TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The "Goracle"
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Do you think PETA would hire a spokesman that says "I believe you can kill all the animals you want, as long as you buy a new one for every one you kill"? Yes, that person would have a neutral 'animal footprint', but it would still be completely contrary to PETAs core message.

irony

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag so long as it's not a charity that represents something that he supports

thanx for the double standard

So in short, I guess as long as we all buy carbon credits we can sleep at night knowing we all did our parts while we all go to work in our humvees...

John Edwards is in on the scheme too.

quote:

Edwards Claims His Mega-Mansion is Carbon Neutral Presidential candidate promotes carbon caps for business, but carbon 'offsets' for himself. By Dan Gainor The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow Business & Media Institute 3/20/2007 12:57:22 PM Call it �Dancing with the Stars�: Global Warming Edition. Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards showed his best dance moves trying to avoid questions about how energy efficient his 28,000-square-foot mansion really is and how much the power bill costs each month. The March 20 edition of CNN�s �American Morning� showed Edwards hyping global warming, promoting his energy plan that mandates carbon caps and claiming that his new mega-McMansion was actually being operated in a �carbon-neutral way.� He has recently declared his campaign �carbon neutral.� Edwards also avoided how he holds himself to one standard but wants to hold businesses to another. As anchor Miles O�Brien put it: �One of the keys to your plan is the so-called cap plan which would institute, as it suggests, caps on the amount of carbon dioxide industry can put into the environment.� But when it comes to Edwards� own life, he doesn�t cap his carbon efforts, preferring instead carbon offsets. �We have committed to operate this house in a carbon-neutral way, which means in addition to using energy saving devices in the house itself, to the extent that doesn�t cover it, we�re going to purchase carbon credits on the market,� said Edwards. Such offsets have been big news lately as even the Oscars claimed they were �carbon neutral.� The March 26 issue of BusinessWeek questioned the nature of such offsets and said �some deals amount to little more than feel good hype.� Former Vice President Al Gore has received criticism for his own carbon offsets, though the media have been supportive. �If more people do it over time, it�s a good thing,� said reporter Russ Mitchell during the �Early Show� on CBS February 22. During the CNN preview of his new energy plan, Edwards called for both a cap on current carbon dioxide emissions and �reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, which is aggressive but achievable.� When O�Brien asked him about jobs going overseas instead of new jobs being created in the United States, Edwards danced again. �Well, the reason first of all is the planet has to survive. So we have a pretty simple question to begin with.� His second point merely asked �How do we deal with this issue in a smart way� and moved into boilerplate about creating jobs. O�Brien asked about Edwards �getting Americans to conserve more.� Edwards responded with talk of conservation and then requirements. �One of the things that�s going to be required is for Americans to be willing to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and to be willing to conserve and we want to help them do that.� When O�Brien asked specifically about his house, Edwards turned into a dancing king. Asked about the cost of energy for the home, Edwards tried several answers: * �It�s actually not bad.� And followed that up with talk of how energy efficient the home was. * �I�m not telling you. It�s actually, it�s actually not bad. It�s about three or four hundred dollars, the last one I saw.� * Following that claim, Edwards backed off a bit and said �the power bill is several hundred dollars a month.�

http://www.businessandmedia.org/pri...0320125451.aspx

Gore refused to hear the GOP's opening statements before his address about global warming is presented. He also delayed the distribution of the transcript to the committee to hear his address. Therefore, instead of having 48 hours to look over his address and prepare some questions, they had 2. He refuses to even hear anything counter to his theory that humans are the main cause behind global climate change.

Me, I'm more undecided on the cause of climate change. It's happening, but what's causing it? I believe it to be a combination of natural warming with the addition of industrial gases. The world will get hotter.

If I burn peasants will this offset or increase my carbon footprint?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thanx for the double standard

i prefer to call it dripping sarcasm

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Hey now Mr....

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith If I burn peasants will this offset or increase my carbon footprint?

Hippies offset that margin by x 2

Does anybody else see the similarity here?

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

quote:

