about global warming may be true; but the author questions, based on his actions, whether Al Gore believes his own rhetoric, unless he is anxious to bring about that catastrophic end of the world as we know it?

It is not an ad-hominem attack as an analysis of an argument being made (by Al Gore) - using all evidence available. Based on his chosen lifestyle, Prius or not, I, too, question whether Al Gore believes the arguments put forward in "An inconvenient Truth", or whether it is simply politically expedient for his to sound like he does (based on his name NOW coming up as a potentially strong presidential candidate now, I think it is working).

You go ahead and believe everything Al Gore says, he's counting on you to - whether he does or not.

You obviously believe it.

Not sure where to start on this one. This is such a classic case of faulty reasoning I will be saving it as a text file for future use as a teaching aid.

You say it is not a logical fallacy to dismiss something simply because Al Gore said it.

Let's fit this into the example of ad hominem posted above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Person A makes claim X.

Al Gore ("person A")claims that Americans should live a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle and consume too much per person("X").

Person B makes an attack on person A.

The author of the article ("person B") points out the hypocrisy ("makes an attack") of Al Gore ("person A")

Therefore A's claim is false.

Therefore, Al Gore's ("A") claim that we should live a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle, and attempt to conserve resources is false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this or is this not exactly what you are saying?

101A

08-10-2006, 01:16 PM

Not sure where to start on this one. This is such a classic case of faulty reasoning I will be saving it as a text file for future use as a teaching aid.

You say it is not a logical fallacy to dismiss something simply because Al Gore said it.

Let's fit this into the example of ad hominem posted above.

and you don't seem to be reading anything.

Do I have to write in crayon?

It is not I, or the author who is dismissing what Al Gore is saying. Al Gore is apparently dismissing what Al Gore is saying.

George Gervin's Afro

08-10-2006, 01:28 PM

for those who attack gore and not global warming i have a couple of questions for you. 1. how else is he supposed to get around? 2. i believe global warming is a problem but i have 60 + mile commute everyday to work. since i use all of that gas everyday does that make me a hypocrite? now if there were alternative ways to get around the country other than planes and automobiles this hypocrisy argument might have merit..

DarkReign

08-10-2006, 01:30 PM

and you don't seem to be reading anything.

Do I have to write in crayon?

It is not I, or the author who is dismissing what Al Gore is saying. Al Gore is apparently dismissing what Al Gore is saying.

read the definition of an ad hominem again and say that.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 01:39 PM

and you don't seem to be reading anything.

Do I have to write in crayon?

It is not I, or the author who is dismissing what Al Gore is saying. Al Gore is apparently dismissing what Al Gore is saying.

Is this or is this not exactly what you are saying?

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 01:42 PM

I fit you and your author's assertions EXACTLY into the model of an ad hominem fallacy.

So, all you have to do is directly answer the question from my post above.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 01:43 PM

read the definition of an ad hominem again and say that.

As I said above, this is a textbook case of such an attack. It doesn't get any more clear, but most people who tend to use such tactics aren't intellectually or morally capable of admitting it.

MannyIsGod

08-10-2006, 02:09 PM

:lmao

I'm not saying the color is green, I'm saying the color is a combination of yellow and blue!!!!

Classic. Nice job, RG.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 02:26 PM

:lmao

I'm not saying the color is green, I'm saying the color is a combination of yellow and blue!!!!

Classic. Nice job, RG.

Heh, thanks. Too bad he went offline. I will have to "remind" him of it and bump the thread sometime when he comes back.

101A

08-10-2006, 02:53 PM

Heh, thanks. Too bad he went offline. I will have to "remind" him of it and bump the thread sometime when he comes back.

I'm back.

Again, you dont know where I stand on global warming. I have not taken a position one way or the other in this thread (nor does the author, for that matter).

The article points out that

1. The position Al Gore espouses is an extreme one. It leaves no room for the waste of energy - the consequences being incredibly dire; and irreversible in 10 years.

2. I (and the author) make the assumption that Al Gore doesn't ACTUALLY want those dire events to transpire.

3. Al Gore does not lead a life, apparently, condusive to preventing those events.

Therefore:

4. Al Gore MUST NOT believe what he is saying...OR...Al Gore MUST WANT the dire events to transpire.

It is not an attack on Al Gore's position, or an attack on Al Gore's hypocricy; it is an observation that Al Gore's hypocricy on this particular position might give a glimmer of evidence as to whether he believes his own rhetoric.

It is a logical conclusion from the evidence presented NOT an ad-hominem argument.

An ad-hominem argument would be:

Al Gore made a movie about global warming.

Al Gore is a hypocrite.

Global warming doesn't exist.

That is non-sequitor & ad-hominem. I make no argument as to the veracity of Al Gore's claims.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 03:06 PM

I'm back.

Again, you dont know where I stand on global warming. I have not taken a position one way or the other in this thread (nor does the author, for that matter).

