If this is true about Al Gore then I'm not surprised.... Go make some charts Al Gore about Global warming and keep doing what you're doing...lol..what a joke
Hyprocrite..
I for one don't buy into the Global Warming propaganda scare but still like to be environmentally friendly..just common sense
I for one don't buy into the Global Warming propaganda scare but still like to be environmentally friendly..just common sense
thats the same boat i'm in. i have made my home as energy efficient as possible. i re-insulated my attic myself, installed new windows myself. everybody should do what they can to make this planet more livable. but its quite comical to see people that use environmentalism as their religion try to preach it on us.
thats the same boat i'm in. i have made my home as energy efficient as possible. i re-insulated my attic myself, installed new windows myself. everybody should do what they can to make this planet more livable. but its quite comical to see people that use environmentalism as their religion try to preach it on us.
Exactly...just called common sense.
Most people want to believe it without conclusive evidence and with their so-called charts and they don't realize that there are other "Scientists" as well that believe the opposite..but noooooo can't look at it with an open mind and question things.. If Al Gore says it's true and made a documentary then it must be true !..LOL
Exactly...just called common sense.
Most people want to believe it without conclusive evidence and with their so-called charts and they don't realize that there are other "Scientists" as well that believe the opposite..but noooooo can't look at it with an open mind and question things.. If Al Gore says it's true and made a documentary then it must be true !..LOL
wait a minute...if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?
thats the same boat i'm in. i have made my home as energy efficient as possible. i re-insulated my attic myself, installed new windows myself. everybody should do what they can to make this planet more livable. but its quite comical to see people that use environmentalism as their religion try to preach it on us.
I'll ask you too: if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?
Of course you haven't. Al Gore is too politically savvy to spend much time on solutions. He knows it's much more effective to declare danger, to reference the moral dichotomy of man v nature I mentioned earlier, and to then urge "swift action":
'Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That event was believed to have been caused by a giant asteroid. This time it is not an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc; it is us.
Last year, the national academies of science in the eleven most influential nations came together to jointly call on every nation to "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing" and declare that the "scientific understanding of climate changes is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
So the message is unmistakably clear. This crisis means "danger"!'
- Al Gore
Now, aside from his support for legally capping emissions and establishing emissions "markets", his primary message is supposedly for you to use less electricity and to invent new things. Yet that brings us back to his 221,000 kwh / year of consumption and his complete and utter failure to invent anything. So I guess I just wonder which he actually wants to achieve.
Where do you see change? In his words? Or in his actions? Because if this article is correct, Gore's usage of non-renewable entergy is increasing right along with his rhetoric about global warming.
I see change in the report I saw this morning that said they are in the process of converting their house to solar power. That is a start.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
I'll ask you too: if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?
But the question is what Scientists..You are only speaking of the Scientists that are for the assumption of Global Warming.
I'm attempting to live more efficiently and conserve because it is "Common sense" to not what to pollute the air we breath and have clean roads rather than garbage all over it.
I don't believe in the Global Warming scare but I do believe in being "Cleaner"
big difference my man
Now, aside from his support for legally capping emissions and establishing emissions "markets", his primary message is supposedly for you to use less electricity and to invent new things. Yet that brings us back to his 221,000 kwh / year of consumption and his complete and utter failure to invent anything. So I guess I just wonder which he actually wants to achieve.
I.e. if you're concerned about emissions and pollution, but lack the knowledge to create your own energy source - at levels often requiring industry wide research and development - in your own basement, using tools you invented yourself - 'cause current tools were likely produced through means that create more emissions - then your opinions on the matter don't amount to jack-shit, any attempt to limit your own emissions using currently available means while keeping some modicum of your own lifestyle intact is foolish, encouraging others to take simple steps to clean up their own emissions is tantamount to official decree, so it's best you just shut-up, 'cause you never won the office of president, and only ignorant rubes listen to you anyway.
You know, I have yet to watch An Inconvenient Truth, but I'm going to have to check it out. It's caused more controversy and impassioned response than "Deep Throat" - and I love to see me some prurient fury on both sides.
I see change in the report I saw this morning that said they are in the process of converting their house to solar power. That is a start.
Fair enough. If that happens, I certainly can't fault Al Gore for doing it. But just remember saying "I'm in the process of converting my house to solar power" is emissions negative. Actually doing it is emissions positive.