In Roman Catholic theology, an indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due to sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.[1] Indulgences were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Reformation. Roman Catholic Theology [edit] Sin Personal sins, that is specific sins committed by a person instead of the inherited original sin or evil resultant of personal sin, are either mortal or venial. * Mortal sins destroy charity in the heart of man by a grave (serious) violation of God's law. It turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. It deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met: The act must be of grave (serious) matter, you must have full knowledge of the sinful character of the act, and you must deliberately consent to committing the act (Catechism of the Catholic Church). Venial sins are less serious sins. They allow charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it (CCC). Punishments for sin can be temporal and eternal. Temporal punishments are temporary punishments - those that affect us in this life or in Purgatory. The more temporal punishments you incur, the more punishment/suffering you have to endure on earth or in Purgatory. Eternal punishment is everlasting. Basically, if you are suffering eternal punishment, you are in hell. All sins entail some sort of temporal punishment. Mortal sins also carry an eternal punishment. Even though you may be forgiven of a sin (through the sacrament of Reconciliation), and relieved of any eternal punishment (hell), temporal punishments may still remain. An Indulgence is granted for the remission of the remaining temporal punishments due to sins that have already been forgiven. [edit] Penance Plenary (full) Indulgences are gained after the individual earning the indulgence completes the required tasks, which always includes the reception of the sacrament of Penance. Because the sacrament of reconciliation removes the culpable element of sin, the penitent is restored by reconciliation to the state of grace. However, while the individual�s guilt and any eternal punishment is removed by reconciliation, temporal punishments may still remain. God has mercy upon sinners who repent their sins, but like some parents, His justice still requires that the sinner be punished for the wrongdoing. In addition, even though the separation caused by sin is removed the repercussions for the sin have not been removed and still require punishment. E.g. if one steals a loaf of bread, the baker still is missing and suffers the loss of the bread even if the thief makes amends. This punishment is called "temporal punishment", both because it is a punishment of time, as opposed to eternal punishment, and because it relates to the temporary world (Earth or Purgatory), rather than to the �final destination� (Heaven or Hell). [edit] Temporal Punishment in Purgatory Church teachings explain that individuals who experience trials and tribulations in this world by God's grace may have them serve as their temporal punishment for forgiven sins (Catechism 1473); other individuals die without having served the full temporal punishment for their sins. These individuals do not have guilt for sin, because it has been forgiven either through reconciliation or perfect contrition before death, and therefore they will attain Heaven. However, they are not yet ready to enter Heaven, as their punishment has yet to be served. Therefore, these individuals �enter� Purgatory, and the punishment they owe is "purged." The Church teaches that the souls in Purgatory desire to be there, because they have realized that they are not yet ready to attain Heaven. Purgatory may be illustrated as a place of preparation for the deceased; they know they will enter Heaven, and Purgatory is a place in which the deceased are cleansed for God. [edit] The Indulgence In Catholic theology, the salvation made possible by Jesus allows the faithful sinner eventual admittance to Heaven. Baptism forgives all of the baptized person's existing sins; any sin committed after baptism incurs both guilt and a penalty that must be addressed. These are the sins addressed in reconciliation. After reconciliation, the temporal punishment for sin remains. This punishment may be remitted in Purgatory, or by indulgence. The granting of an indulgence is the spiritual reassignment, as it were, of existing merit to an individual requiring that merit. Indulgences occur when the Church, acting by virtue of its authority, applies existing merit from the Church�s treasury to an individual. The individual gains the indulgence by participating in certain activities, most often the recitation of prayers. By decree of Pope Pius V in 1567, following the Council of Trent, it is forbidden to attach the receipt of an indulgence to any financial act, including the giving of alms. In addition, the only punishment remitted by an indulgence is existing punishment, that is, for sins already committed. Indulgences do not remit punishment for future sins, as those sins have yet to be committed. Thus, indulgences are not a �license to sin� or a �get-out-of-Hell-free� card; they are a means for the sinner to �pay� the �wages� of sin. Indulgences are "plenary" or "partial�: * "plenary" indulgences remit all of the existing temporal punishment due for the individual�s sins. An individual can only earn one plenary indulgence per day. * "partial" indulgences remit only a part of the existing punishment. Before the Second Vatican Council, partial indulgences were stated as a term of days, weeks, months, or years. This has resulted in Catholics and non-Catholics alike believing that indulgences remit a specific period of time equal to the length of the soul's stay in Purgatory. This was not true, rather the stated length of time actually indicated that the indulgence was equal to the amount of remission the individual would have earned by performing a canonical penance for that period of time. For example, the amount of punishment remitted by a �forty day� indulgence would be equal to the amount of punishment remitted by the individual performing forty days of penance. The original reasoning for the "days" notation was, in the early days of the Church, a person's only means of returning to the state of grace was performing penances equal to the actions he had committed. Because a person may not receive Eucharist while not in a state of grace, he must perform these penances if he wished to be Catholic. However, because some people had been professional thieves, prostitutes, or some other sinful individual, he would have to undergo hundreds of years of penance to get remission for his sins. To alleviate this, the Church instituted certain actions or prayers which would cleanse him for the amount of time noted. In addition to remitting punishment for the individual's own existing sins, an individual may perform the actions necessary to gain an indulgence with the intention of gaining the indulgence for a specific individual in Purgatory. In doing so, the individual both gains the indulgence for the soul in Purgatory, and performs a spiritual act of mercy. To gain an