The article points out that

1. The position Al Gore espouses is an extreme one. It leaves no room for the waste of energy - the consequences being incredibly dire; and irreversible in 10 years.

2. I (and the author) make the assumption that Al Gore doesn't ACTUALLY want those dire events to transpire.

3. Al Gore does not lead a life, apparently, condusive to preventing those events.

Therefore:

4. Al Gore MUST NOT believe what he is saying...OR...Al Gore MUST WANT the dire events to transpire.

It is not an attack on Al Gore's position, or an attack on Al Gore's hypocricy; it is an observation that Al Gore's hypocricy on this particular position might give a glimmer of evidence as to whether he believes his own rhetoric.

It is a logical conclusion from the evidence presented NOT an ad-hominem argument.

An ad-hominem argument would be:

Al Gore made a movie about global warming.

Al Gore is a hypocrite.

Global warming doesn't exist.

That is non-sequitor & ad-hominem. I make no argument as to the veracity of Al Gore's claims.

Your author very clearly did.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

You may not have specifically made an ad hominem, but the implication was and is very clear, if you were to be intellectually honest.

If you had not meant to imply the ad hominem, the intellectually honest thing to do would have been to disclaim it, and merely point out that he is an ass.

As for climate change/global warming, I would tend to agree with the consensus of science at this point, that mankinds activities are contributing dangerously and unpredictably to a change in our earth's environment. If Al Gore, hypocrite or no, endorses or advocates actions that would mitigate our monkeying around with processes that we don't understand, than I am for that.

Do I believe it simply because, as you imply, Al Gore said it? No.

Do I dismiss it, as you imply, and your author clearly states, because Al Gore said it? No.

101A

08-10-2006, 03:12 PM

read the definition of an ad hominem again and say that.

The Definition is Question:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

The assertion that A's claim is false is not available in the authors argument. The piece is ONLY pointing out the apparent hypocricy and free-energy spendign lifestyle of Al Gore; not the merits of his argument - therefore no ad-hominem attack.

Just re-read the piece; the author does make the claim, missed it the first time. RG pointed it out.

101A

08-10-2006, 03:16 PM

I also believe that mankind is affecting the global climate in a negative way (wife is a biochemistry professor - not directly related to that research, but she gets enough of the REAL science journals that I peruse that it's kind of beyond even "general consensus" now).

I also believe, wholeheartedly, that Al Gore could give a damn - he just wants to be president.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 03:18 PM

The Definition is Question:

The assertion that A's claim is false is not available in the authors argument. The piece is ONLY pointing out the apparent hypocricy and free-energy spendign lifestyle of Al Gore; not the merits of his argument - therefore no ad-hominem attack.

Just re-read the piece; the author does make the claim, missed it the first time. RG pointed it out.

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, you are correct that you never said that you dismissed Mr. Gore's claims because of his hypocrisy. This would then negate my claim that you did buy into the ad hominem.

A still stand by my assertion that you did, however, strongly imply that in your statements.

You might not ever have said you think global warming is a fantasy, but it is easy for a reasonable person to draw that conclusion from your posts here. Perhaps a statement of position would clarify that?

101A

08-10-2006, 03:35 PM

Perhaps a statement of position would clarify that?

Read my post immediately prior to the one I just quoted of yours.

RandomGuy

08-10-2006, 04:38 PM

Read my post immediately prior to the one I just quoted of yours.

Read it.

What does you wife make of increasing acidity in oceans due to acid rain? Biology might be a bit outside her normal expertise, but I remember reading an interesting article a while back about CO2 causing a spike in acidity in the pacific ocean that was eating through the shells of the microscopic organisms that make up the bottom of the food chain in the oceans.

(article link is: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html )

Since the pace of change is faster than any geological process, I wonder if the eco-system can really hack it and for how long.

As for Mr. Gore, I am a bit less cynical about him, but still think he is something of a hypocrite.

PixelPusher

08-10-2006, 09:32 PM

See also: "American Politics"

See also: "The sum total of Karl Rove's electoral strategy"

See also: "The rhetorical basis for Fox News"

and finally:

See also: "the content of 95% of the posts in the Politcal Forum of SpursTalk.com"

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 09:38 PM

Big fucking deal, the dude hasn't switched electric companies. It doesn't mean he is wrong about the effects global warming has had on our planet.
No, but what it does mean is that he doesn't believe what he's saying. Otherwise, he'd be "carbon neutral" as he claims to be.

His "sky-is-falling" schtick is all to sell his movie and to keep him in the public eye. Unfortunately, he wasn't smart enough to make sure he was living like he was telling everyone else to live. Kind of like Barbra Streisand.

As for global warming. Maybe it is getting warmer. But, the jury is still out on why; and, let me assure you, man is one of the least considered reasons (outside the looney Algore crowd) as to why that's happening. After all, the planet has been much hotter than it is right now -- as recent as the 1930's -- and as far back as before man ever came along.

Maybe the sun is getting ready to balloon into a red giant and fry us all. Is being carbon neutral going to help that?

