http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
Does anyone doubt that the elite in this country want to lower our standard of living, while they live on their estates, play on their yachts, and choose our political candidates?
Only one side wants to lower our standard while they play. The other side does not give a fuck about the little guy.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
Does anyone doubt that the elite in this country want to lower our standard of living, while they live on their estates, play on their yachts, and choose our political candidates?[/quote]
Nope.
Why should the rich live like us?
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…
HH,
I don’t think it is this simple. Both sides don’t understand the implications of their actions.
Democrats think they are helping the little man by writing laws which in the long run only end-up hurting him; Republicans think the little man will eventually be pulled up by his bootstraps if corporations are given protection, forgetting that corporations don’t care about the little man.
We should be concerned with protecting the consumer as it pertains to liberty as this benefits everyone.
[quote]firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…[/quote]
In fairness, his bill compared to homes of similar size in that area is quite small. Of course, it’s still a fucking huge energy bill and is quite hypocritical (I remember reading that a good portion of his home energy bill was paying for solar energy, but cannot remember where I read that or how credible it really was.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Humanity might be “sitting on a ticking time bomb,” but Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
Apparently Gore doesn’t want to limit his hypocrisy. Good for him, branching out into other areas of pollution. Bravo.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…
In fairness, his bill compared to homes of similar size in that area is quite small. Of course, it’s still a fucking huge energy bill and is quite hypocritical (I remember reading that a good portion of his home energy bill was paying for solar energy, but cannot remember where I read that or how credible it really was.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Humanity might be “sitting on a ticking time bomb,” but Gore’s home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.
Apparently Gore doesn’t want to limit his hypocrisy. Good for him, branching out into other areas of pollution. Bravo.[/quote]
In what way is he responsible for this company´s behaviour?
Does he own or operate it?
[quote]orion wrote:
In what way is he responsible for this company´s behaviour?
He’s not.
Does he own or operate it?
[/quote]
He provides them with land to mine, which causes pollution of that river as stated by that article. He is so adamantly against pollution, it seems a bit hypocritical.
If he wants to portray himself as the environmentalist, fine. He’s not doing a good job with stuff like that energy bill and links to this mining company on his record though. These things, although not really related to his argument, do discredit it by discrediting him. To paraphrase Bill Maher - Conservatives want to make Al Gore look stupid, because if you make Al Gore look stupid, he equals Global Warming, and now that’s stupid.
Gore needs to realize that he discredits global warming to a large number of people with these things on his record, and do something about it to see a major change.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
HH,
I don’t think it is this simple. Both sides don’t understand the implications of their actions.
Democrats think they are helping the little man by writing laws which in the long run only end-up hurting him; Republicans think the little man will eventually be pulled up by his bootstraps if corporations are given protection, forgetting that corporations don’t care about the little man.
We should be concerned with protecting the consumer as it pertains to liberty as this benefits everyone.[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying. But both of the things you mention are the result of a mixed economy.
Gore is a hypocrite, plain and simple. Of course, that doesn’t help or hinder global warming but it does illustrate that the elite are trying to control us through fear-generated environmentalism.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I understand what you’re saying. But both of the things you mention are the result of a mixed economy.
Gore is a hypocrite, plain and simple. Of course, that doesn’t help or hinder global warming but it does illustrate that the elite are trying to control us through fear-generated environmentalism.
[/quote]
And economics is the key to the solution not what laws we can write to benefit whom.
Gore should probably take a look at his consumptive habits if he’s going to preach to the masses but I don’t believe “global climate change” is singularly attributed to man–that is the height of arrogance.
Its hard to account for all parameters involved in climate. It has been suggested that a butterfly flapping his wings on one side of the globe affects the weather on the other side of the globe–if this is true at all we must consider the overall effect. It probably isn’t that significant and not at all measurable. Now add the effect from every creature on the planet and there might be a little more significance involved–but again, how do we measure these effects?
I think pollution is a bigger problem than climate change from a man caused perspective. Those results are measurable and can be pointed directly back to man–consumption and waste being the biggest contributers of pollution. And who knows? maybe that will lessen the impact of “man made climate change”. Soon we are going to have to start paying a fee into our consumption to properly deal with waste. See? it all comes back to economics.
But yes, someone should probably put Gore in check and tell him to keep his big mouth shut–fear is not the answer to any of life’s problems.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I understand what you’re saying. But both of the things you mention are the result of a mixed economy.