indulgence the individual must be �in communion� with the Church, and have the intention of performing the work for which the indulgence is granted. To be �in communion,� the individual must be a baptized Catholic without any un-reconciled mortal sins (if there are any un-reconciled mortal sins, the individual has cut himself/herself off from God and cannot receive the indulgence) and must not be dissenting from the Church�s teaching. The individual must also intend to receive the indulgence. Generally, a plenary indulgence requires the following conditions in order to be valid (in addition to the acts performed to earn the indulgence). * reconciliation, which is required for all indulgences * receiving the Eucharist * All attachment to sin must be absent. * pray for the intentions of the Holy Father. An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the intentions of the Pontiff is sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choice. It is recommended that the Communion be received at Mass on the same day that the indulgence is earned. Reconciliation may be within a prudent period before or after the act (typically, one week, though during the Great Jubilee, the Vatican specifically allowed confession within three weeks of the act). Several indulgences may be earned under the same confession (reconciliation). If any of these additional conditions is missing, the plenary indulgence will instead be partial. Penitential redemptions were a milder form of indulgence that cut down the time of penance.[2] [edit] Indulgenced Acts The following acts are examples of those which result in the award of an indulgence: * An act of spiritual communion, expressed in any devout formula whatsoever, is endowed with a partial indulgence. * A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who devoutly spend time in mental prayer. * A plenary indulgence is granted when the rosary is recited in a church or oratory or when it is recited in a family, a religious community, or a pious association. A partial indulgence is granted for its recitation in all other circumstances. * A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God�s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met]. * A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who devoutly sign themselves with the cross while saying the customary formula: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." * A partial indulgence is granted for the recitation of the Angelus. * A partial indulgence is granted to Christian faithful who on day of the liturgical feast of any saint recite in that Saint's honor and prayer taken from the Missal or other prayer approved by legimate authority. [edit] Controversy The doctrine of indulgences has historically been a controversial teaching in Western Christianity soteriology[citation needed]. The abuse of this doctrine, in part led to the start of the Protestant Reformation. The ability to grant full or partial pardons from the punishment of sins has been used by members of the Western Church's hierarchy throughout history. These indulgences were related to the removal of the temporal punishment of forgiven sinners. In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his 95 theses, protesting what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation. Luther had already preached against indulgences, but he wrote the 95 Theses partly in reaction to the promotion of indulgences by Johann Tetzel, papal commissioner for indulgences in Germany, to raise funds for the renovation of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. In thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs".[3] The 95 Theses not only denounced such transactions as worldly but denied the pope's right to grant pardons on God's behalf in the first place: the only thing indulgences guaranteed, Luther said, was an increase in profit and greed, because the pardon of the Church was in God's power alone.[4] While Luther did not deny the pope�s right to grant pardons for penance imposed by the Church, he made it clear that preachers who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error.[5] From this controversy the Protestant Reformation was launched. In 1294, Pope Celestine V issued a bull of pardon in L'Aquila, Italy, offering plenary indulgence to everybody sincerely contrite and confessed entering the basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio. The only other Saint Door outside Vatican is opened annually by a Cardinal between the evening of August 28 and the day after. An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517. The text reads: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days." An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517. The text reads: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days." The indulgence, shown to the right, granted by Johann Tetzel in 1517 reads: "By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days." This description is confusing, particularly in the wording ("I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds;") as authentic indulgences do not offer forgiveness or absolution, rather, they remit the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven. Further, under the current practice, lengths of time are not specified on indulgences. [edit] Other traditions An 18th century indulgence granted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and sold by Greek monks in Wallachia An 18th century indulgence granted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and sold by Greek monks in Wallachia Because the underlying doctrine of salvation differs from the Latin Catholic model, indulgences do not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy or Eastern Catholicism, although the former had, in some places, a similar practice of Absolution Certificates until the twentieth century, known as aphesis or συγχωροχαρτια - synchorochartia; at the beginning of the 18th century Dositheos Notaras (1641-1707), Patriarch of Jerusalem, writes about Indulgences as something known to everyone in the ancient tradition: "This practice was confirmed by ancient Tradition that was known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs would grant certificates (συγχωροχαρτιόν - synchorochartion) for the remission of sins to the faithful people.". Those traditions which reject a Latin Catholic concept of Purgatory (or alternatively, a �condition of waiting�) also reject indulgences, as there is no need for remission of temporal punishment where no temporal punishment exists. The practice of the clergy accepting money for the expiation of the sins of the dead appears in the deuterocanonical book 2 Maccabees (ca. 100 BC). This practice is seen nowhere else in the Roman Catholic Bible. The author praises the practice of donating money to the temple as a way of improving the standing of dead sinners on Judgment Day. These "indulgences" are associated with the Pharisees. The Sadducees did not believe in Judgment Day and the Essenes were not part of the Temple power structure. As Protestantism was, for a large part, inspired by the practice, indulgences do not exist in their traditions.