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-10-2006, 09:40 PM

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Actually, the issue here IS Gore's hypocrisy. None of this calls into question Enhanced Global Warming or our need to change our consumption patterns, the science is all still out there telling us these things. What is in question is whether Gore should be spouting off on these things without modifying hs own lifestyle, and thus DIVERTING THE DEBATE AND WEAKENING THE ENTIRE SUSTAINABILITY MOVEMENT IN DOING SO.

He's an idiot. He should have covered these angles before he said anything. What a fool, and as a green I am ashamed of him.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-10-2006, 09:48 PM

As for global warming. Maybe it is getting warmer. But, the jury is still out on why; and, let me assure you, man is one of the least considered reasons (outside the looney Algore crowd) as to why that's happening. After all, the planet has been much hotter than it is right now -- as recent as the 1930's -- and as far back as before man ever came along.

Maybe the sun is getting ready to balloon into a red giant and fry us all. Is being carbon neutral going to help that?

That is absolute NONSENSE. What are your qualifications in? I have a BSc in Ecology and am studying a Masters in Sustainability (to be followed by a PhD), and you are just spouting the PR line fed to you by business/neo-cons.

There is unequivocal scientific consensus on global warming. Geologists, climatologists, ecologists, marine biologists, anthropologists from the world over agree, global warming is a FACT. If you are talking about natural climatic cycles, they cannot account for the speed of change we are witnessing. The polar icecaps and glaciers haven't melted this fast in millions of years. At no time in the history of the planet have we seen CO2 levels rise by 45% in 150yrs as the have in the last century and a half. And then you have basic chemistry - change the concentration of gases in a closed system and you alter the system equilibrium.

The only dissenters are scientists paid by fossil fuels and big business. Keep your spin to yourself.

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 09:54 PM

That is absolute NONSENSE. What are your qualifications in? I have a BSc in Ecology and am studying a Masters in Sustainability (to be followed by a PhD), and you are just spouting the PR line fed to you by business/neo-cons.

There is unequivocal scientific consensus on global warming. Geologists, climatologists, ecologists, marine biologists, anthropologists from the world over agree, global warming is a FACT. If you are talking about natural climatic cycles, they cannot account for the speed of change we are witnessing. The polar icecaps and glaciers haven't melted this fast in millions of years. The only dissenters are scientists paid by fossil fuels and big business.
Did I say the globe wasn't warming? What I said is that there is considerable disagreement -- in the environmental scientific community -- over the cause.

And, your credentials mean nothing in here. The fact is there are people more and less qualified than you that believe as you do and; there are people more and less qualified than you that don't believe as you do. In this forum, you're an anonymous voice of one -- just like me. Deal.

Keep your spin to yourself.
Wow, in favor of stifling dissent too.

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 10:13 PM

A Rebuttal to the Global Warmers (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)

And, before you attack the messenger, I'd appreciate a reasoned refutation of what I found to be a well-documented and sourced rebuttal to the "man is causing global warminng" crowd.

Thanks.

Oh, and as I've said before, I believe man can absolutely have a devastating (or beneficial) effects on local -- even regional -- climate. But that isn't the same as affecting long-term global climate.

IceColdBrewski

08-10-2006, 11:32 PM

No, but what it does mean is that he doesn't believe what he's saying. Otherwise, he'd be "carbon neutral" as he claims to be.

His "sky-is-falling" schtick is all to sell his movie and to keep him in the public eye. Unfortunately, he wasn't smart enough to make sure he was living like he was telling everyone else to live. Kind of like Barbra Streisand.

As for global warming. Maybe it is getting warmer. But, the jury is still out on why; and, let me assure you, man is one of the least considered reasons (outside the looney Algore crowd) as to why that's happening.

Let's be fair Yoni. They are looking into it. How much money do you think they can afford? Those few extra pennies can kill the finances. As far as the private jet is concerned, you don't expect him to travel like the rest of us do you? He is very special. He invented the internet and should be telling us how to live.

101A

08-11-2006, 08:27 AM

Read it.

What does you wife make of increasing acidity in oceans due to acid rain? Biology might be a bit outside her normal expertise, but I remember reading an interesting article a while back about CO2 causing a spike in acidity in the pacific ocean that was eating through the shells of the microscopic organisms that make up the bottom of the food chain in the oceans.

(article link is: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31.html )

Since the pace of change is faster than any geological process, I wonder if the eco-system can really hack it and for how long.

As for Mr. Gore, I am a bit less cynical about him, but still think he is something of a hypocrite.

Asked ger about it over dinner last night.

Got chastised for saying "acid rain" - it's actually disolved CO2 in the water - which apparently dissolves straight out of the atmosphere which is raising the PH of the ocean. And it IS happening; The actual results of this (how calamotous, etc) are still up for debate, but she was aware of the issue.

velik_m

08-11-2006, 08:56 AM

Asked ger about it over dinner last night.