Gore is a hypocrite, plain and simple. Of course, that doesn’t help or hinder global warming but it does illustrate that the elite are trying to control us through fear-generated environmentalism.
And economics is the key to the solution not what laws we can write to benefit whom.
Gore should probably take a look at his consumptive habits if he’s going to preach to the masses but I don’t believe “global climate change” is singularly attributed to man–that is the height of arrogance.
Its hard to account for all parameters involved in climate. It has been suggested that a butterfly flapping his wings on one side of the globe affects the weather on the other side of the globe–if this is true at all we must consider the overall effect. It probably isn’t that significant and not at all measurable. Now add the effect from every creature on the planet and there might be a little more significance involved–but again, how do we measure these effects?
I think pollution is a bigger problem than climate change from a man caused perspective. Those results are measurable and can be pointed directly back to man–consumption and waste being the biggest contributers of pollution. And who knows? maybe that will lessen the impact of “man made climate change”. Soon we are going to have to start paying a fee into our consumption to properly deal with waste. See? it all comes back to economics.
But yes, someone should probably put Gore in check and tell him to keep his big mouth shut–fear is not the answer to any of life’s problems.[/quote]
I aggree with you %100…
Hmm.
I don’t think it is fair to bitch at Gore about fear when what he wants is movement on the issue. There is no movement, so the “seriousness” of the situation needs to be made known. Perhaps you should simply work on showing the “seriousness” to not be as Gore seems to believe.
In particular, it is purely a political characterization to get into terms such as “fear based environmentalism”.
On another note, it is a great phrase, that it is the height of hubris to believe mankind can impact the planet, but it would also be the height of stupidity to think that actions do not have consequences.
We’ve impacted the planet in a myriad of ways already… this is just another potential impact (depending on whether you support the idea that we have a hand in global warming or not).
Finally, I really writhe when I hear people bitch about the costs of doing something about global warming. This, to me, seems to be a ploy to keep things in stasis so that companies making money on energy today can continue to make money on energy tomorrow.
The losses in one sector would certainly be made up by gains in other sectors. That’s pretty much what happens when industry segments get replaced by new industry segments, as happens naturally from time to time anyway.
If we want to take this issue seriously we need to look a lot fucking deeper than Al Gore’s utility bill. Well, at least if we want to do anything other than pud yanking political posturing.
Note, I’m not suggesting that global warming is a certainty or anything like that, but just that the tactics being used in the discussion of this topic are political ones, not productive ones.
[quote]vroom wrote:
We’ve impacted the planet in a myriad of ways already…
[/quote]
How?
This is an old argument that has little validity. Has there been local degradation of local ecosystems? Yes. Global impact? None. You can’t show any proof that human presence on the planet has impacted the planet one way or another.
You haven’t lived long enough to make that kind of grandiose posturing with any degree of certainty beyond that which makes you feel warm and cozy when you turn off your fossil fueled lamp, and crawl into your cotton-sheeted bed.
Change is the only constant in progression. To think that we should keep the earth in a static state is beyond stupidity.
95% of all life was extinct before the junk-science whale huggers showed up to blame the white man for his rape of the planet.
Spare me the crap.
[quote]firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…[/quote]
Exactly, he should do like he says in his powerpoint presentations and make every effort to reduce his carbon footprint, by like paying extra for green energy from the utility company, installing solar panels and energy efficient bulbs/appliances etc., and then calculate your carbon footprint and purchase carbon offsets to further invest in clean technologies…
Then tear his house down, and live in a shack.
update: He already is doing all that, 'cepting the tearing down of house. My bad Mr. Gore, for a second there I was just gonna pile on about you being a hypocrite, but as it turns out if you actually do what you say to do then it’s the opposite of hypocrite. Weird how that works.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
We’ve impacted the planet in a myriad of ways already…
How?
This is an old argument that has little validity. Has there been local degradation of local ecosystems? Yes. Global impact? None. You can’t show any proof that human presence on the planet has impacted the planet one way or another.
You haven’t lived long enough to make that kind of grandiose posturing with any degree of certainty beyond that which makes you feel warm and cozy when you turn off your fossil fueled lamp, and crawl into your cotton-sheeted bed.
Change is the only constant in progression. To think that we should keep the earth in a static state is beyond stupidity.