I wanna be sin neutral!

Shakka,

I think there's something to be said about your argument against carbon credits, and I must admit that they don't personally have a huge appeal to me in terms of their validity to true environmental conservation.

The problem I feel remains, however, in that while I am slowly starting to understand your argument against these carbon credits, what would you suggest would be a lifestyle to which would be more congruent to the conservation life Gore is advocating? Again although you do not DIRECTLY imply that Gore should be living in the forest as a hippie (with me), I would contend that you indirectly imply such a life by posting up your previous article about the pope trading up sins.

IOW, what other lifestyle would be appropriate in your eyes for Gore who he and his wife run their own business and staff out of their house? I've thought about this for a little while today, and I don't want to run into a false dichotomy fallacy by stating his ONLY other alternative to what you are criticizing is living has a forest hippie. But what other choice are you creating for him that in your eyes would be considered "appropriate" to the message he is giving on conservation? To run the business that he runs along with his wife and to perform his discussions and lectures that he does to the public in what he believes, what alternative means can you think of that would work for him rather than becoming the smelly forest hippie?

And finally, I had to chuckle at this exchange between Boxer and Inhofe:

quote:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has said Al Gore is �full of crap� and compared people who believe in global warming to �the Third Reich.� During today�s Senate hearing, Inhofe used a considerable amount of time to attack Gore�s use of carbon offsets and try to convince him to sign a sham �energy ethics pledge.� (Find the real facts on Gore�s energy usage HERE and HERE.) Inhofe asked Gore for his reaction, but then quickly cut him off saying Gore had taken up too much time. When Gore tried to go on, Inhofe repeatedly interrupted, adding, �I don�t want to be rude, but from now on, I�m going to ask you to respond�in writing.� Inhofe said Gore could respond verbally only if it was a �very brief response.� Committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) finally intervened. �Would you agree to let the Vice President answer your questions?� Inhofe said Gore could respond when he was done talking, but Boxer wouldn�t have it: �No, that isn�t the rule. You�re not making the rules. You used to when you did this. Elections have consequences. So I make the rules.� The hearing audience applauded loudly. Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/gore-boxer-inhofe/

Inhofe was being a total ass. Asking a question, then interrupting Gore and not allowing him to answer it, and then telling him that he wants his answer in writing only? Jesus, he deserved to get bitchslapped by a woman for that.

The entire thing was BS.

I want to see a open-circle debate between the scientist saying humans caused global warming, and the scientist saying global is just a natural cycle.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Shakka, I think there's something to be said about your argument against carbon credits, and I must admit that they don't personally have a huge appeal to me in terms of their validity to true environmental conservation. The problem I feel remains, however, in that while I am slowly starting to understand your argument against these carbon credits, what would you suggest would be a lifestyle to which would be more congruent to the conservation life Gore is advocating? Again although you do not DIRECTLY imply that Gore should be living in the forest as a hippie (with me), I would contend that you indirectly imply such a life by posting up your previous article about the pope trading up sins. IOW, what other lifestyle would be appropriate in your eyes for Gore who he and his wife run their own business and staff out of their house? I've thought about this for a little while today, and I don't want to run into a false dichotomy fallacy by stating his ONLY other alternative to what you are criticizing is living has a forest hippie. But what other choice are you creating for him that in your eyes would be considered "appropriate" to the message he is giving on conservation? To run the business that he runs along with his wife and to perform his discussions and lectures that he does to the public in what he believes, what alternative means can you think of that would work for him rather than becoming the smelly forest hippie?

Simply not be so ostentacious with his lifestyle. If I had that kind of money, I'm sure I'd want to expand and have a bigger house, nicer things, etc., but when Gore preaches on about how this is a major crisis and that we have almost no time to stave off a global catastrophe, while still using so far more than most people consider reasonable, I just find him a little bit disingenouous. I mean I watch an interview like this and come away thinking maybe we all should live more like crazy granola folk, but then I see how Gore is actually living and it reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It makes it look like the problem is not nearly as serious as he would have us believe while he is profiting from his position all the way. Forgive my ire, but without pushing a "living in trees" mantra, I think it is more than reasonable to expect him to downsize to a more modest level. There is no need for a mansion or a private jet. I have maintained that there is a huge middle ground between where he currently is and hippieland. I'd like to see his consumption levels more inline with the general populace before I could see myself jumping on the bandwagon. His actions just leave the question: Either Gore really is completely full of shit or this whole global warming thing just isn't nearly as serious as he wants us to believe.




And if the problem is not that serious, maybe this is the solution: Everyone who thinks it's a crisis can continue making their special efforts to cut back, buy offsets, whatever. Those who think the problem is being overhyped can continue living how they see fit. Hopefully if the issue really is that serious, the efforts of one side will be enough to compensate and everyone will be fine. Of course the problem with that is that nobody likes to make sacrifices because they think it's unfair that John Q gets to keep driving his Hummer while they have to drive a Prius. Unless of course they buy some carbon credits. In my eyes, Gore is hyping this mentality, which I think I've showed doesn't necessarily help with the big picture issue at all (despite how good or bad the intent may be).

I can almost picture a bad commercial where some dude takes his gas guzzling SUV to an Earth Day parade and gets funny looks from the crowd when he arrives. "It's OK dudes, I've got a pocket full of carbon credits."

It's not that I'm against conservation and looking out for our environment--I absolutely am. I just disagree with the messenger and don't think he's setting the right example--hence me calling him a hypocrite throughout this thread. I have replaced all the bulbs (almost all) in my house with flourescents. I don't think they save a ton of energy, but I did it anyway. They definitely mess with my vision. I pay for the privilege of recycling, even though it would be easier to not pay for it. I definitely notice lower trash volume going to the landfill. I try to keep my house almost uncomfortable climate-wise (i.e. borderline hot in the summer and almost cold in the winter) though that's more because I'm a cheap bastard that hates unnecessarily expensive power bills. I keep some lights on a timer to minimize waste. We don't drive SUVs (though there are times when I definitely need the cargo space--like right now since we're buying all sorts of stuff for the baby's room). But again, I think it's more important to focus on conservation over "offsets", particularly in the context that this is a "global crisis". I think I've rambled enough.

quote:

And finally, I had to chuckle at this exchange between Boxer and Inhofe: Inhofe was being a total ass. Asking a question, then interrupting Gore and not allowing him to answer it, and then telling him that he wants his answer in writing only? Jesus, he deserved to get bitchslapped by a woman for that.

