Comment on In the Middle of America
the meme of attack the messenger is getting old.
you can't debate the science. so you have to try and take the messenger down.
those are the same typical lame tactics the republicans use. as Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame know personally how it feels to be attacked for bringing a true message that conflicts with the State/Corporate message. it is sad to see you keep towing the corporate line for free. you should get paid for this kind of service.
-Hype
Wait a minute... you mean that the worlds most vocal proponent for Global Warming recognition and supporter for reform via international treaty and satute (aka: Kyoto et al) cannot be held to account for his own lifestyle's apperent conflict with his message?
So, even I should go with the idea of "Do as I say, not as I do?" like most of Holywood elite tries to expouse?
Hype, dont ignore the point of this post: It doesnt attack Global Warming theory, it doesnt debate any science of Global warming.
This post directly debates the authenticity with which Mr. Gore proclaims the urgency and dire situation we are all in and the need for immediate and sweeping changes that are required... yet he fails to meet his own standard.
This post doesnt attempt, in any way, to debate the realities of Global Warming, its causes, or its effects, but it does in fact debate the validity of a very vocal spokesperson for environmental reform.
Now, please stick to this subject and dont try to have it dismissed as something it is not.
and btw, what this has to do with Plame I'm not sure... are they also big advocates of Global Warming reform? Or did you just toss that in to try and frame this post as more "GOP" spin?
This has nothing to do with Gore's politics, and everything to do with his public verusus private stance on the mythical "carbon nuetral lifestyle".
It doesn't matter what Al does, you will attack him. These tired tricks aren't working anymore.
you can kick Al all you want if it makes you feel big.
-Hype
his homes are family homes.. your priorities are messed up.
he offsets his carbon usage. do you do that? what exactly are you doing to help the environment? because it seems to me that Al Gore is more environmental than 99% of us. but you go ahead and kick him, if it makes you feel better.
the man owns stock.. ohh no.. that is soooo un-american.. maybe as a stock holder he can not only attain the american dream but he can also have a say in the companies business. ever thought about that? noo.. just kick Al.
soo if Al can't keep himself 100% green he can't lead the charge of environmentalism?
lame and typical.
-Hype
Ahh, so now you'll explain away his hypocritical lifestyle because his "intentions" are well meaning?
Again, in the real world, actions speak louder than words, and results matter more than intentions.
if I didnt intend to shoot over someone, but I did, they're still dead, and if I did shoot them, you'll still think of me as a killer.
So, I hold Al to a pretty high standard. It's that whole thing about not throwing stones if you live in a glass house (or 2, or three, or a mansion, or a lake house, or whatever).
He isn't offseting his carbon usage... thats the whole point. For every bit of jet-setting he ofsets, he triples it in keeping that 10k sqft home at a plesant 72 degrees in the summer.
I find this almost laughable that you'll defend this as simple "family homes", and "American values" owning of stock.
Yet, Cheney used to own Haliburton stokc (and run the company) and the Bush family owns different oil stock than Gore, yet their Nazi criminals and capitalist pigs?
Al Gore owns three homes that mock the very idea of "family home" with their extravagence, yet he gets a pass in the "evil rich" catagory?
Lastly, if Al is owning stock so he can have a "say in the business"... so he's ok with drilling in ecologically sensitive areas? YOU HAVE TO READ IT ALL BEFORE YOU MAKE A DUMMY OF YOURSELF LIKE THAT.
You prove my point about left wing fringe taking over the mainstream democratic party with every comment you make.
wow, you have seriously gone off your rocker..
I repeat: soo if Al can't keep himself 100% green he can't lead the charge of environmentalism? that is your charge isn't it?
-Hype
Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is a right wing nut job.
This is a battle between corporations and regular people trying to keep their environment safe for them and their kids.
Your attempt and Peter's are sick.
-Hype
Nope, my charge is that Al claims immenent doom if we dont all go carbon nuetral... but he doesnt seem to feel this same urgency in his own life....
maybe his claims of danger are a bit of a "chicken little" syndrom?
he is doing his best which is 99% more than everybody else... your rant has no teeth at all. Al does more than anybody else, check. Al is leading the way with his powerpoint presentation, check. Al is convincing everybody even the religious folk like Pat Robertson, check.
nope.. i see right through this.. you don't believe global warming is an important issue for us and you want to take down the leading man because he was Clinton's VP.
you can't make the argument because there isn't one to make. Al is leading the charge and there is nothing you can do about it. You and Peter are sticks in the mud at this point.
-Hype
seems to me like you guys are afraid of Al..
in fact the more you guys attack him, the more publicity he gets.. keep it coming. please.