I see change in the report I saw this morning that said they are in the process of converting their house to solar power. That is a start.
man after all the good guy patting at the oscar's to have this made public talk about pie in your face ,you can't make shit up like this i hope he does not enter the presidential race .........
But the question is what Scientists..You are only speaking of the Scientists that are for the assumption of Global Warming.
I'm attempting to live more efficiently and conserve because it is "Common sense" to not what to pollute the air we breath and have clean roads rather than garbage all over it.
I don't believe in the Global Warming scare but I do believe in being "Cleaner"
big difference my man
Global warming in todays terms is a term meaning "the earth is getting hotter by the day and crazy storms are coming because of human activity"
and well being Environmentally Cleaner means not throwing garbage on the ground, recycling,reusable energy etc...I'm not the Greenest person around but try to do my part
Global warming in todays terms is a term meaning "the earth is getting hotter by the day and crazy storms are coming because of human activity"
and well being Environmentally Cleaner means not throwing garbage on the ground, recycling,reusable energy etc...I'm not the Greenest person around but try to do my part
can we agree to disagree....?
hey, if a person is living a "cleaner life", I say "hoooray"....and if your reasons are different from mine, who cares...
at the end of the day, we'll be living in a "cleaner" world...
I.e. if you're concerned about emissions and pollution, but lack the knowledge to create your own energy source - at levels often requiring industry wide research and development - in your own basement, using tools you invented yourself - 'cause current tools were likely produced through means that create more emissions - then your opinions on the matter don't amount to jack-shit, any attempt to limit your own emissions using currently available means while keeping some modicum of your own lifestyle intact is foolish, encouraging others to take simple steps to clean up their own emissions is tantamount to official decree, so it's best you just shut-up, 'cause you never won the office of president, and only ignorant rubes listen to you anyway.
You know, I have yet to watch An Inconvenient Truth, but I'm going to have to check it out. It's caused more controversy and impassioned response than "Deep Throat" - and I love to see me some prurient fury on both sides.
You should watch it. It's very well done. You might want to rent "Reefer Madness" while you're at it too (if you can find it). Also a great piece of hysteria-envoking propaganda that shows what you can do in politics with some very valid science used as a threat of disaster.
Oh, and for your "industry wide research and development" -- you can keep proclaiming that until, yet again, a handful of people yet again solve your problems.
Of course you haven't. Al Gore is too politically savvy to spend much time on solutions. He knows it's much more effective to declare danger, to reference the moral dichotomy of man v nature I mentioned earlier, and to then urge "swift action":
'Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That event was believed to have been caused by a giant asteroid. This time it is not an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc; it is us.
Last year, the national academies of science in the eleven most influential nations came together to jointly call on every nation to "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing" and declare that the "scientific understanding of climate changes is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
So the message is unmistakably clear. This crisis means "danger"!'
- Al Gore
Now, aside from his support for legally capping emissions and establishing emissions "markets", his primary message is supposedly for you to use less electricity and to invent new things. Yet that brings us back to his 221,000 kwh / year of consumption and his complete and utter failure to invent anything. So I guess I just wonder which he actually wants to achieve.
i don't see anything wrong with that message. it sounds like what he wants to achieve is greater awareness and he's succeeding. maybe he's slightly hypocritical, i dont know enough about what he's doing with this green energy thing to say if it's not good enough. but i have to point out that if he was doing heavy homework in 2006 (installing solar panels and the like) that would cause a large spike in energy use due just to the work being done. or it could have been hosting more to promote the movie. who knows. it's possible the 2006 use was an anomaly and i think we're all jumping the gun here. the cost of his consumption is irrelevant depending on energy rates where he lives and who he's buying it from. and yes, the deferment plan he's doing doesn't reduce his use, but it is better than nothing. aren't pearl jam doing that carbon footprint thing too? it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. sometimes the nature of your work demands certain concessions... pearl jam has to use gas to tour and make their living so better to offset the damage than do nothing. to get his message out, al has to play the game to an extent. people gave us shit about that when i campaigned for nader all the time... why are you handing out paper flyers while you talk about the environment? cos you've got to get in the game to change the way it's played. i dont know enough about what al gore's doing in that house to say what he should be doing, but i think we're all a bit eager to string him up.
hey, if a person is living a "cleaner life", I say "hoooray"....and if your reasons are different from mine, who cares...
at the end of the day, we'll be living in a "cleaner" world...
