quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Stop using that. You are only telling about 1/8 of the facts. You forgot to talk about all the other countries that supplied Iraq. France, Brazil, Russia, and the United States supplied both the Iraqis and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Sad, but true. It's like giving two children knives and egging them on to fight. Don't start typing things that aren't the full truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo oh so you're saying that Saddam was the environment and we were the polluters and Al was...? an arms dealer with a guilty conscience? and rich republican tax revenue represented the four horseman of the apocalypse. yeah, i don't know. you might be on to something. you said something about us selling Saddam weapons was analagous to me criicizing Al's telling us we're all gonna die in a movie if we don't change drastically while he proves in real life that that doesn't have to be the case, at least for a rich guy, is not even remotely in common other than the two may have been described as a double standard but one could have been helped by one persons word/actions. i get it now. again. reaching but i get it.

No I'm saying that America said that Iraq was bad, yet America helped Iraq, yet America is still correct in saying that Iraq is bad despite the blatant hypocrisy. Did it serve a GREATER GOOD to help Iraq despite it being bad (at least to America)? YES. Does it make sense that America helped Iraq in the 80's despite the fact that most of our criticisms of Huessein's Iraq occurred in the 80's? Right around the time period we were helping him? Now if we analyze the situation like we're two year olds it's a steaming pile of shit that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. However, if we're seasoned verterans of geopolitical policy (or in other words, users of common sense) it's not so hypocritical. Reaching still?

quote:

look man i don't disagree with the motives of research scientists or any environmentalist means of getting people's attention (to a point of course) so long as it is consistent with their actions. in Al's case he's making two cases. i think one is being proven wrong by the other, and he's the one doing the validation!

Wait, so most climatologists AREN'T advocates of reducing global warming?? Isn't that inconsistent with their actions of expending vast quantitites of carbon dioxide to carry out their research?


has Bush made a movie telling everyone that if people don't stop flying helicopters we're all gonna die? that question was rhetorical more of a joke really.

are you justified for criticizing? it depends on if Bush thinks that flying helicopters was an absolute in the destruction of the world. if Bush or you thinks that it is not an absolute, that iif it is possible to be "carbon nuetral" despite countless and wreckless sorties regardless of the shame of irresponsibility [/QUOTE]

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Stop using that. You are only telling about 1/8 of the facts. You forgot to talk about all the other countries that supplied Iraq. France, Brazil, Russia, and the United States supplied both the Iraqis and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Sad, but true. It's like giving two children knives and egging them on to fight. Don't start typing things that aren't the full truth.

What? Perhaps if you understood what I was saying your argument would make more sense. As it stands you're simply taking what I said out of any kind of context. Here, to help, why don't you outline high level point I was making, and tell us how your statement addressed that overall point.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No I'm saying that America said that Iraq was bad, yet America helped Iraq, yet America is still correct in saying that Iraq is bad despite the blatant hypocrisy.

the analogy must consider that without hindsight, say 20 yrs. of it, Iraq was as good as Iran was bad. aside from that therein, i think, lies the commonality. however, no climatologist underestimates global warming's danger like America underestimated Iraq. nor does Al demonstrate to the degree in which he preaches his philosophy on how lifestyle choices will eventually lead to the destruction of the Earth (or mankind, whatever). where as America was just using Iraq to get at Iran, Al is using his celebrity to affect the global conscience (albeit misleadingly)

quote:

Wait, so most climatologists AREN'T advocates of reducing global warming??

sure, but how do they suggest we do that? do they even agree what causes it? and even if they did, and their research contributed to it, what is the research's net gain other than just a basic understanding of what not to do? how does that equate with Al's reckless attention getting? by attention getting i mean promoting the movie which is not an indictment on him personally.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the analogy must consider that without hindsight, say 20 yrs. of it, Iraq was as good as Iran was bad. aside from that therein, i think, lies the commonality. however, no climatologist underestimates global warming's danger like America underestimated Iraq. nor does Al demonstrate to the degree in which he preaches his philosophy on how lifestyle choices will eventually lead to the destruction of the Earth (or mankind, whatever). where as America was just using Iraq to get at Iran, Al is using his celebrity to affect the global conscience (albeit misleadingly)