Got chastised for saying "acid rain" - it's actually disolved CO2 in the water - which apparently dissolves straight out of the atmosphere which is raising the PH of the ocean. And it IS happening; The actual results of this (how calamotous, etc) are still up for debate, but she was aware of the issue.

while it's not "acid rain", CO2 disolved in water is acid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

101A

08-11-2006, 09:04 AM

while it's not "acid rain", CO2 disolved in water is acid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

I knew that, but thanks for clarifying my (incomplete) point.

Extra Stout

08-11-2006, 09:41 AM

while it's not "acid rain", CO2 disolved in water is acid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

To be precise, the dissolution of CO2 in the oceans is not producing acid, but is pushing the carbonate equilibrium further from CO3(2-) to HCO3(-) and thus lowering the pH.

RandomGuy

08-11-2006, 12:17 PM

That is absolute NONSENSE. What are your qualifications in? I have a BSc in Ecology and am studying a Masters in Sustainability (to be followed by a PhD), and you are just spouting the PR line fed to you by business/neo-cons.

There is unequivocal scientific consensus on global warming. Geologists, climatologists, ecologists, marine biologists, anthropologists from the world over agree, global warming is a FACT. If you are talking about natural climatic cycles, they cannot account for the speed of change we are witnessing. The polar icecaps and glaciers haven't melted this fast in millions of years. At no time in the history of the planet have we seen CO2 levels rise by 45% in 150yrs as the have in the last century and a half. And then you have basic chemistry - change the concentration of gases in a closed system and you alter the system equilibrium.

The only dissenters are scientists paid by fossil fuels and big business. Keep your spin to yourself.

OMG. You should really read a bit more of Dan's posts before accusing him of being a corporate drone. (laughs)

Honestly I agree with you here, that it is a fact.

It is a mark of how effective the right-wing propaganda machine is that there are some hold-outs. The right REALLY hates the green agenda, even though the greening of our economy has some very positive effects on our long term growth.

RandomGuy

08-11-2006, 12:26 PM

To be precise, the dissolution of CO2 in the oceans is not producing acid, but is pushing the carbonate equilibrium further from CO3(2-) to HCO3(-) and thus lowering the pH.

Heh, I like chemistry, and am fairly literate about it, but dang. (bows)

Outside of my area of expertise.

Ozzman

08-11-2006, 12:30 PM

I like how south park put it: I am Totally cereal guys!!!!

boutons_

08-11-2006, 02:09 PM

In spite of the "lead" taken by the perenially toxic landfill, aka Congress:

Cities, States Aren't Waiting For U.S. Action on Climate

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 11, 2006; A01

With Washington lawmakers deadlocked on how best to curb global warming, state and local officials across the country are adopting ambitious policies and forming international alliances aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

The initiatives, which include demands that utilities generate some of their energy using renewable sources and mandates for a reduction in emissions from motor vehicles, have emboldened clean-air advocates who hope they will form the basis for broader national action. But in the meantime, some businesses say the local and state actions are creating a patchwork of regulations that they must contend with.

This flurry of action is part of a growing movement among state and local leaders who have given up hope that Congress and the administration will tackle major issues, and are launching their own initiatives on immigration, stem cell research and energy policy. Last week alone, former president Bill Clinton launched an effort with 22 of the world's largest cities to cut their emissions, while California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they will explore trading carbon dioxide pollution credits across the Atlantic.

Recently, 22 states and the District of Columbia have set standards demanding that utilities generate a specific amount of energy -- in some cases, as high as 33 percent -- from renewable sources by 2020. And 11 states have set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

California also has passed legislation mandating that automakers reduce their vehicles' carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2016, and 10 other states have committed to adopt the same standards if the law survives a court challenge.

( I expect the Repugs/Asshole General Gonzalez to attack all these initiatives as illegal )

In addition, as many as 10 states in the Northeast are working to establish state-by-state ceilings for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and allow industries such as power plants to trade pollution credits for carbon emissions while cutting greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent by 2019. California, Oregon and Washington are negotiating a similar pact.

Some local officials said they are pushing ahead with plans because the Bush administration, which has promoted cleaner technology but opposes mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, has failed to adequately address the problem.

"Like most mayors, I'm disappointed the federal government has not taken more of a lead on this issue, but so be it. We're moving forward," said Albuquerque Mayor Martin J. Chavez, who is expanding public transportation in his city and has persuaded some other U.S. mayors to pledge to make their cities' buildings carbon-neutral by 2030, meaning their net carbon dioxide emissions would be zero.

But some experts say there is a political imperative at work, as well. Tim Profeta, who worked for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) before leaving last year to direct Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, said local politicians feel greater pressure to address the threat of rising sea levels and other climate-related conditions.

"State and local governments are less removed from their constituents, so they're more responsive to voters' concerns," said Profeta, who sits on North Carolina's climate-change commission and has met with British officials on the subject. "Climate change is on people's minds, and they're asking for action."