-Hype
"Al Gore owns three homes that mock the very idea of "family home" with their extravagence, yet he gets a pass in the "evil rich" catagory?"
no they don't.. he has family that live in all of those homes.
my uncle owns three homes and four families are living in them right now. that is normal.
but then Al offsets his carbon usage. my uncle can't even afford to do that.
"Lastly, if Al is owning stock so he can have a "say in the business"... so he's ok with drilling in ecologically sensitive areas? YOU HAVE TO READ IT ALL BEFORE YOU MAKE A DUMMY OF YOURSELF LIKE THAT."
Al doesn't even own the stock. His mother owns the stock and he can't sell it without her permission.
but keep on attacking.. please.
-Hype
"You prove my point about left wing fringe taking over the mainstream democratic party with every comment you make."
I wish that was true. I don't wish for one party rule like the neo-cons.
I want the Democratic party to pull the country back to the left. I want the Democratic party to represent their base, ie. Liberals. I like a centered America. I like having both worlds cancel out the extremes.
I think I seem more extreme because the country has been pulled to the right.
but I started out as a Conservative and I will always share many common beliefs with true Conservatives.
-Hype
http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/
2...ineering10.html
Real Science.. not that lobbyist corporate sell out junk science.
-Hype
He's the executor... he can sell if he wants. Thats what "executor" means...
I can always tell when you know I'm right by the ammount of comments you leave. You litter up threads because you're scared someone will read this and see the truth.
And trust me, you're no conservtive.
I've not forgotten the times you thought I was "crazy" because I didnt belive in a socialistic economy for the US. The times you told me Communism was the new light that we needed to head for, and that capitalism was (paraphrasing) the devil.
You're so far out beyond "left" it's not funny. What I cannot figure out is if you're just brainwashed, or if lack of exposure to the real world has created this view.
he is the executor but she is alive and has the final say.
do you suggest he go against his mothers wishes?
-Hype
Slow news day today G?
With everything going on in the world and this country, you just had to tell everyone something everyone already knows; that Al Gore is a hypocrite?
I know it's just so easy, and fun. According to you this is a non-issue, so why spend time on it? Mr. Gore is not even a leader of the country anymore, and won't be.
If you want to highlight hypocrites, why don't you choose the leaders who still have the power to affect the way people have to live their lives, by the laws that these hypocrites vote for.
Or if you want to talk about the hypocrites of energy, talk about BP who can't even spend money maintaining there oil pipe line, even though they have been making record profits for years.
As I've said before, I'm not convinced of global warming, I am convinced that we are needlessly poluting our enviroment and recklessly avoiding doing anything about it.
Not to mention the serious national security problems caused by hitching our energy furure to Middle East oil. If for no other reason, we should become energy independent, just to tell the Arabs (who hate us) to stuff their oil up their......
It is the responsibility of our leaders CURRENTLY in office, who can make a change for the better, to do so, instead of ignoring the problem.
If you want to highlight hypocrites, youhave hit a liberal, now hit a conservative. Or don't you think there are conservative hypocrites?
I think that "conservatives", or the crew that is calling themselves that, are beyond hypocritical.
See, Time and Hype:
This post was just about Gore, and just about this failure to live up to the standards that he so readily prescribes for the rest of us. Like Kyoto, and most anything else involved in Global Warming "fixes", he/they use paranoia and fear mongering to try and scare people into jumping off cliffs that would cause economic ruin to any industrialized nation all under the umbrella of "good intentions" that have no merit in realistic result.
My biggest complaint is that they have been provided by political entities (like the DNC) with a ready, willing, and able army of brainwashed "courageous dissenters" who want nothing more than a cause to get behind as a means to express the generational frustration that all youth go through. They want to "fight the man", and this group of unscrupulous money grabbers provides them an opportunity... as long as they part ways with a couple bucks here and there.
These people will constantly beat us down with how much impending doom we're facing, and the only way to stop it is to suppor their policies, and send in funding to keep their "valuable and priceless research" going.
Note the similarity between this and TV evangelism. It's the same con, just a different flavor. Jim Baker used to run around and tell everyone that for a small contribution, his ministry could keep running, and save thousand of lost souls... Al Gore runs around and says for a small contribution, he can keep going around and press the issue of Global Warming home...
Wow, if that isn't a parallel I dont know what is.
Now, for perspective Time:
I had this post ready on Friday afternoon, but forgot to post it. I had it in "draft" mode waiting. This morning, I was short for time, and so I released this one.
I understand I could have posted about the Israeli ceasefire, or the price of gas, or the reporter's story now that she's back from Iraqi hostage, or Chavez and Castro's love scene.... but I figured all of those would be covered by just about every other news/politics blog out there.
