More evidences about Al Gore!

[Cicero]

I gave you grey - you ignored it. It was to you, apparently, An Inconvenient Truth.

You gave me bupkis. My A or B choices are based on the facts as we know them. Not some amorphous A or B that you concocted to appease the AlGore apologists in this thread.

 

[Cicero]

You ought to listen to that guy back in post #19 who asked, "Who are these people truly obsessed with Al Gore?"

Oh, wait. That was you.

The AlGore acolytes are not obsessed with him, but those who refuse to swallow AlGore's bilge are obsessed with him?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The AlGore acolytes are not obsessed with him, but those who refuse to swallow AlGore's bilge are obsessed with him?

It's not your opinions that make you obsessed. I could believe that a certain girl is the most beautiful, sexy, smart, generous, strong, hard-working, protective, loyal, and perfect-in-every-way being in the universe, and you couldn't call me obsessed with her if I went on to hardly ever think of her and never speak of her. On the other hand, if I believed another girl was average in every sense of the word - but spent every waking moment making my every thought, word and action revolve around her... then you could call me obsessed.

Likewise, it's not us "acolytes" who believe the gist of Al Gore's message, while disbelieving the more ludicrous claims, that are obsessed with him, as we hardly ever mention him. On the other hand, the deniers, who constantly refer to him by starting threads like this one and derailing other ones... well, I wouldn't call you obsessed either, but you fit the bill far better than us believers.

ETA: what on earth is a bupkis, and how many liters of MMGW do you need to cook one?

C) He believes that his travel footprint is more than offset by the political gains made to get more people involved in efforts to reduce AGW

AND

D) He believes that his travel footprint is more than offset by the actual reductions in CO2 emissions by getting industrial, governmental and other groups to modify their practices.

Now before you argue those specific points, Cicero, I am NOT making the above claims. I am simply providing an example to demonstrate the world does not exist in simplistic black/white terms that you seem to be so beloved of.

E) He goes 'carbon neutral' by buying offsets.

F) Other explanations we haven't thought of (whoops, ruined the false dichtonomy).

ETA: on the OP, how does cold weather prove Al Gore is a jinx? Is the OP a strawman stating that Al Gore said the weather would always be warmer and warmer, and that there never again would be blizzards? Or am I missing something?

 

[Cicero]

ETA: what on earth is a bupkis, and how many liters of MMGW do you need to cook one?

Not surprising that you have no clue of "bupkis" considering there are maybe 1500 Jews in Norway. But you have heard of Quisling?

E) He goes 'carbon neutral' by buying offsets.

AKA: A way for the guilty to pay for absolution rather than changing their behavior.

F) Other explanations we haven't thought of (whoops, ruined the false dichtonomy).

Others? I'm still waiting for your first bona fide explanation.

ETA: on the OP, how does cold weather prove Al Gore is a jinx? Is the OP a strawman stating that Al Gore said the weather would always be warmer and warmer, and that there never again would be blizzards? Or am I missing something?

After the Naomi Wolf treatment, AlGore was more sphinx than jinx.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'll hang back for a while and let others argue the fine points.

Meanwhile...

Are you a lurker on this thread? Here is an AGW debate checklist / bingo card to enhance your personal viewing pleasure

1) Sanctimonious self righteousness
2) Moral bullying
3) Apocalyptic hysteria
4) Heresy hunting
5) Blood libel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aty9vFX4dU0&feature=related

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Not surprising that you have no clue of "bupkis" considering there are maybe 1500 Jews in Norway.

Very informative. Now I won't have to look up the word on Google or Wikipedia. Thanks a lot.

But you have heard of Quisling?

He got bupkis?

AKA: A way for the guilty to pay for absolution rather than changing their behavior.

Others? I'm still waiting for your first bona fide explanation.

I won't accuse you of dodging the point (again) think you missed the point. We're addressing your claim that there were only two possibilities - that he was a "snake oil salesman" or a hypocrite. I feel this point has been made.

As for a "bona fida explanation", I am humble enough to say "I don't know". I'm sure you can find rebuttals online if you do a search. I did a Google search, but can't be bothered to wade through page after page of anti-Gore sites to get to skeptical responses. You are the one who cares so much about Al Gore. Surely this means you're interested in learning "the other side", which means you'll be more than happy to go do a simple Google search, right?

After the Naomi Wolf treatment, AlGore was more sphinx than jinx.

Yet another dodge. Please stop. It makes it difficult to have a meaningful, polite discussion.

ETA: I'm sure Cicero has found this already, but for the rest of us, here's some sceptical replies to Al Gore's power consumption:

Think Progress: Gore responds to Drudge's latest hysterics

Oh, and what do you know? I was right about him buying offsets! So much for your A and B being the only two options.

I especially liked the hacks, way back in the day, who said Gore's utility bill was at $30 000. What they "forgot" to point out, however, was that this was his yearly bill - for a huge mansion that functions, as I said, as an office building as well as a house.