( ... so the Repugs agitate for blocking same-sex unions, flag burning, stem cell research, and FOR a phony war )

North Carolina state Sen. Charles W. Albertson (D) said he is not "completely convinced" that human activity is causing global warming, but he pushed for the climate-change commission because he worries that environmental changes are threatening his coastal constituents' homes and livelihoods. "What if it's taking place and we're not doing anything about it?" he asked.

Bush's top environmental adviser, James L. Connaughton, said the president welcomes state and local initiatives because they complement the administration's approach to global warming.

( exactly, the localities doing something complements the Repugs doing nothing )
"They're pursuing a portfolio of policies, not a one-size-fits-all policy," Connaughton said in an interview Aug. 4, adding that the United States is also focused on voluntary pacts such as China's pledge to improve its power production efficiency 20 percent by 2010. "At the end of the day, what matters is performance, and we're all making about the same rate of progress."

( WH/Repug bullshit and spin )

Some state officials and environmentalists said their efforts will soon surpass anything Bush has done to combat climate change.

Richard Cowart, who has advised officials on both coasts on carbon-trading systems as a director of the Vermont-based Regulatory Assistance Project, said that together, the two proposed trading systems "represent one of the largest efforts to rein in carbon emissions in the world."

And Dan Becker, global warming director for the Sierra Club, said auto manufacturers will cut emissions now that states representing a third of the country's market are preparing to regulate carbon dioxide.

"Obviously, what we're trying to do is reach a tipping point," Becker said. "We're probably close to where the car companies will have to cry 'uncle.' "

The automakers are suing to block California's law, however, and the Bush administration may block it on the grounds that it amounts to usurping the federal government's right to set national fuel economy standards.

( anybody surprised? )

Margo Thorning, senior vice president of the American Council for Capital Formation, said this array of state regulations could harm the U.S. economy.

( yawn, you knew that bullshit was coming )

"I don't think it's terribly helpful to have the industry wondering what are the car standards in California vis-a-vis the standards in Arizona," said Thorning, whose think tank is funded in part by Exxon Mobil Corp. "It adds a lot of uncertainty and slows the kind of investment we'd like to see in the U.S."

These overlapping carbon dioxide regulations may force the administration's hand.

( into feeral legal actions to neuter and gut all non-federal regulations )

Robert E. Busch, PSEG Services Corp. president, said during a Washington panel discussion in February that "you sort of don't blame" environmentalists for pursuing state caps on carbon dioxide, but added, "The answer to this problem is not 50 different approaches to greenhouse gases in the United States. That makes no sense at all."

And Richard J. Osborne, vice president of public and regulatory policy at Duke Energy Corp., told a Duke University audience in September that his utility backed federal legislation on climate change because the "patchwork of state actions" might produce "state-by-state chaos."

Clinton, who is establishing an international consortium so cities from Cairo to Los Angeles can bargain for energy-efficient products and trade policy ideas, said state and local experiments could eventually form the basis for federal action on climate change.

"What we need to do is get more case studies," Clinton said in an interview last week, adding that while voters care more about global warming now than when he was president, as for candidates, "unfortunately, it's not one of those issues where if you don't do something about it, you'll get beat."

Some federal officials are participating in the emerging carbon-trading economy: Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) has registered his farm's hardwood trees on the Chicago Climate Exchange, calculating that the 3,440 tons of carbon dioxide absorbed by the trees will trade for more than $15,000.

Matt Petersen, president of the advocacy group Global Green USA, said that over the past decade, he has found state and local officials to be more open to imposing energy efficiency standards on commercial buildings and to renewable-energy tax credits. Global Green is advising West Hollywood officials on drafting green building standards for new private construction and is lobbying the Louisiana government to give developers an incentive to rebuild New Orleans in an energy-efficient way.

"We had to do a lot of work and hand-holding early on," Petersen said. "The people who asked the toughest questions are now the biggest advocates."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Ozzman

08-11-2006, 02:50 PM

( ... so the Repugs agitate for blocking same-sex unions, flag burning, stem cell research, and FOR a phony war )

So you say you support Same sex unions in HOLY matrimony? AND flag burning? AND Abortion/related subjects?

The union of holy matrimony between two people in the BIBLE where in this country it originated, is described between a MAN and a WOMAN.

And how are you so certain this is a phony war? Did we not get attacked by islamic extremists on 9/11?

DarkReign

08-11-2006, 03:22 PM

The union of holy matrimony between two people in the BIBLE where in this country it originated, is described between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Well good thing there is a seperation of church and state or we would be living in a theocracy instead of a democracy.

Whew

And how are you so certain this is a phony war? Did we not get attacked by islamic extremists on 9/11?

Did those who attacked us come from Iraq? Nope....Saudi Arabia. The connection? Their isnt one.

Good point.

Ozzman

08-11-2006, 03:30 PM

ya. whatever. I honestly dont' really care much about discussing anymore on the war in Iraq anymore.right now, the issue at hand is Israel and Iran and Lebanon. That is more important than Iraq, IMO/

boutons_

08-11-2006, 03:31 PM

Same sex marriage is between consenting adults.