I chose this one, because the current hoax over the cause/effect/solution of Global Warming is something I'm becoming more and more passionate about.
Now, this wasn't about presenting a "liberal" as a hypocrite, as that's easy enough, just as "conservatives" are easy targets... this is about showing the lack of urgency that Gore and others act on, yet scream about when concidering Global Warming.
I'm not ready to find yet another way to shoot our nation's economy in the foot for the sake of potentially lowering the earth's temp by less than 2 THOUSANDTHS of a degree over the next 50 years!, at the cost of a couple hundred TRILLION dollars.
But as you can read from the post vomit that Hype has provided us: Some do/are/have.
Hype:
If he belives this passionatly about it, HELL YES!
Otherwise, he's just supporting another oil company drilling in ecologically senstive areas and providing cheap dirty fuel to an already over satruated market for the sake of making money (sounds really capitalistic to me there).
Wow - I couldn't even read through all that... sheesh.
Here's my 2 cents:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About...r_David_Suzuki/
Al Gore isn't the "worlds biggest advocate" about global warming. Careful your American doesn't blind you to the rest of the world G., there are those in other countries who are much bigger, more credible, and more visible advocates who actually walk the walk... and have the brains to back it up.
Personally, I've NEVER seen or heard a peep about AG's ANYTHING here. He's not as special as you think. If you read the above bio, you'll see what my idea of an advocate is. And I dare you to bash him.
And be sure, I mean no disrespect or insult to you G.
That's true boo, I should have said "America's biggest advocate", not the world's.
No disrespect taken at all. I have no problem with someone who belives this stuff, and then lives by it. My biggest problem is being preached to by someone who conviently ignores their own advice and/or warnings.
To me (AG), this would be the like the Marlbro Man telling me to quit smoking cause it's bad for me.
Ad far as the guy you put up in the link.. you do realize he's a An internationally respected geneticist, not a climatoligist, geologist, atmosphere pysicist (spelling?), or anything like that right?
I'm not discrediting him, but I am pointing out that this would be the equivelent of me as a GIS Specialsit (my acutal job) telling you what kind of tires to buy for your car as if I was an authority on the subject.
I make digital maps and manage databases all day, but that doesnt give me any specific or special knowledge of tires and their pros/cons or your specific needs for certain tires.
That is another big probelm. The "scientific community" that is screeching the global warming doom stuff is actualy a bit too diverse. You've got everyting from herboligists to zooligists (spelling again?) trying to toss their name in the hat. You've got archioligists, and chemists trying to tell us that "their research" shows the waters are getting hotter and it means we're going to have more worse hurricanes.
Yet eveytime an actual climatologist or someone similar disgrees, they're instantly shunned as "rogues", "disgruntled", or "junk science".
You'll note that the only scientists that are not practicing "junk science" are those that sell the party line.
Dr. Suzuki's site talks about Kyoto:
The Kyoto Protocol is an historic milestone. It is the first, and only, binding international agreement that sets targets to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
But fails to mention that the reality of Kyoto is that it is an insanely expensive, unrealistic expectation that no one can meet, and even if they did, it would have such a potentially minimal impact that it makes you wonder why you'd tank you're economy to do it. (think: cutting 60 acres of 5ft tall grass with some child safety sissors).
Kyoto's real impact is that it hampers and hinders the economy and industry of the "developed" and "western" nations, while ignoring those of the "developing" nations (China, India, and third worlds). The entire thing is a socialist share fest to make the world economies "fair". I say this because that is where it has its most dramatic effect. If it were really a goal to change Global Warming or any climate change, it's about the most piss-poor attempt at anything the world community could ever try.
Yet Dr. Suzuki stand firmly behind it from all his vast experiance as a geneticist?
Suziki's Foundation is actually populated with experts from all disciplines - he doesn't pull his facts from his butt. He's also made himself an expert on a great number of things besides genetics.
Check out this page... http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Clima...ce/
Skeptics.asp
Here's his carbon neutral stuff: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/
Clima...bon_neutral.asp
Boo: Again, I dont think he's full of crap, and I respect that he's walking the line as he speaks it. I greatly respect someone like him over Gore. But I wanted to give you what I see (my perspective) with guys like this, and the entire movement.
There is a whole lot of conjecture, "logic leaps", and blind faith going into this debate (on both sides), and as of yet, there has been no sit-down, face to face between either side of this debate. I've noted that the skeptics are consistantly asking for this debate, and the proponents are consistantly denying that opportunity.
I'll read his stuff, but unless something new comes out to add on to this debate (new evidence or info), I'm not going to be swayed by more hashing over of the same old hockey puck graph, ice measurments, cheesy photo comparisons, and all the other subjective evidence and conjecture.