 

[SezMe]

I won't accuse you of dodging the point (again) think you missed the point. We're addressing your claim that there were only two possibilities - that he was a "snake oil salesman" or a hypocrite. I feel this point has been made.

Exactly. So to keep it real simple, Cicero, do you acknowledge that there are more than your choices A & B? To anticipate, the issue is not the validity of the additional options, just their existence.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I just realized - it's a double dodge, since the point on Carbon Offsets also shoots down the OP's main point - that Al Gore is a hypocrite who doesn't care about the environment. By buying offsets, he shows that he is quite able to remove his 'carbon footprint', demonstrating that yes, he does care about the case he's spreading after all. Now, before Cicero pulls another dodge, yes, it's quite possible that buying carbon offsets are misguided. It's another "fad" way of helping out, and may or may not be effective. I wouldn't know, because I haven't really thought all that much about it. But again, the fact that Gore buys offsets, as well as the measures he has undertaken to make his home as eco-friendly as possible, shows that he does care about the environment and probably has a way smaller 'carbon footprint' than me and Cicero combined.

 

[gtc]

Strawman.

Did you even read Towlie's (and what an apt username that is) post?

Strawman. No one here accepts global warming due to the graph in question.

How do you know? And did I say anyone did accept global warming due to the graph in question?

I was pointing out the lack of critical thinking that is evident in that graph. A graph that was put out by an organisation that ought to know better.

If your views were based on science and not a quasi-religious dogma then I would have thought that you would have appreciated having this pointed out.

What a shame.

 

[gtc]

I used to believe without question that buying locally grown produce was better for the environment because it meant produce didn't have to get shipped as far. Then Skeptoid's Brian Dunning pointed out to me in his latest podcast that this was incorrect, due to the mathematics involved in producing food in cold environments, the amount of carbon dioxide released by tankers and trucks, and other factors. I saw a subject that seemed obvious, and, when shown the shades of grey, realized I had been mistaken.

I would have thought that was obvious. Have you reconsidered any of the other things you hold to be gospel truth as a result of this?

"Al Gore rides a private jet!" sounds like an easy sell, but if you "turn your skeptical eye" on the statement, I'm sure there is more to it.

Not that it matters. AGW doesn't stand or fall on Al Gore more than evolution stands or fall's on Darwin's {arbitrarily decided trait here}.

You may be oblivious to this as well, but people laugh at Al Gore due to the contrast between his sanctimonious preaching and his lifestyle.

AGW Denier:

...

AGW "Believer:

Your use of scare quotes around believer but not denier tells me that you really have no interest in the science but are simply an ideologue.

 

[gtc]

E) He goes 'carbon neutral' by buying offsets.

And have you actually investigated the carbon offset industry or are the benefits of carbon offsets something else you accept on faith?

I just realized - it's a double dodge, since the point on Carbon Offsets also shoots down the OP's main point - that Al Gore is a hypocrite who doesn't care about the environment. By buying offsets, he shows that he is quite able to remove his 'carbon footprint', demonstrating that yes, he does care about the case he's spreading after all. Now, before Cicero pulls another dodge, yes, it's quite possible that buying carbon offsets are misguided. It's another "fad" way of helping out, and may or may not be effective. I wouldn't know, because I haven't really thought all that much about it. But again, the fact that Gore buys offsets, as well as the measures he has undertaken to make his home as eco-friendly as possible,

Ah yes, here we have the answer.

shows that he does care about the environment and probably has a way smaller 'carbon footprint' than me and Cicero combined.

Another faith based statement.

How unsurprising.

 

[Robster FCD]

Man Made Global Warming....

Anthropogenic Global Warming, jaw droopy right back atcha

 

[Robster FCD]

I think that the whole focus on Al Gore (AlGore is a Rush Limbaugh-ism, pronounced similar to Igor) and his use of modern technology is quite ridiculous.

It sounds to like anti-Gore types would like Al Gore to be quit, live in a shack, and not travel to give talks. Effectively, its a snide way to say "Shut up." Part of the point Gore is trying to make is that you don't have to give up modern life to live an carbon neutral life.

Of course, it also keeps you from actually having to discuss the evidence.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Did you even read Towlie's (and what an apt username that is) post?

Yes. Nowhere in it did he say he had a hatred of progress and welfare. As a matter of fact, the quote to which I responded "strawman" wasn't even a serious statement, just yet another "you too!" dodge we've seen so many of in this thread.

How do you know?

How do I know people who accept AGW do so based on more than a single graph? I take that for granted what with all the media attention the subject matter has received. I guess you'll call that too "faith".

And did I say anyone did accept global warming due to the graph in question?

I misunderstood you, then. My bad.

I was pointing out the lack of critical thinking that is evident in that graph. A graph that was put out by an organisation that ought to know better.