Flag burning harms only flags. I don't burn flags, but I don't care if other express whatever by burning flags. Starting phony wars and wasting military lives dishonors the military a million times more than burning flags.

I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice.

"And how are you so certain this is a phony war?"

Not a single "reason" the Repugs lied about justifying the Repug Iraq was true.
Iraq was no threat to the USA.
The USA is weaker, less intimidating, not safer, as a result of the phony Repug Iraq war.

"Did we not get attacked by islamic extremists on 9/11?"

Ozzman, you really haven't been paying attention.
Iraq/Saddam did not attackt the WTC, but you can believe dickhead if you want.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-15-2006, 10:47 AM

Yonivore, I am not trying to stifle debate, but phrases like "let me assure you" infer that there is a real debate going on in the scientific community about the cause of the "enhanced greenhouse warming" (which is what people should call the phenomonon). There is not. Hell, even the CIA have accepted it as fact.

I checked out your link and in a way it has some validity, - there is a lot we still don't know. However, it is also written by Steven Milloy, "currently a columnist for Fox News. He is also a paid advocate for Phillip Morris[1], and ExxonMobil[2]. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy). It has itself been debunked:

http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm

and here's the wiki on "junk science" in general, with some nice links at the bottom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science

If you wanna play the internet referencing game, we can all play at that. But I know many scientists, researchers, professors, well read, respected and published people from a number of unrelated institutions, and not one of them doubts that changing land use, deforestation and anthropogenic pollution of the atmosphere is changing the global climate (you cannot change regional climate and not have that change affect the whole system - climate is a global system). My own research leads me to the same conclusion.

Note that empirical science is never 100% provable as fact - everything relies on statistics, and they have confidence intervals, so there is always an error factor. The same argument was run at smoking and cancer, asbestos and mesothilioma, evolution and intelligent design, but that doesn't make it any more valid. Do you believe smoking is unrelated to lung cancer? The fact is that the overwhelming avalanche of evidence supports e.g.w. caused by human industrialisation on a massive scale, and that assertion is supported by all but a few of the world's scientists... oh, no, but they've been duped!

A beautifully elegant effect of the warming we are currently experiencing, which is occuring at a faster rate than observed in recent geological time (ie. millions of years), is the melting of the polar icecaps and Greenland ice shelf. It is the rate of change of the atmosphere/climate which is unprecedented and which separates this from a "natural" warming event. We have never seen anything like this scale and rapidity of melting, certainly not in recent geological history... except in our own kitchens.

What happens when you turn off the freezer? As the seal slowly allows heat into the freezer compartment, the ice caking it melts and starts to drip. This is an apt metaphor for the extra heat the altered atmosphere is retaining. We are witnessing a similar process only at a global scale. The question is, how far must the global climate system be disturbed before it is tipped from within the bounds of its current equilibrium and into another equilibrium state which we cannot predict, and which could threaten the continuation of civilisation as we know it? Our comfortable existence is built on a rapidly diminishing piggy bank of dead bones, and complex social and economic system as unstable as a house of cards, and if the climate changes cycles on us (especially combined with rising sea levels), watch the world go to hell in a handbasket.

RandomGuy

08-15-2006, 10:55 AM

What happens when you turn off the freezer? As the seal slowly allows heat into the freezer compartment, the ice caking it melts and starts to drip. This is an apt metaphor for the extra heat the altered atmosphere is retaining. We are witnessing a similar process only at a global scale. The question is, how far must the global climate system be disturbed before it is tipped from within the bounds of its current equilibrium and into another equilibrium state which we cannot predict?

It's a bit like playing russian roullette with the survival of our species. Not worth the risk. God forbid we should ever get over our hyper-individualism long enough to realize that, like it or not, we do share some responsibilities/duties to something other than our own accumulation of wealth.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-15-2006, 11:09 AM

101A

08-15-2006, 12:21 PM

RG, the other thing is that more and bigger stuff, money, material possessions, above a given threshold, DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE HAPPIER! What really makes most people happy is spending time with people they love and doing something meaningful with their lives, and yet we are all caught up doing things we hate to win this race to own and consume.

I opted the fvck out of that BS 5 years ago, and now I'm trying to do all I can to show people the truth that is right in front of their eyes. If we all sacrifice a little, the aggregate effect is huge, and in a little while you forget that you actually sacrificed anything in the first place (great example of this is drought-stricken Australia and the water restrictions of the last 5 years). I honestly believe that if we all had a little less, and for that got back some of our time, not quite as much would be produced (a good thing) and the net happiness of humanity, able to spend more time with those we love, would increase.

Answer me this - why is our entire economic (and thus political and social) system FOUNDED ON THE PREMISE OF GROWTH=GOOD, given that the resources of our planet are FINITE? It is a historical hangover from a time only a century ago when the earth had 16% of it's current population (1bil vs 6+bil) and its resources appeared to be infinite. We have to change this idea - it is outmoded and unrealistic. We must somehow change our values such that growth is okay if it is SUSTAINABLE.