Of course we can agree to disagree ...LOL..I"m not the Master of Zen for nothing...haha
I'm just one of those guys that don't like to jump the media propaganda train or the band-wagon on issues like this without conclusive evidence..
I'm just a Bylaw Enforcement Officer but I'll bet ya the earth is gonna get cooler within 5-10 years...just my guess..
the means of innovation might be the human brain, but let's be real, you need capital and equipment for that kind of research and technology innovation.
Sigh...you have both more capital and access to more equipment than Christian Friedrich Schönbein did in 1840. He invented the fuel cell.
most of that capital and resources is held by industries that have a very vested interest in making sure such innovation does NOT take place because they make most of their profits off the current technology.
"Most of the capital"??? Capital is limited only to the amount of labor that supports it. So, people can sit around and do nothing whilst complaining about others who "control capital", or they can simply generate new capital through their own efforts.
What resources do you need? Exxon et al controls much of the oil, but the whole point here is to get away from oil, right?
it's a cultural problem: unwillingess to make short term sacrifice for long-term gain. in this specific case, lower profits to invest in technology that could put them on top in the long run is not an option becos those low profits might kill company stock before they ever get a chance to turn that profit. it's why america is losing a lot of ground to places like china and japan, who are much more willing to look at the long-term when choosing investments. profits neither make things stagnant nor do they drive innovation. this is why i say profits ensure stagnation. the people who are making the profits don't want to risk losing any and thus won't support anything that might entail a temporary hit on profits.
The "cultural problem" you refer to is the attitude that demands existing industries be responsible for their own demise. In the context of solving global warming, existing industries are an irrelevancy. They've already failed. Your desire for progress relegates them to relics of the past, so long as they refuse to innovate. They don't stand in your way. Your reliance on them is what stands in your way.
i havent seen inconvenient truth, so i dont know what environmental policies it recommends, but it sounds to me like its focus is on individuals reducing their use and buying smart. i dont see what problem you would have for this given your love of the free market? i get the feeling a lot of the environmental movement is changing people's minds and creating a demand for eco-friendly practices. is there anything wrong with that?
I don't have any problem with Al Gore or other's messages about wise consumption. I have a problem with Al Gore's unwise consumption coupled with that message.
i don't see anything wrong with that message. it sounds like what he wants to achieve is greater awareness and he's succeeding. maybe he's slightly hypocritical, i dont know enough about what he's doing with this green energy thing to say if it's not good enough. but i have to point out that if he was doing heavy homework in 2006 (installing solar panels and the like) that would cause a large spike in energy use due just to the work being done. or it could have been hosting more to promote the movie. who knows. it's possible the 2006 use was an anomaly and i think we're all jumping the gun here. the cost of his consumption is irrelevant depending on energy rates where he lives and who he's buying it from. and yes, the deferment plan he's doing doesn't reduce his use, but it is better than nothing. aren't pearl jam doing that carbon footprint thing too? it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. sometimes the nature of your work demands certain concessions... pearl jam has to use gas to tour and make their living so better to offset the damage than do nothing. to get his message out, al has to play the game to an extent. people gave us shit about that when i campaigned for nader all the time... why are you handing out paper flyers while you talk about the environment? cos you've got to get in the game to change the way it's played. i dont know enough about what al gore's doing in that house to say what he should be doing, but i think we're all a bit eager to string him up.
I have no desire to string up Al Gore. And let me say that I think Al Gore should have every right to use every bit of electricity that someone is willing to sell him.
You should watch it. It's very well done. You might want to rent "Reefer Madness" while you're at it too (if you can find it). Also a great piece of hysteria-envoking propaganda that shows what you can do in politics with some very valid science used as a threat of disaster.
Oh, and for your "industry wide research and development" -- you can keep proclaiming that until, yet again, a handful of people yet again solve your problems.
I still believe that it won't be something developed in someone's basement on their own dime - but rather through research and development done by many individuals (I'm not too clear on the definition of "handful"; so we could be talking about the same number) and funded by many more, through both the public and private sector. It will then create a ripple that will stretch out and make the solution "industry wide." When it reaches that stage, the technologies will be readily available and affordable enough for the average consumer.