One more thing: I read the "myth/reality" and "fact/fiction" parts on Suzuki's site... none of that stuff is what I'm saying about man-made causes, and it pretty much tries to paint all skeptics as idiots grasping at straws. remember that link I sent you to (junkscience.com)... NONE of that site's stuff is touched on by Suzuki.
They dont want to go there. They want you to "purchase carbon credits"...
This thing is a raket, a scam, a quick buck for thousands of otherwise would-be unemployed scientists.
ouch. as someone working in emissions research, i think i should resent that. :D
problem I have is how small the "against" side is. scientists aren't that gullible dear. and were you ever able to find me stuff debunking the harmful effects of the true GHG's? CH4 and N2O?
I've not looked honestly, and remember, I seperate local emessions and pollution (aka: smog) with Global Warming.
And lastly, I dont think scientists are gullible, but have noticed that the entire Global Warming scare has created an entirely new community and "need" for these scientists? Most scientists are employed via research grants and funding programs from the government or various comercial companies.
If there were no immediate crisis that we dont know enough about... there'd be a lot of "research scientists" working for The Weather Channel, or developing new kinds of makeup.
This stuff funds their research, and their lives.... not too many are going to come out and say "naw, you dont need us, this thing isnt a big deal, and there's nothing we can do about it... so i'll just got back and make a new breed of rubber or something".
I think this is a self serving prophecy of doom. But, that is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Doesnt mean I'm right or wrong.
And sorry if I offended you 
no you haven't. you're entitled to your opinion. one of these days I hope I can send you a link to data that will change your mind once and for all. until then - I'll just keep doing that gov't funded research to try and pay off my student loans... :D
lol, peace :D
Firstly,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index...JunkScience.com
Secondly,
"I can always tell when you know I'm right by the ammount of comments you leave."
A) Doesn't seem very credible logic to me. Why should your readers trust someone who forms conclusions based on knee-jerk instincts?
B) If you analyze these comments for frequency and consecutiveness of posts, someone is a lot better at leaving many comments than Hype is.
Best.
Dude, if you're from Connecticut and you don't believe in the scientific reality of climate change then you are Rip Van Winkle. I was born in Brockton, Mass. in 1964 and know from basic stuff like ice skating (when the ponds freeze) and sledding (when there's snow on the little hills in town) and ice fishing (when you can set your tip-ups and catch pickerel and perch) that the climate in southern New England has changed markedly in the past 25 years. No natural cause can explain this, since we are supposed to be at the end of a 12,000 year interglacial period and going into a new Ice Age. According to what has been the natural Pleistocene cycle in New England for the past 100,000 years we should be going to a much colder climate now, not a warmer climate. That's just my personal experience over the past 25 years. The scientific data, gathered globally, is far more conclusive and overwhelming than my own anecdotal observations. The database for this is deep and substantial. Go to www.realclimate.org and talk to some actual geologists and atmospheric scientists who are gathering the data. If you don't peruse this scientific site, and don't report back, then you are blowing smoke.
First off, I'm not from Connecticut? I'm not sure where you got that idea either.
Secondly, if you want to judge the last 25 years as a measure of global warming... I hope you don’t ever visit a Farmer's almanac since going back 50 years will show you a much different local climate than today’s, and a much different climate than 25 years ago (i.e. it was hotter back in the 30’s, then the 50’s, then the 80’s, now the 00’s…). Even the leading researchers will tell you not try and gauge global climate change from the way you “feel” for the last quarter century.
Karen:
Note that sourcewatch throws down junkscience.com’s author, but not what’s posted on there. If you’re going to question the messenger, then this fits right in with my post questioning Al Gore since he seems not heed his own dire predictions and advice to avert disaster.
And as far as Hype and his million man comments go, I’ve noted that Hype only posts repeated short burst comments (somewhat like machine gun fire) on posts where I’ve pointed out something that incontinently contradicts his political ideology and the agenda he supports; thus my statement of when to gauge if I’m right. Now, please realize that I made that statement with a certain measure of “jest” as of course this couldn’t be used as a real tool to accurately portray correctness.
To both of you, I do appreciate your opinion (although I disagree with it), and I hope you stop by. Occasionally I’ve been known to alter my opinion of something based on the arguments provided by a different point of view (although not often 
).
Lastly, Doug: You’ve made the same leap many do in concearn to my stance on Global Warming: You are incorrectly assuming that I am denying climate change is happening.
This is not true, in fact what my real debate is about is what the cause of this is, and what we humans can actually do about it. Research into the proposed costs and effects of heralded measures like the Kyoto accords prove that the real agenda has almost nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with economy manipulation.
Commenting by HaloScan