So there ya go. To the neo-cons I am just a shrieking hippy who doesn't know how the world works. (I've done enough shitty jobs and seen enough of the slime to know how the world works.) To me, neo-cons are wilfully blind , and in being so, morally culpable for the damage they are doing to this and future generations under the motto "Greed is good, and more is better". Wish I could make them see, but unfortunately they are really good at holding on to the power...

G'night.

Unfortunately, your world view, even though I am somewhat following your model, is what is not sustainable. Enlightened self-interest is not commonplace. People are driven by individual desires; materially, physically, and spiritually. That is why capitlism generates SO MUCH more wealth than all other economic strategies ever attempted - and why the more socialistic an economy becomes, the less productive the members of its society become; the more they cannot reap the fruits of their own labors, with immediate gratification, the less they are willing to do. Eventually there is a level at which simply not enough is getting done. Compound that with modern medicince (primarily antibiotics), and you can keep people alive much longer than was possible in the nirvana-like 1 billion population earth you reference...and of course people are going to continue to reproduce; well, you see the problem. More and more people, less productivity - completely unsustainable situation. Now, if you want to outlaw antibiotics world-wide, you might have something...

Also, if the 1st world countries chose your "stop and smell the roses" plan; it would most likely slow the growth of the economies of third world countries; condemning those to a relative eternity stuck in the WAY over populated hell they are currently under; with the richer countries not having the motive to do business with them; nor the excess products and goods to help them.

Extra Stout

08-15-2006, 12:25 PM

Humans change their behavior as a result of cataclysmic events. They don't change their behavior in anticipation of possible cataclysmic events.

I would hazard a guess that most people don't even know there is a place called Antarctica, much less that it has an ice cap, much less know that it may be melting, much less care, much less figure out that it means sea level will rise, much less comprehend how that might affect them, much less do anything about it, much less change their lifestyle.

I could just be basing that upon the education level of the typical American, though.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-15-2006, 08:52 PM

Extrastout said "Humans change their behavior as a result of cataclysmic events. They don't change their behavior in anticipation of possible cataclysmic events."

Absolutely. The fundamental tragedy of mankind. The problem is that in the age of mass consumption we have such a complex and fragile system in place that when it does go wrong, which is inevitable, the consequences will be disastrous.

101A, don't label me as a socialist because I'm not. None of what I said advocated a socialist system. I believe in a regulated free market, but somehow (and I don't know how - if I did I'd be running the world) sustainability needs to become the prime driver of the system, not growth.

Obstructed_View

08-15-2006, 09:18 PM

Mavs_man_41

08-15-2006, 11:29 PM

Al Gore may be a hypocrite but i bet he'd be better than that monkey running the country now. Oh wait, hes just a puppet for the real people running the show. I'm probably gonna get ripped for saying this but I could care less if you dont like it blow me.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-15-2006, 11:51 PM

If someone wanted to point out that Gore is a hypocrite, perhaps mentioning the Pigeon River paper plant or Gore's zinc mine in Clarksville would be a better way to do it.

Regardless, the fact that he's a hypocrite distracts from the more important issue that alarmists don't do the world any good with apocalyptic predictions about anything, be it pollution, the environment, disease, etc. It seems anyone with a political agenda or a university grant has some cataclysmic prediction they must prove in order to keep the money flowing in their direction, rather than in the proper direction. Anyone who dares question the motives of such people are immediately shouted down and labeled as ignorant. We've been fed this kind of gloom and doom since we were kids. At some point otherwise responsible people just tune it out. It doesn't change the danger of crying wolf.

Agree with the first para, can't agree with the second. Yes, there are alarmists out there making the vast majority of scientists look bad, usually in an effort to sell books or publicise their next lecture tour. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't an impending problem or a massive quantity of research to back up the assertion of an impending problem.

Do you honestly believe that the unprecedented rate of glaciers and icecap melting (the thermostat of the earth), increased coral bleaching, 45% increase in atmospheric CO2 (and 150% in methane), 6 billion people consuming resources/changing land use patterns/modifying or destroying ecosystems is having no effect on the planet? Really? If so, sorry but you are CHOOSING to bury your head in the sand like most other people. It is easier to do that and await the catastrophe than it is to educate yourself and change some of your behaviours. I suggest that most people tune out because then they don't have to take responsibility for their actions, which are directly driving us toward the crisis. That is their choice, but it is an ill-informed and dangerously careless choice to make, and the saddest thing is that while we might be okay, it is our children and grandchildren who will live in a damaged world and bear the cost of our excess.

Did you ever think that some of the alarmists are saying what they are saying because there IS an impending crisis and no-one will listen if the don't SHOUT?

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-16-2006, 11:33 PM

I note that Yonivore has gone rather quiet since I pointed out that his "reputable source" is actually an oil company lobbyist.