You can keep proclaiming that the market is the magic salve to sooth all ills; but, yet again, the issue will be resolved through both the market and regulatory laws.
Sigh...you have both more capital and access to more equipment than Christian Friedrich Schönbein did in 1840. He invented the fuel cell.
"Most of the capital"??? Capital is limited only to the amount of labor that supports it. So, people can sit around and do nothing whilst complaining about others who "control capital", or they can simply generate new capital through their own efforts.
What resources do you need? Exxon et al controls much of the oil, but the whole point here is to get away from oil, right?
The "cultural problem" you refer to is the attitude that demands existing industries be responsible for their own demise. In the context of solving global warming, existing industries are an irrelevancy. They've already failed. Your desire for progress relegates them to relics of the past, so long as they refuse to innovate. They don't stand in your way. Your reliance on them is what stands in your way.
tech is a bit more complicated than it was in 1840. im not sure what a fuel cell is (i was an english major) but i know that it's tough to invent a hydrogen powered car if you don't have a car or a few dozen to experiment with. those are expensive. as are most of the components. as are most of the tools you need to do proper research on such dangerous and volatile chemicals as hydrogen. most high schools can't even afford a basic physics set for their lab... you're telling me it's easy for a private citizen to sit down and invent a new car from scratch? how many people and how much money went into the model-t? and how much prior technology did he take advantage of (no doubt before patent laws were as effective as they are now)? this stuff is expensive and improving on existing technology demands access to the current technology, access that will not be granted due to concern over trade secrets and profits. only ford could fiddle with a ford, and so on and so forth. innovation is dependent on the owner of the patent. thus, to "innovate" on a gas-powered car a private citizen first has to invent and build their own car... a pretty expensive investment right there. the cost is other-worldly.
yes, these industries are on the brink of demise. but they can avoid that by getting in on the new technology. you're not asking them to sign their own death warrant, you're asking them to be ahead of the game enough to remain relevant... which requires forward thinking american companies wont do becos of the focus on present profits. i am not advocating laws forcing them to do such research, but i dont know why you've got your panties in a twist about a group of private citizens trying to convince them it is in their best interests to get to work on this technology. isn't that what you're all about? free market pressures? i can assure you one thing, if japan comes up with a cheap renewable-source car first, america as a whole is goign to be in some serious economic trouble. encouraging exploration of such technology is not just idealism, it's smart business and also good defense strategy.
I don't have any problem with Al Gore or other's messages about wise consumption. I have a problem with Al Gore's unwise consumption coupled with that message.
i never saw you express a problem with ted haggard and his hypocrisy. or rush and his. it seems like you only have a problem with hypocrisy when the hypocrite disagrees with you. both of the previous two are trying to restrict your freedom just as much (and it seems even more so) than al gore ever would. but, as per usual, the only thing that seems to get your attention is when someone comes after your bank account. for all your talk about freedom, that seems to be the only freedom you give a damn about.
I still believe that it won't be something developed in someone's basement on their own dime - but rather through research and development done by many individuals (I'm not too clear on the definition of "handful"; so we could be talking about the same number) and funded by many more, through both the public and private sector. It will then create a ripple that will stretch out and make the solution "industry wide." When it reaches that stage, the technologies will be readily available and affordable enough for the average consumer.
I completely agree RainDog. I'm guessing farfromglorified won't, however, as it would muddy his individualistic position, where the individual alone gets full credit for the invention. I like how you showed the interactive nature of our environment by your view. Besides that, I see how the individuals involved in such inventions are molded by the very cultural and societal impacts that permeate our society, in very deep and complex ways.
And farfromglorified, yes, the individual in this scenario is a key piece of the puzzle, yet he/she is not the puzzle--the puzzle has numerous components.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I have no desire to string up Al Gore. And let me say that I think Al Gore should have every right to use every bit of electricity that someone is willing to sell him.
I simply don't trust Al Gore. That's it.
fair enough. im not about to run out and put up solar panels or anything myself. but i dont think him encouraging people to be conscientious about their energy use is a bad thing by any stretch, regardless of what he's doing.
Fair enough. If that happens, I certainly can't fault Al Gore for doing it. But just remember saying "I'm in the process of converting my house to solar power" is emissions negative. Actually doing it is emissions positive.