That was pretty funny, though the first part of what Inhofe was asking essentially spoke to the point I've been making. He clearly got pretty flustered with Gore not directly answering the question (which was not necessarily the most direct question as it was grandstanding).

There is only so much that Gore can attribute to the higher costs of using "Green" energy from his utility (which is not necessarily far off from credits in some instances, though I'm glad to hear that some of it is from wind energy). I recently investigated making such a switch with my power company and I wasn't completely convinced that it makes a big difference or just pads the profits of my power provider. In any event, the cost does not look so onerous that it would cause my monthly bill to go from $100 to $1000.

quote:

Green Energy is a Natural Choice Now it's easier than ever to support environmentally friendly energy generation from sources like the sun, wind, water, and biomass. Just sign up for Georgia Power's Green Energy� program and help bring more renewable power to Georgia. Make a difference with Green Energy By participating in Georgia Power's Green Energy program, you continue to get the reliable energy you need while doing something positive about the environment. Your Green Energy choice will: * Potentially reduce the environmental impact of energy production * Conserve our natural resources * Support domestic energy self-reliance Green Energy is regulated by the Georgia Public Service Commission. How it works * Green Energy is available to residential customers in 100-kilowatt-hour blocks for a 12-month period (about 10 percent of an average monthly residential electricity bill). * Each block adds $4.50 (plus tax) to your monthly electricity bill. * Commercial and industrial customers can also participate with a minimum block purchase based on the amount of energy used as defined in the Green Energy Tariff. Each block purchased brings more Green Energy into our state. As demand for renewable energy increases, the higher expense of green energy generation may be offset by improved technology and production efficiency. Customers who participate in the program cannot be guaranteed that they will receive the actual kilowatts produced by a green energy generation method, but you can rest assured the green energy you are supporting is being produced and delivered to Georgia Power customers.

Anyway, I feel like I've made my point at this point. Sorry to have been so longwinded.

Nice post Shakka.

Someone should probably highlight the fact to Gore that you CAN live the granola life he preaches

I love the quote I read the other day where it said that Nature doesn't care about Carbon Credits.

If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk?

Or don't expect the rest of us to walk what he talks but what he won't walk.

I am personally convinced that the only issue at hand here is pollution and destruction of environment. The destruction of forests (200,000 acres PER DAY) alone can explain the increasing carbon dioxide levels, because the temperature has not risen on par. Thats what Al Gore didnt say in the movie. When is the environmental destruction going to be an issue? Global warming is the RESULT of the destruction, as seen in millions of trees cut and lots of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

You smug-f!!k illiterate conservative morons always have to attack the person making the argument rather than address the the substance of the argument.
In your stupid little head the fact that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% above pre-industrial levels since 1750 is somehow argued by stating that ''Al Gore has a big house and flies around in an airplane''

Argument ad hominem tu quoque at its finest.

You f!cking morons think that he's supposed to live in a f!cking cave and use candles for light just because he is talking about global warming!

He is spending millions of dollars representing the planet on an uphill battle against short sighted greedy f!!ks with too much money!

The fact is that this is a planetary crisis and some rich f!!ck pigs would rather lie and see the planet destroyed than sacrifice some money cleaning the fuel that is causing a crisis which will be devastating for future generations. You don't care. You are too short-sided. You are too greedy.

It's all about the rich f!!ks you look up to having more money now.

Republican party: the party of the stupid & the party of the greedy!

Hey, Existo22, wiseass, tell me then what Al Gore has achieved for the environment as a vice-president for Clinton during the many years in the 1990s. How come Al Gore failed to deliver on his global warming pledges while in office? How come he accepts funds from oil companies, owns stocks in them, has a big bad polutting zinc mine on his property, not even mentioning the bad energy use? And how about talking how FAIR he was in his movie ... for example he was talking about how CO2 has increased dramatically, yet the temperatures today are still cooler than 11,000 years ago when the ice age was ending. How come the greenhouse gas levels 11,000 years ago were so low yet the temperature slightly higher? Are we pumping CO2 in Mars atmosphere and causing their global warming as well (also: Jupiter's, Pluto's)? There are many holes in Al Gore's story. Oh, and by the way, Al Gore lied when he said that ZERO scientists disagree with his view on global warming.

EDIT: I am not a conservative, I hate neo-cons, and I am an environmentalist, green party supporter. But I dont support bullcrap that doesnt help the environment. Al Gore hardly mentioned anything on environmental destruction in his movie and how it releases massive levels of CO2. That, among other things, only shows that Al Gore has an agenda, to make money off this greenhouse craze by taxing us higher and making profits selling carbon credits and making himself look good while in reality nothing positive is happening and we are going in the wrong direction. 200,000 acres of forests are still getting cut down around the world every 24 hours.

quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 You smug-f uck illiterate conservative morons always have to attack the person making the argument rather than address the the substance of the argument. In your stupid little head the fact that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% above pre-industrial levels since 1750 is somehow argued by stating that ''Al Gore has a big house and flies around in an airplane'' Argument ad hominem tu quoque at its finest. You f ucking morons think that he's supposed to live in a f ucking cave and use candles for light just because he is talking about global warming! He is spending millions of dollars representing the planet on an uphill battle against short sighted greedy f ucks with too much money! The fact is that this is a planetary crisis and some rich f uck pigs would rather lie and see the planet destroyed than sacrifice some money cleaning the fuel that is causing a crisis which will be devastating for future generations. You don't care. You are too short-sided. You are too greedy. It's all about the rich f ucks you look up to having more money now. Republican party: the party of the stupid & the party of the greedy!