See, people, don't believe the BS spread by random internet sites and PR agencies. Big business spends billions of dollars a year planting furphies and specious arguments out there and making them LOOK LIKE the real thing. They are NOT. Great example is the UTube video spoofing Al Gore, designed to look like it was made by an amateur, but actually made by a PR firm who also work for Exxon:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115457177198425388-0TpYE6bU6EGvfSqtP8_hHjJJ77I_20060810.html?mod=blog s

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!

DO SOME PROPER RESEARCH YOURSELF, OR GO TO REPUTABLE SOURCES AND COMPARE AND CONTRAST THEM.

Want a simplified, summarised, but accurate version of the real science that is out there, read mainstream mags like Nature and Science and New Scientist. They rigourously fact-check their articles and conduct quality, responsible science journalism.

Obstructed_View

08-16-2006, 11:44 PM

Do you honestly believe that the unprecedented rate of glaciers and icecap melting (the thermostat of the earth), increased coral bleaching, 45% increase in atmospheric CO2 (and 150% in methane), 6 billion people consuming resources/changing land use patterns/modifying or destroying ecosystems is having no effect on the planet?

So you've just dropped a bunch of puzzle pieces on the table. There are three effects and three causes listed above, with no indication of how, or whether, they interrelate. You might just as well say that the heat of the earth draws the sun into the sky because the sun is only up when it's hot. The world did a lot of shit before we were here and it'll do a lot of shit after we're gone that we aren't yet smart enough to predict and will never be powerful enough to change.

Everyone is shouting about whatever is important to them at the time, many for their own gain, many more who think they are smarter than everyone else who is shouting about something else. There are a lot of things happening, and so far nobody seems to have figured out exactly how it all fits together. There are an awful lot of people taking fucking core samples in icy countries and bitching at me because my car only gets 25 MPG that might be better off refining the hydrogen engine or coming up with more economical ways to manufacture light materials for cars or designing mass transit sytems that people will use. I keep the lights off that I don't use, keep my car tuned up and don't shoot freon into the air. I don't need lectures or guilt trips.

The only thing more annoying is people throwing random facts around while thinking they are somehow more educated than everyone else and saying shit like "don't believe the hype."

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-17-2006, 12:22 AM

What do you want me to do, OB? There are tens of thousands of studies intricately linking these things together. How exactly do you want me to explain it all on a message board?

Here's an example of a simple cause and effect model for you, although it massively underestimates the complexity of the systems involved and is thus just a simple metaphorical tool for getting a point across -

human activity has fundamentally changed land biogeograpphy across the planet - fewer forests, more monoculture crops, more desert (due to innapropriate farming practices) - human activity has also spewed massive quantities of pollutants into the air-->
changing land use affects the impact of solar radiation on the surface, and more heat is retained in the atmosphere than before due to the increased conc. of CO2, CH4, etc. when compared with pre-industrial levels-->
the extra heat retained in the atmosphere is absorbed by glaciers and ice sheets which are melting at a faster rate than ever observed - it is also absorbed by the oceans which raises their temperatures and increases the likelihood of coral bleaching events... these are easily identifiable symptoms of the earth's warming
etc.

Seriously, don't give me shit because you can't be bothered to go and read some reputable sources on this stuff yourself. The alarmists and doomsayers are but a tiny fraction of the people out there who are talking about and researching these matters, but unfortunately, due to the sensationalist media, they get far more coverage than the hundreds of thousands of scientists from numerous disciplines working on different aspects of human impact on the environment - the information is all out there. Go read New Scientist or Nature or Science magazine for a summary.

As for your personal habits, that's your business. However, we all need to realise that the way WE westerners live (me included) is completely unsustainable over the long-term - read something on the human ecology of energy budgets - and everything we do today will impact on the planet our children live in. Every litre of gas we use will not be there for them, every ecosystem we destroy through neglect will not be there for them, and who knows when the ecosystme we've destroyed will have disastrous flow-on effects into the agriculture we all rely upon? The idea of INTERGENERATIONAL CONCERN has been totally subsumed by me me me culture, and we are all poorer for it.

Don't want to know the truth, fine, but don't give me shit for trying to encourage people to find out more for themselves, which is about all you can do on a message board.

Oh, and I pointed out about HYPE because there are too many people like Yonivore who say "let me assure you" and quote as fact specious sources like "Junk Science" which are written by big business lobbyists. I'm encouraging people to go to primary sources, and reputable secondary sources like New Scientist magazine, to find out the truth for themselves. DOn't take my word or Steve Milloy's, go to your local university and talk to a climatologist, a human ecologist, a biological anthropologist, a systems engineer, and see what they have to say about these issues.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

08-20-2006, 06:32 AM

Hmmm.

Hit a sore spot?

I know people don't want to think about these things because they are inconvenient and make our choices harder, but if we don't start making difficult informed choices now, the millstone of our neglect is going to drag us all over the precipice.