Can't argue with that either.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
tech is a bit more complicated than it was in 1840. im not sure what a fuel cell is (i was an english major) but i know that it's tough to invent a hydrogen powered car if you don't have a car or a few dozen to experiment with.
Hehe...then how did the car get invented in the first place?
those are expensive. as are most of the components. as are most of the tools you need to do proper research on such dangerous and volatile chemicals as hydrogen. most high schools can't even afford a basic physics set for their lab... you're telling me it's easy for a private citizen to sit down and invent a new car from scratch?
No, it's not easy. It's exceptionally difficult.
how many people and how much money went into the model-t?
and how much prior technology did he take advantage of (no doubt before patent laws were as effective as they are now)? this stuff is expensive and improving on existing technology demands access to the current technology, access that will not be granted due to concern over trade secrets and profits. only ford could fiddle with a ford, and so on and so forth. innovation is dependent on the owner of the patent. thus, to "innovate" on a gas-powered car a private citizen first has to invent and build their own car... a pretty expensive investment right there. the cost is other-worldly.
The cost isn't "other-worldly". The cost was paid for here, on this world.
yes, these industries are on the brink of demise. but they can avoid that by getting in on the new technology. you're not asking them to sign their own death warrant, you're asking them to be ahead of the game enough to remain relevant... which requires forward thinking american companies wont do becos of the focus on present profits. i am not advocating laws forcing them to do such research, but i dont know why you've got your panties in a twist about a group of private citizens trying to convince them it is in their best interests to get to work on this technology. isn't that what you're all about? free market pressures? i can assure you one thing, if japan comes up with a cheap renewable-source car first, america as a whole is goign to be in some serious economic trouble. encouraging exploration of such technology is not just idealism, it's smart business and also good defense strategy.
Of course it is. But my "panties are in a twist" not about "free market pressures". Those pressures existed before Al Gore et al and will continue to exist when they find some new doomsday to harp about.
What I don't like are the unstated threats of these people. The references to "swift action". The allusions to legislative controls.
i never saw you express a problem with ted haggard and his hypocrisy. or rush and his.
Who is Ted Haggard?
And Rush is a fool. His idiocy exceeds Al Gore's, if that's what you're looking for from me there.
it seems like you only have a problem with hypocrisy when the hypocrite disagrees with you. both of the previous two are trying to restrict your freedom just as much (and it seems even more so) than al gore ever would. but, as per usual, the only thing that seems to get your attention is when someone comes after your bank account. for all your talk about freedom, that seems to be the only freedom you give a damn about.
The cost isn't "other-worldly". The cost was paid for here, on this world.
Of course it is. But my "panties are in a twist" not about "free market pressures". Those pressures existed before Al Gore et al and will continue to exist when they find some new doomsday to harp about.
What I don't like are the unstated threats of these people. The references to "swift action". The allusions to legislative controls.
then you see my point... it's exceptionally difficult and expensive. maybe not other-worldy, but prohibitively expensive to all but the most privileged. this isn't something someone can do in their basement like in the 1840s. the cost is extremely prohibitive and most people are forbidden from even attempting by patent laws. the people who currently own the technology are the only ones allowed to mess with it, and they refuse to. it's not so simple as "if you want alternative energy, go invent it." there are a whole LOT of things preventing that from happening.
also, key word being "allusions." there is nothing on the table so far as i know, so what's the worry? let the market pressures work. perhaps if the self-righteous folks like you acknowledge the validity of their concerns, the difficulty they face in doing anything about them, and are willing to come to the table for some meaningful discussion on the issues, they won't feel like they have no recourse but legislation. but when the only people with the money and technology to do anything about it say, essentially "go fuck yourself hippies" without even listening with an open mind... well, they're going to use the nuclear option.
ted haggard is another of the ilk of jenkins, lahaye, and robertson... people who are striving to regulate the most intimate details of your life on "moral" grounds. yet i've never once seen you enter such a thread and go to bat to combat that deprivation of freedom. the only time you get involved is when your wallet is at stake. it makes all your high-brow rhetoric about freedom look pretty flimsy... becos the only freedom you seem to truly give a damn about is the freedom to stuff your purse to overflowing.
then you see my point... it's exceptionally difficult and expensive. this isn't something someone can do in their basement like in the 1840s.
Hehe...of course it is. Just because something is "difficult and expensive" doesn't preclude one from doing something in their basement, soulsinging.