So there's the problem. How can Al Gore influence the masses using his celebrity without appearing to be hypocritical? The fact is he can't unless there's an airplane that runs on vegetable oil. How can America not use realpolitik in order to acheive the "greater good"? IMO it can't. The complexities of real life result in seemingly hypocritical clashes ... on the face of things much of what occurs appears to be hypocritical but with applied context it really is not the case or is a necessary evil so to speak. Certainly there's room for critcism if the means don't actually accomplish the ends or if the means are particularly despicable, however, I don't believe what Al Gore is doing is a cause for concern with respect to either scenario.

quote:

sure, but how do they suggest we do that? do they even agree what causes it? and even if they did, and their research contributed to it, what is the research's net gain other than just a basic understanding of what not to do? how does that equate with Al's reckless attention getting? by attention getting i mean promoting the movie which is not an indictment on him personally.

I think most would say that humans are affecting the environment with carbon dioxide buildup. I think most would suggest that reducing this CO2 buildup would help eliminate the problem. Their "carbon footprint" is spent building up the facts behind their case. Al Gore's "carbon footprint" is spent publicizing the facts that the climatologists have come up with. In either case I don't really see any hypocrtical behaviour unless the ends are so henious that they do not justify the means or the means are so woefully inadequate to accomplish any semblance of accomplishing the ends.

___________________
Retro ...

I think the real kicker is what type of car does he drive?

A "carbon footprint" from flying around does not mean too much since the plane would be flying around even if he wasn't on it. However if he flies his own private plane around then maybe you can question his dedication to what he preaches.

This still leaves what car he drives. To me, if he drives a SUV without a convincing reason he is quite the hypocrite. If you are going to preach and make movies around reducing your "carbon footprint" you should drive a hybrid or at least a car that gets good gas mileage.

Some posters seemed to suggest, or it just seemed that way to me, that he drives an SUV. Is it true?

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ I think the real kicker is what type of car does he drive?

according to the New Yorker, Al drives a 2004 Cadillac and '65 Mustang given to him by Tipper....oh! did i mention they are insane?...yes, yes, they're insane...batshit crazy!

lol.

I know nothing about the gas mileage and emissions of those cars, however it seems to me that someone who went to the length of making and promoting a movie about saving the environment should ride a bike around or at least drive a hybrid.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo according to the New Yorker, Al drives a 2004 Cadillac and '65 Mustang given to him by Tipper....oh! did i mention they are insane?...yes, yes, they're insane...batshit crazy!

Any link to that? I've read news stories that have said that they've recently purchased a hybrid.

___________________
Retro ...

okay, >HERE< is the article from the Sep '04 issue but i'm warning you it's a real snoozer.

quote:

Gore also installed an anti-bug system that sprays a fine mist of ground chrysanthemums from various discreet sources: a tree trunk, a patio wall. “The mosquitoes just hate it,” he said. Other features of the house are less environmentally correct. A 2004 black Cadillac, which Gore drives, was parked in the driveway. A ’65 Mustang—a Valentine’s Day gift from Al to Tipper—was parked in the garage.

oh shit i read it wrong. he drives the Caddy, Tipper drives the man's car...figures

yeah i don't know if he drives a hybrid or what. that aspect of his life is prolly protected by the secret service it's so sensitive.

i drove a hybrid around the block today. it was a Lexus RX400h. fairly sweet. kind of a chick car but it was aaaiight

Last edited by Q5echo on Jun-09-2006 at 08:51

i just saw the movie today, it was great. i highly recommend it.. really opens your eyes to what's going on, and makes you hate the bush administration and oil companies for being such greedy bastards. we're goners if we don't shape up

___________________
this is it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo

Woah! That is nuts, thank for this chart!