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
p.s. GO HEELS!!
Fir3start3r
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? ;)
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Gore tells people they need to use less energy to stop hurting the environment. Meanwhile, Al uses a load 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 , 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 :rolleyes: .
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.
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 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 , 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 bull 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!
You ing conservatives are a bunch of degenerates rotting in your own vile illness. A Conservative American is one classic oxymoron....
Magnetonium
quote:
Originally posted by Existo22
You ing 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.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Existo22
You ing conservatives are a bunch of degenerates rotting in your own vile illness. A Conservative American is one classic oxymoron....
metalgearsolid
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
if all we are going to do is post pictures than count me in:
Q5echo
sorry, i've been trying to convey the impression of Existo's vomitting on this thread ad nauseum
the sluts are nice though.
metalgearsolid
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
sorry, i've been trying to convey the impression of Existo's vomitting on this thread ad nauseum
the sluts are nice though.
'
I'm sorry the only sluts in this thread is you.
Q5echo
right
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
if all we are going to do is post pictures than count me in:
*raises hand*
I'll take Miss Nicaragua
you guys can fight over the Baltic-need-a-samich-group :nervous: ew?