The creation of Microsoft Windows was "difficult and expensive". Yet it was done in a garage. The creation of FedEx was "difficult and expensive". Yet is was done in a dilapidated Little Rock hangar. The hybrid car itself was invented in a small car factory by Ferdinand Porsche when he was in his early 20s.
the cost is extremely prohibitive and most people are forbidden from even attempting by patent laws. the people who currently own the technology are the only ones allowed to mess with it, and they refuse to. it's not so simple as "if you want alternative energy, go invent it." there are a whole LOT of things preventing that from happening.
There are more things preventing it than even you think. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. It just means that only the best amongst us will do it.
And yes, repealing all patent laws and protections would be a big help!
also, key word being "allusions." there is nothing on the table so far as i know, so what's the worry? let the market pressures work. perhaps if the self-righteous folks like you acknowledge the validity of their concerns, the difficulty they face in doing anything about them, and are willing to come to the table for some meaningful discussion on the issues, they won't feel like they have no recourse but legislation. but when the only people with the money and technology to do anything about it say, essentially "go fuck yourself hippies" without even listening with an open mind... well, they're going to use the nuclear option.
Hehe....the people who will solve this problem don't need me, soulsinging. You either.
ted haggard is another of the ilk of jenkins, lahaye, and robertson... people who are striving to regulate the most intimate details of your life on "moral" grounds. yet i've never once seen you enter such a thread and go to bat to combat that deprivation of freedom. the only time you get involved is when your wallet is at stake. it makes all your high-brow rhetoric about freedom look pretty flimsy...
Are you talking about evangelicals who want to ban me from sleeping with some dude, or saying "Jesus Christ" when I see some idiotic argument on this board? I've certainly made posts here rejecting bans on same-sex marriage and the sale of certain drugs and abortion. Didn't you start that thread about banning "indifference and jealousy" that I posted in???
Look, liberals argue with me. The moronic "moralists" tend to ignore me. So it stands to reason that most of my posts will be found in the latter.
becos the only freedom you seem to truly give a damn about is the freedom to stuff your purse to overflowing.
:rolleyes:
If I wanted to stuff my purse, I'd just fall in love with any politician who would steal your money and give it to me.
Comments
Hyprocrite..
I for one don't buy into the Global Warming propaganda scare but still like to be environmentally friendly..just common sense
Exactly...just called common sense.
Most people want to believe it without conclusive evidence and with their so-called charts and they don't realize that there are other "Scientists" as well that believe the opposite..but noooooo can't look at it with an open mind and question things.. If Al Gore says it's true and made a documentary then it must be true !..LOL
wait a minute...if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?
I'll ask you too: if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?
Of course you haven't. Al Gore is too politically savvy to spend much time on solutions. He knows it's much more effective to declare danger, to reference the moral dichotomy of man v nature I mentioned earlier, and to then urge "swift action":
'Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That event was believed to have been caused by a giant asteroid. This time it is not an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc; it is us.
Last year, the national academies of science in the eleven most influential nations came together to jointly call on every nation to "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing" and declare that the "scientific understanding of climate changes is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
So the message is unmistakably clear. This crisis means "danger"!'
- Al Gore
Now, aside from his support for legally capping emissions and establishing emissions "markets", his primary message is supposedly for you to use less electricity and to invent new things. Yet that brings us back to his 221,000 kwh / year of consumption and his complete and utter failure to invent anything. So I guess I just wonder which he actually wants to achieve.
I see change in the report I saw this morning that said they are in the process of converting their house to solar power. That is a start.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
But the question is what Scientists..You are only speaking of the Scientists that are for the assumption of Global Warming.
I'm attempting to live more efficiently and conserve because it is "Common sense" to not what to pollute the air we breath and have clean roads rather than garbage all over it.
I don't believe in the Global Warming scare but I do believe in being "Cleaner"
big difference my man
You know, I have yet to watch An Inconvenient Truth, but I'm going to have to check it out. It's caused more controversy and impassioned response than "Deep Throat" - and I love to see me some prurient fury on both sides.
Fair enough. If that happens, I certainly can't fault Al Gore for doing it. But just remember saying "I'm in the process of converting my house to solar power" is emissions negative. Actually doing it is emissions positive.
sorry, I don't see the difference...
but that's just me...
and well being Environmentally Cleaner means not throwing garbage on the ground, recycling,reusable energy etc...I'm not the Greenest person around but try to do my part
can we agree to disagree....?
hey, if a person is living a "cleaner life", I say "hoooray"....and if your reasons are different from mine, who cares...
at the end of the day, we'll be living in a "cleaner" world...