IOW

[.IMG]http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics9/farrago/barf.jpg[/IMG]

Edit from the moderator: No NSFW pics, please. If you don't know what an appropriate picture would be, refrain from posting pictures altogether. Otherwise, I can help you out in the future

^wtf? Is that seriously needed?

seriously...

good thing i saw this at home. let's try to keep the "safe for work thing" true for the future... at least shakka's pics are kinda cute

p.s. GO HEELS!!

quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 You smug-f uck illiterate conservative morons always have to attack the person making the argument rather than address the the substance of the argument. In your stupid little head the fact that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% above pre-industrial levels since 1750 is somehow argued by stating that ''Al Gore has a big house and flies around in an airplane'' Argument ad hominem tu quoque at its finest. You f ucking morons think that he's supposed to live in a f ucking cave and use candles for light just because he is talking about global warming! He is spending millions of dollars representing the planet on an uphill battle against short sighted greedy f ucks with too much money! The fact is that this is a planetary crisis and some rich f uck pigs would rather lie and see the planet destroyed than sacrifice some money cleaning the fuel that is causing a crisis which will be devastating for future generations. You don't care. You are too short-sided. You are too greedy. It's all about the rich f ucks you look up to having more money now. Republican party: the party of the stupid & the party of the greedy!

...and if you were actually reading the arguments being presented rather than reading what you want to read, you'd see that's not what the main point is.
The fact that you dismiss the point about him being an absolute hypocrite is scary enough but the point IS that we're more concerned with the pollution aspect and at least agree on that.
CO2 levels have fluctuated since the Earth was conceived and there no one convincing argument that absolutely proves that man is the absolute culprit.
Are we a factor? Absolutely. However to blinding put the onus totally on man is way too simple to do.
The best place to start is by looking at one's own backyard before going out on a crusade trying to convince others of something he doesn't believe in himself and THAT'S the issue.
comprenez?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Gore tells people they need to use less energy to stop hurting the environment. Meanwhile, Al uses a shitload of energy

Oversimplification of the overall message imo. You claim that I�m misrepresenting you in strawman arguments and yet you continue to point out that Gore is an environmental advocate who uses a lot of energy as if that in itself actually says everything that need be said about the argument. Yes Gore�s message is to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption, in other words, to not be needlessly wasteful with their energy consumption, as you may have done with your purchase of energy efficient light bulbs and what not, however, the better part of his argument is for people to reduce their carbon footprint by purchasing offsets. It seems rather sensical to me that people should strive to reduce their emissions when they can, and when they can�t they should consider purchasing offsets. Are you arguing that Gore hasn�t made as much of an effort as you, if not more, to embrace conservation? Well shit, let�s refer back to the example of the energy consumption of his house that was stated in this thread. People like to mention the power bill, but fail to take into account that Gore actually pays more per month to purchase 'green' electricity - produced by solar, wind and other renewable resources - through TVA's Green Power Switch program. So he�s not consuming thousands of dollars in electricity per month because he�s being excessively wasteful, he�s paying more for his electricity because it specifically demands that the power that he consumes comes from renewable resources.



So in order to not engage in a "strawman" argument what then do you expect him to do if he's taking efforts to conserve energy in his own personal lifestyle (such as powering his residency with green technology) and with issues he cannot control such as air travel in which he's purchasing carbon offsets? More to the point, what is he doing in excess of what he himself is advocating?

quote:

while enriching a hedge fund that he chairs. According to the fund's own website, they only donate 5% of their profits to the Generation Foundation (the 501(c)3) for global sustainability initiatives. WOW! 5% of profits! What do they do with the rest of their 20% annual performance bonus (assuming they actually made profitable investments)? What about the 2% management fee? They don't disclose their performance track record so I can't quantify how much they've actually contributed towards their causes of choice, but needless to say, 95% of their profits are explicity NOT earmarked for this purpose. Convincing. This fund most certainly is a for-profit company. If you look at their holdings, they're nothing more than a plain-vanilla, long-only hedge fund. A look at their holdings reveals that there's nothing special about what these guys do other than sell vouchers to people in order to take in their money to earn a profit. Environmental concerns are secondary, if not tertiary concerns. Make no mistake, Alie profits handsomely when his fund makes money. Nothing special here. Hell, they barely even touch alternative energy stocks! Why aren't they investing in Evergreen Solar? Ballard Power? Calgon Carbon? ADE-ES? or any other companies that genuinely address the problem? The most eco-responsible company in their portfolio that I see is Whole Foods who recently said they were going to switch to wind-based power. But Whole Foods is also in the portfolios of god knows how many other funds? It's just a more eco-responsible growth company. Yay! I'm convinced more than ever that these guys are really making a difference! Let's look at the Fund's mission statement: Nope, no mention of improving the environment as a mission of the fund. Leave that to the foundation that gets the crumbs while the partners make off like bandits.