You were pointing out that it started during a "mini-Ice age", which basically means it started out at a cold time, and has since grown warmer. Since this is basically what AGW is - the warming of the planet over time - I fail to see the problem. If you mean that the graph obscures the fact that the planet has been warm before, this is irrelevant as no one has stated otherwise.

ETA: Just to clarify, are you really telling me that 150 years isn't enough for you to establish a trend? Just for how long does the planet's average temperature need to rise for you to consider it a warming trend?

If your views were based on science and not a quasi-religious dogma.

Strawman.

I would have thought that was obvious. Have you reconsidered any other things as a result of this? {quote edited to remove yet another ridiculous strawman}

Never have. Not once. Least of all AGW. Never questioned that as much as once, no sir. Al Gore awards anyone caught thinking with 100 lashes, with a whip doused in gasoline.

You may be oblivious to this as well, but people laugh at Al Gore due to the contrast between his sanctimonious preaching and his lifestyle.

How lovely. Now, does this have even a passing relevance to what we're discussing? Because it sounds like an argument from popularity to me ("people" think Al Gore is a hypocrite and laugh at him. Therefore he is a hypocrite).

Your use of scare quotes around believer but not denier tells me that you really have no interest in the science but are simply an ideologue.

Really? Would you believe the same thing if I did the same thing when discussing evolution - put evolution "believer" in quotation marks, but not denier? Science isn't something you believe in. Science is about knowledge.

And have you actually investigated the carbon offset industry or are the benefits of carbon offsets something else you accept on faith?
Ah yes, here we have the answer.

So when I say I don't have an opinion on carbon offsets, that means I support them out of blind faith?

A more pressing answer, then, now that you've gotten your answer: have you? If yes, please explain to me how carbon offsets do not serve their purpose.

ETA: in the meantime, please realize that whether or not you and I believe something to be useful isn't important. What's important is that the person doing it thinks it's an effective measure. I don't have the slightest liking for organic food, but I still don't doubt for a second that many, or most, of the people who buy it do so because they want to help the environment.

Another faith based statement.

How unsurprising.

Premise 1: Al Gore makes a movie to warn people about AGW.
Premise 2: Al Gore's home has plenty of energy-saving measures.
Statement: Al Gore buys carbon offsets to remain carbon neutral.
Conclusion: Based on 1 and 2, I'd say he buys carbon offsets because he cares about the environment?

How is this conclusion "faith-based"?

ETA:

Anthropogenic Global Warming, jaw droopy right back atcha

I don't know what the jaw drop was for in the original post anyway. Certainly can't have been at the fact that we didn't know the meaning of an abbreviation most of us hadn't ever seen before because it's not seen significant use. I mean, what did he expect?

Not knowing the term AGW, on the other hand...

ETA:

WTF Blood Libel?

From the Wiki:

Blood libels are false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of the victims is used in various ritualscannibalism. The alleged victims are often children.

I have to second the "WTF".

 

[gtc]

Yes. Nowhere in it did he say he had a hatred of progress and welfare. As a matter of fact, the quote to which I responded "strawman" wasn't even a serious statement, just yet another "you too!" dodge we've seen so many of in this thread.

Well read it again:

Many conservatives are still hung up on the obsolete term "global warming", but that has been replaced with "climate change" because of the complexities involved, which can actually cause cooling in some areas of the world. The wackos who persist in denying the phenomenon are either motivated by, or being deliberately manipulated by those who are motivated by, the mindless quest for profit. They aren't doing the human race any favors by spreading their misinformation.

 

[a_unique_person]

I would have thought that was obvious. Have you reconsidered any of the other things you hold to be gospel truth as a result of this?




You may be oblivious to this as well, but people laugh at Al Gore due to the contrast between his sanctimonious preaching and his lifestyle.



Your use of scare quotes around believer but not denier tells me that you really have no interest in the science but are simply an ideologue.

So AGW is actually all about Al Gore? I thought it was about science.

 

[ingoa]

So AGW is actually all about Al Gore? I thought it was about science.

Of course it is about Al Gore. It is called AGW!

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Well read it again:

I did. Nowhere did it say Towlie, nor the rest of us, have a hatred of profit, progress or welfare, or whatever else you accused us of harbouring.

 

[varwoche]

As long as the subject has drifted away from the basic question of Al Gore being a jinx, I'll be a good sport and post something relevant to the new topic.

Climate Audit Proving to Be Inconvenient (Again)
National Review

Emphasis added. Yeah baby, that's science all right.

<pack of laughing dogs goes here> It's hilarious that you foist an editorial in a right-wing publication that in turn cites Watts, a TV weatherman mega doofus and a rank CTist.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

OK.

"Climate change" not global warming == Anything that happens proves you're right (and should rule).

Because the climate never ever ever changed before.

I guess that settles it.