You should watch it. It's very well done. You might want to rent "Reefer Madness" while you're at it too (if you can find it). Also a great piece of hysteria-envoking propaganda that shows what you can do in politics with some very valid science used as a threat of disaster.
Oh, and for your "industry wide research and development" -- you can keep proclaiming that until, yet again, a handful of people yet again solve your problems.
i don't see anything wrong with that message. it sounds like what he wants to achieve is greater awareness and he's succeeding. maybe he's slightly hypocritical, i dont know enough about what he's doing with this green energy thing to say if it's not good enough. but i have to point out that if he was doing heavy homework in 2006 (installing solar panels and the like) that would cause a large spike in energy use due just to the work being done. or it could have been hosting more to promote the movie. who knows. it's possible the 2006 use was an anomaly and i think we're all jumping the gun here. the cost of his consumption is irrelevant depending on energy rates where he lives and who he's buying it from. and yes, the deferment plan he's doing doesn't reduce his use, but it is better than nothing. aren't pearl jam doing that carbon footprint thing too? it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. sometimes the nature of your work demands certain concessions... pearl jam has to use gas to tour and make their living so better to offset the damage than do nothing. to get his message out, al has to play the game to an extent. people gave us shit about that when i campaigned for nader all the time... why are you handing out paper flyers while you talk about the environment? cos you've got to get in the game to change the way it's played. i dont know enough about what al gore's doing in that house to say what he should be doing, but i think we're all a bit eager to string him up.
Of course we can agree to disagree ...LOL..I"m not the Master of Zen for nothing...haha
I'm just one of those guys that don't like to jump the media propaganda train or the band-wagon on issues like this without conclusive evidence..
I'm just a Bylaw Enforcement Officer but I'll bet ya the earth is gonna get cooler within 5-10 years...just my guess..
Sigh...you have both more capital and access to more equipment than Christian Friedrich Schönbein did in 1840. He invented the fuel cell.
"Most of the capital"??? Capital is limited only to the amount of labor that supports it. So, people can sit around and do nothing whilst complaining about others who "control capital", or they can simply generate new capital through their own efforts.
What resources do you need? Exxon et al controls much of the oil, but the whole point here is to get away from oil, right?
The "cultural problem" you refer to is the attitude that demands existing industries be responsible for their own demise. In the context of solving global warming, existing industries are an irrelevancy. They've already failed. Your desire for progress relegates them to relics of the past, so long as they refuse to innovate. They don't stand in your way. Your reliance on them is what stands in your way.
I don't have any problem with Al Gore or other's messages about wise consumption. I have a problem with Al Gore's unwise consumption coupled with that message.
I have no desire to string up Al Gore. And let me say that I think Al Gore should have every right to use every bit of electricity that someone is willing to sell him.
I simply don't trust Al Gore. That's it.
You can keep proclaiming that the market is the magic salve to sooth all ills; but, yet again, the issue will be resolved through both the market and regulatory laws.
tech is a bit more complicated than it was in 1840. im not sure what a fuel cell is (i was an english major) but i know that it's tough to invent a hydrogen powered car if you don't have a car or a few dozen to experiment with. those are expensive. as are most of the components. as are most of the tools you need to do proper research on such dangerous and volatile chemicals as hydrogen. most high schools can't even afford a basic physics set for their lab... you're telling me it's easy for a private citizen to sit down and invent a new car from scratch? how many people and how much money went into the model-t? and how much prior technology did he take advantage of (no doubt before patent laws were as effective as they are now)? this stuff is expensive and improving on existing technology demands access to the current technology, access that will not be granted due to concern over trade secrets and profits. only ford could fiddle with a ford, and so on and so forth. innovation is dependent on the owner of the patent. thus, to "innovate" on a gas-powered car a private citizen first has to invent and build their own car... a pretty expensive investment right there. the cost is other-worldly.