Ummm yes, it�s a hedge fund that places some focus on green technology and conservation. Who ever said it was a non-profit? Who ever said that Gore should not be involved in profitable enterprises around green technology? Is this wrong or damning in some way that is unclear to me? Let's see, they're semi-green focused with an investment strategy of:

quote:

Integrated Sustainability Research: Sustainability issues can impact a company's ability to generate returns and therefore must be fully integrated with fundamental equity analysis for superior long-term investment results

Come now, you of all people should know that a hedge fund is only going to attract investors if it has profitability as the primary factor. Who the hell is going to invest in a non profit "hedge fund" or a for-profit hedge fund that limits its investment decisions without fully articulating why the limitations they are imposing is not going to result in some profitability in the foreseeable future. We�re not talking about a charity here. Considering how being "green" is drawing more attention among the public and corporate scene it actually isn�t a bad draw as an investment strategy � at least for the immediate future.

quote:

Bush is certainly using fear to spread his message, though it seems to be much more well-founded on facts(much of our energy supply comes from locales that are hostile to our intersts) and general supply/demand (peak oil) than the still controversial and contentiuos matter of global warming. And I don't see Bush enriching his own fund by selling meaningless pieces of paper as salvation for excessive power consumption. Ergo, you're comparing apples to oranges and sidestepping the issue of Al Gore once again.

Ohhh right, Gore is advocating preservation of the environment so he can get rich off of his radicalized green hedge fund! Just like Bush and Cheney have friends and interests in the oil and defense industry so they went to war in Iraq for the sole purpose of blah blah blah blah � I�ve heard it all before and the insinuations that Gore is doing this to enrich his �hedge fund� reminds me of quite a few arguments put forth by rabid leftists .

quote:

The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases." . . . But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management: Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . . Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . . Meanwhile, Gore runs around the country and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy--burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "green" or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' [sic] money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management's holdings here, courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.) Another Volunteer State blogger, Bob Krumm, looks at Gore's demands for the suppression of dissent. Yesterday's Tennessean reported on a speech the erstwhile veep gave in Murfreesboro: "I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly--and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen . . . balance as bias. "I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe. "I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced." Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event. Krumm notes that Gore was complaining as early as 1992 about excessive balance in the media. Yet in a speech at the October 2005 We Media Conference, Gore seemed to urge government-mandated balance, at least on other topics: As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free." As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S.--including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine--though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves. Gore is mistaken on two out of three points: Although the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine (which regulated the presentation of "controversial issues of public importance") in 1987, the Public Interest Standard (which is part of the law that created the FCC) and the Equal Time Provision (which applies to political candidates) remain in force. So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies. Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren't the mainstream media all over the story? Could it be . . . bias? http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009730

Come now Shakka, Generation Investment Management is a hedge fund it�s not a provider of carbon offsets. GIM offsets the carbon emissions of its offices, business travel, and personal emissions of its employees (including Gore) through the Chicago Climate Exchange and carbon offset providers. In case the distinction was missed, GIM does not sell carbon offsets. So the accusation that Gore offsets his carbon usage by buying �stocks� is rather ludicrous and far-fetched at best.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.a...T20070307a.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...e_attack_on.php

quote:

Wrong again. On page 2, you were the very first respondant to suggest this despite the fact that nobody had explicity claimed that was what he was suggesting: In the very next post, Opus said this, despite the fact that neither I nor anyone else other than yourself had explicity suggested it: Sorry, I never suggested he do that. I merely suggested he not using an overabundance of energy while telling the rest of us that we need to cut back and use less ourselves. A couple of posts later you said this, despite my not explicity suggesting anything of the sort Your use of hyperbole to try and make a point is the crux of your strawman.

Ummm didn�t this entire thread revolve around Gore�s energy use in his personal home being many times more than the �average� American with claims that he was a hypocrite because of it? Did we not agree that Gore was not the �average� American in this and previous threads? Isn�t it true that despite Gore�s energy usage, probably very similar to any other political figure of his stature, he engages in reasonable conservation and energy offsets? Yet, this is inexplicably not enough. Fine, I�m guilty of making strawman accusations � you actually don�t THINK Gore is advocating that people eliminate all carbon usage and live in trees. Therefore, given that this is all relative I�m SURE you don�t expect Gore to have the same energy consumption as the �average� person. So now I�m just confused as to what kind of expectations you have considering you�re not the type of person to make a strawman argument.

quote:

Right. Achieve mythical "carbon neutrality". This is a buzzword that is meant to be used as a rationalization for overconsumption.