95% of all life was extinct before the junk-science whale huggers showed up to blame the white man for his rape of the planet.
Spare me the crap.
[/quote]
Uhmm,
This has been debunked. (even before global warming)
“human presence on the planet” caused the hole in this thing called the “Ozone”.
It turns out this “Ozone” is actually located above the “Globe” and that having a hole in it effects the “Globe” (global impact). I’m sure you could google “Ozone Hole” for more info on just one way “Human presence on the planet” can have a “global impact”.
Other than your main point being factually wrong, good post.
[quote]100meters wrote:
firebug9 wrote:
If he was really concerned about global warming, HE would do something about his own home first…
Exactly, he should do like he says in his powerpoint presentations and make every effort to reduce his carbon footprint, by like paying extra for green energy from the utility company, installing solar panels and energy efficient bulbs/appliances etc., and then calculate your carbon footprint and purchase carbon offsets to further invest in clean technologies…
Then tear his house down, and live in a shack.
update: He already is doing all that, 'cepting the tearing down of house. My bad Mr. Gore, for a second there I was just gonna pile on about you being a hypocrite, but as it turns out if you actually do what you say to do then it’s the opposite of hypocrite. Weird how that works.
[/quote]
He should live in a far smaller house to reduce his carbon foot print. He should also stop jetting around the world at the drop of a hat. If humans are causing global warming we need to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. Using $ 30,000 of “green electricity” is not going to cut it. He consumes far more than his share of natural resources.
He is a hypocrite and you back his hypocrisy. Sad.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
This is an old argument that has little validity. Has there been local degradation of local ecosystems? Yes. Global impact? None. You can’t show any proof that human presence on the planet has impacted the planet one way or another.
[/quote]
Your view of human impact is too simplistic. Are you only talking about climate change when you speak of human impact?
Need I point you in the direction of the many landfills marking the terrain? And that was only the first example off the top of my head–there are many, many other examples I can show you.
When you say we haven’t impacted the planet what do you mean by that? The mere presence of life impacts the ecosystem. This does not always connotate a negative impact–however, even exhaling impacts the ecosystem. Put 100 people in a 100 sq. ft room with no ventilation and then tell me the environment isn’t impacted.
Waste doesn’t just degrade instantaneously. The more waste we create per person the harder it is for the system to deal with it over time. Try living next to a landfill and telling me you are not negatively impacted by degradation of the local ecosystem.
Go live by a cooling lake next to a nuclear power plant and tell me you are not impacted. Go live next to a PVC plant (many grace the shore-towns of Texas) and tell me you are not impacted. All life creates waste; however, humans are the only animal capable of creating enough waste that we have termed it “pollution”.
Now, I agree that tying it to “climate change” is difficult but to make a blanket statement to say it isn’t true is a leap of faith I wouldn’t make–as a scientist.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Uhmm,
This has been debunked. (even before global warming)
“human presence on the planet” caused the hole in this thing called the “Ozone”.
It turns out this “Ozone” is actually located above the “Globe” and that having a hole in it effects the “Globe” (global impact). I’m sure you could google “Ozone Hole” for more info on just one way “Human presence on the planet” can have a “global impact”.
Other than your main point being factually wrong, good post.
[/quote]
If you haven’t the evidence to prove causation - which you can’t possibly have, it is only opinion that humans caused the ozone depletion.
Could it be cyclical? Probably. One good volcanic eruption does more harm than all of the cars and cow farts ever produced.
Blaming man. Blaming the evil white man is nothing but political grandstanding.
Thinking that humans have had a negative impact on the planet is utter stupidity.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Your view of human impact is too simplistic. Are you only talking about climate change when you speak of human impact?[/quote]
Ask vroom. I am replying to his post. I assume that since it was vroom doing the posting - it means the the evil white americans are in the process of destroying the entire planet.
You are going to have to do better than burying trash as an indication that we are having a negative impact on the planet.
Impact meaning - in my mind - that we are doing things that take the planet out of equilibrium. The planet has always been dynamic, and will always continue to be. You think too highly of our species to assume that merely living is going to change the direction the earth has been heading since its inception.
You make my point about local degradation. Hardly a synonym for global impact.
Cow turds take time to decompose. Lakes that turn over take time to correct themselves. Dead elephants stink like hell for a long time. We are no better, or no worse than everything else sharing the planet.
local - and local. None of it changes the balance of the planet, which is my point.