yes, these industries are on the brink of demise. but they can avoid that by getting in on the new technology. you're not asking them to sign their own death warrant, you're asking them to be ahead of the game enough to remain relevant... which requires forward thinking american companies wont do becos of the focus on present profits. i am not advocating laws forcing them to do such research, but i dont know why you've got your panties in a twist about a group of private citizens trying to convince them it is in their best interests to get to work on this technology. isn't that what you're all about? free market pressures? i can assure you one thing, if japan comes up with a cheap renewable-source car first, america as a whole is goign to be in some serious economic trouble. encouraging exploration of such technology is not just idealism, it's smart business and also good defense strategy.
i never saw you express a problem with ted haggard and his hypocrisy. or rush and his. it seems like you only have a problem with hypocrisy when the hypocrite disagrees with you. both of the previous two are trying to restrict your freedom just as much (and it seems even more so) than al gore ever would. but, as per usual, the only thing that seems to get your attention is when someone comes after your bank account. for all your talk about freedom, that seems to be the only freedom you give a damn about.
And farfromglorified, yes, the individual in this scenario is a key piece of the puzzle, yet he/she is not the puzzle--the puzzle has numerous components.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
fair enough. im not about to run out and put up solar panels or anything myself. but i dont think him encouraging people to be conscientious about their energy use is a bad thing by any stretch, regardless of what he's doing.
Can't argue with that either.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
i don't like high energy bills. thats just common sense as well.
Hehe...then how did the car get invented in the first place?
No, it's not easy. It's exceptionally difficult.
Lots, I'd assume. You could research here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T
The cost isn't "other-worldly". The cost was paid for here, on this world.
Of course it is. But my "panties are in a twist" not about "free market pressures". Those pressures existed before Al Gore et al and will continue to exist when they find some new doomsday to harp about.
What I don't like are the unstated threats of these people. The references to "swift action". The allusions to legislative controls.
Who is Ted Haggard?
And Rush is a fool. His idiocy exceeds Al Gore's, if that's what you're looking for from me there.
????
then you see my point... it's exceptionally difficult and expensive. maybe not other-worldy, but prohibitively expensive to all but the most privileged. this isn't something someone can do in their basement like in the 1840s. the cost is extremely prohibitive and most people are forbidden from even attempting by patent laws. the people who currently own the technology are the only ones allowed to mess with it, and they refuse to. it's not so simple as "if you want alternative energy, go invent it." there are a whole LOT of things preventing that from happening.
also, key word being "allusions." there is nothing on the table so far as i know, so what's the worry? let the market pressures work. perhaps if the self-righteous folks like you acknowledge the validity of their concerns, the difficulty they face in doing anything about them, and are willing to come to the table for some meaningful discussion on the issues, they won't feel like they have no recourse but legislation. but when the only people with the money and technology to do anything about it say, essentially "go fuck yourself hippies" without even listening with an open mind... well, they're going to use the nuclear option.
ted haggard is another of the ilk of jenkins, lahaye, and robertson... people who are striving to regulate the most intimate details of your life on "moral" grounds. yet i've never once seen you enter such a thread and go to bat to combat that deprivation of freedom. the only time you get involved is when your wallet is at stake. it makes all your high-brow rhetoric about freedom look pretty flimsy... becos the only freedom you seem to truly give a damn about is the freedom to stuff your purse to overflowing.
Hehe...of course it is. Just because something is "difficult and expensive" doesn't preclude one from doing something in their basement, soulsinging.
The creation of Microsoft Windows was "difficult and expensive". Yet it was done in a garage. The creation of FedEx was "difficult and expensive". Yet is was done in a dilapidated Little Rock hangar. The hybrid car itself was invented in a small car factory by Ferdinand Porsche when he was in his early 20s.
There are more things preventing it than even you think. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. It just means that only the best amongst us will do it.
And yes, repealing all patent laws and protections would be a big help!
Hehe....the people who will solve this problem don't need me, soulsinging. You either.
Are you talking about evangelicals who want to ban me from sleeping with some dude, or saying "Jesus Christ" when I see some idiotic argument on this board? I've certainly made posts here rejecting bans on same-sex marriage and the sale of certain drugs and abortion. Didn't you start that thread about banning "indifference and jealousy" that I posted in???
Look, liberals argue with me. The moronic "moralists" tend to ignore me. So it stands to reason that most of my posts will be found in the latter.
:rolleyes:
If I wanted to stuff my purse, I'd just fall in love with any politician who would steal your money and give it to me.
would you be for or against this?