No, the argument is conservation in combination with carbon offsets to attain carbon neutrality. Do you not yet realize that it�s a two part message?

quote:

It does NOT address the problem as the CRISIS Gore claims it to be, rather it allows people to sleep well at night knowing they have bought forgiveness for their sins in the eyes of some

Look you continually portray carbon offsets as being a purely political message that accomplish NOTHING from an environmental perspective. Do you actually think that or what? Are you arguing that carbon offsets are not effective in eliminating the carbon they are designed to offset?

quote:

. Furthermore, I fail to see where Generation appears to be wholeheartedly "investing" in green technology when their portfolio speaks otherwise. Wow 5% of their profits goes to the foundation. That's good, but hardly anything earth shattering. Let's say they run a $5B fund (maybe it's a lot more maybe a lot less--I don't have the information handy). Just for back of the envelope kicks, let's say they have a good year and are up 15%. That means that the fund made $750M. Of that, a whopping $37.5M would go towards their global sustainability initiatives. No small sum to be sure and we should give them kudos for supporting a "good" cause, but don't forget that around $112.5M of those profits go right to the pockets of their general partner (represented by Messrs Blood and Gore). Yes, Gore stands to benefit quite nicely if his fund has a good year. Maybe he can buy Tipper new tits with all that cash. Forgive me if I'm a bit non-plused. It looks nice when you're talking about a big enough portfolio of assets, but at the end of the day, 5% is still 5%. They could certainly do a LOT more if they were geniunely so concerned about the environment, but at the end of the day they're just run-of-the mill investors running the equivalent of a high-end marketing scam.

Do you still want to argue about his for-profit hedge fund? Gee, you would think that it would be admirable for someone to put his money where his mouth is �

quote:

Well, you posed the question of gross vs. net that prompted that tangent. No. The intent is to hold Gore to the same standard that he is demanding from the rest of us. If we all consumed the same amount as Gore AND we all were "carbon neutral", what do you think the effect would be on the environment? Honestly? Aside from shutting down the grid and using up our energy reserves at an alarming rate while increasing the effects of global warming in the near-term. Can I get an answer as to how a "carbon credit" is actually calculated? Wikipedia says: Great. Putting a monetary value on something is fine, but that doesn't do a lick to curb the emissions that come from him lighting up his own persona Taj Mahal. This is all good theory, but get real.

Well yea, the crux of the argument of carbon offsets is gross vs. net.

�What if a company wants to expand or change a production process or otherwise increase its output of a criteria air pollutant? If an owner or operator of a major source wants to release more of a criteria air pollutant, an offset (a reduction of the criteria air pollutant by an amount somewhat greater than the planned increase) must be obtained somewhere else, so that permit requirements are met and the nonattainment area keeps moving toward attainment. The company must also install tight pollution controls. An increase in a criteria air pollutant can be offset with a reduction of the pollutant from some other stack at the same plant or at another plant owned by the same or some other company in the nonattainment area. Since total pollution will continue to go down, trading offsets among companies is allowed. This is one of the market approaches to cleaning up air pollution in the Clean Air Act."

-Bush

If you�re saying emissions trading is a crock of shit, than you must be infinitely more pissed off with the clean air act and the Bush administration for not getting �real� in public policy that actually AFFECTS you and I. Yea yea, I know I�m �sidestepping� the issue of Al Gore, but I want you to comment on emissions trading as a whole before I actually delve into your argument in specific. Let�s try to be consistent in principle irrespective of context.

quote:

Incorrect again. It was the two of you (maybe others) who claimed we/I were advocating he live in the trees and not consume anything. My side has advocated a much more moderate stance on overall use, while you have suggested that I am advocating extreme behavior. At the end of the day it is clear that there are those of us that see through his veil of bullshit and those that want to applaud him for being an environmental leader. The only positive thing that I can say about him in this context is that he has brought a lot of attention to a very contentious subject, though he is certainly not the first person to do so.

I�m sorry, the only thing that I tried to point out was that Gore was advocating extremism, he was advocating common sense policy. Then I asked anyone to point out how he was personally being a hypocrite with respect to what he was advocating. Something I�m still waiting to see �

quote:

Are you sure you want to continue endorsing one? Bottom line: Al Gore consumes an overabundance of energy which creates a large "carbon footprint." However, he is able to make that disappear

Let�s see what we�ve learned. So he�s not the average American yet he consumes more than the average American. That�s a big no no, because according to Al Gore, you HAVE to consume no more than the average American, irrespective of the demands of your life otherwise you�re a hypocrite!! Al Gore says that even if you�ve made reasonable efforts to conserve energy if your lifestyle has extra energy demands such as frequent travel you CAN�T offset those demands by buying carbon credits to decrease carbon output!

quote:

by buying stocks with the hope of making a profit so he can give a pittance of his profits to a well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed foundation, likely enriching himself and his partners in the process.

And finally, if you�re an advocate of something, you�re not supposed to create a business around something you believe in. Got it. So do you have a problem with funds that advocate against and do not invest in sin stocks?

Edit/ Sorry for the lag btw, it's tough to find time outside of the weekends!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo IOW [.IMG]http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/pics9/farrago/barf.jpg[/IMG]

You fucking conservatives are a bunch of degenerates rotting in your own vile illness. A Conservative American is one classic oxymoron....

quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 You fucking conservatives are a bunch of degenerates rotting in your own vile illness. A Conservative American is one classic oxymoron....

No offense, but you got to develop better argument skills than this. Did you even see my post right after your previous one? Did you read it? Well, you should.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.