The Al Gore discussion, split from GOP/DEM

[southsider2k5]

Well I asked some serious questions regarding what direction the GOP sees in the environment. How happy they are and who are the conservative leaders on the environment.

 

I guess there is some value to conservatives to try and build parallels to Child Molesting Priests and Al Gore

 

 

Just make sure to not drink the Kool Aid, and don't ask quesitons.

[EvilMonkey]

I keep trying to discuss the environment, y'all prefer to debate Goracle's usage.

 

So I keep asking, are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Do we need to make any changes to our consumption? Are the steps that are outlined in the movie harmful to the environment? Should we reject the steps that the movie outlines because our environment will be harmed? And who is/are the conservative leaders on environmental issues?

Of course the environment isn't as important as restoring Conservatives to power. So let it go Kap. The rest of us did when we realized that Al Gore was the single most threatening environmental challenge facing conservatives. Not water quality, not air quality, but Al Gore. What a wonderful world conservatives live in.

Well, as someone pointed out, that can be a problem when 2 threads are merged into one. I'll address both points.

On the environment, yes I believe it is important that we have some controls on pollutants, oversight on polluters, etc. I would like heavy fines for companies that knowingly dump waste into lakers or rivers when they are supposed to be doing it a different way. I am for cutting our dependence on oil, if only for the fact that I would like to make the arab bastards suffer when their sand-gold doesn't command as much green as it once used to. I recycle when i can, donate used items in my house to charity when appropriate instead of throwing them away, and recently traded in my huge v8 auto for a more economical 4 cylinder one. I use the energy saving bulbs where I can, although i found that in the living room where the light is turned on and off alot, they blow out just as fast. And I also practice most of these things in my business, although switching the lights around is gonna have to wait for a bit. As for your 100% satisfied bit, thats a crock, because noone is going to be completely satisfied. And being less than 100% satisfied doesn't mean you have to start a global movement to change things. Institute reasonable changes, that won't kill businesses, and damn the lobbyists. Institute changes that cripple businesses, and you can forget it. You think we lose manufacturing jobs now, just wait until you put in even more restrictive regulations. We will be China's b**** in less than a decade, assuming we aren't already.

 

On Gore, you keep asking why we are worried about the messenger when the message is what we should be hearing. I liken this to certain conservative politicians who talk about 'family values', then go and get divorced. Liberals have a field day with calls of hypocracy, completely ignoring the message that a 2 parent family is better(most of the time) than a 1 parent family. Newt Gingrich is a schrewd politician, but once he left his wife, all the left could do is scream 'hypocrit!'. Not speaking for anyone else here, but I feel that buying carbon credits to offset your polution is cheating. He pollutes more than me. Much more than me. he just uses his money to make it alright in his eyes, and the eyes of his defenders. Well, it's not alright with me. I think his message is ok, but I will not be lectured to by him.

[Texsox]

Why are these questions impossible for conservatives to answer?

 

So why is there no conservatives talking about the environment? Are conservatives 100% happy with air and water quality? According to conservatives, is this as good as we can get?

 

I am puzzled that after over 50 posts by conservatives, all I've read is Gore is *like* a child molesting priest or someone who beats the crap out of people, oh, and called Goracle Not one says look at this leading conservative and what he is proposing and doing today. I would love to find a conservative figure that makes y'all happy, as long as it leads to a cleaner environment and one less dependent on fossil fuels.

 

Is Gore a hypocrite because he champions a goal, is trying to get there, but not there yet? Isn't that better than not trying at all?

 

Alpha,

 

I agree that any changes must not destroy our manufacturing and business base. But, starting back in the 60s, that's always been a defense of polluters, and we've still managed to make great strides in the past 40 years.

 

So there are multiple reasons to cut back on fossil fuels, that is great, I don't care why people are doing it, as long as steps are being done.

 

I don't compare my usage to someone living in a larger home. With all the time I spend living in tents during the year, I am probably using well less than anyone else in this discussion. I think we need to compare apples to apples. Different people have different situations. As long as we all try to reduce from where we are today, things get better.

 

And of course not 100%, but what are the areas that conservatives are concerned about and what is their solution?

[southsider2k5]

Tex you don't need (or want) our answers, thoughts, or ideas.

 

You have your mind made up and filled with stereotypes. You have had no desire to debate anything, instead you have pulled out the worse of every commment and used it in the worst possible light. I know you are trying to bait someone into continuing the stuff that was going on before, but it just isn't worth it. I personally have no desire to have anything I say taken and blown into the worst thing possible, all of the while sitting back and nitpicking it to death. There is no "discussion" possible without respect for an opinion different than your own. I tried explaining my opinion 10 different ways to get around the insane interpretations you were making it of, but it just got worse and worse the longer I tried to explain anything to you. To be honest, I don't know that I have ever seen the blood in the water mentality that I saw surrounding this, except for a very few other times on here. It just isn't worth wasting my time and energy discussing something that will get absolutely no where good, and only serve to make me question things on a personal level instead of an issue level.

 

This house has been burned to the ground, no matter how much gasoline you try to pour on it.

[BigSqwert]

I am for cutting our dependence on oil, if only for the fact that I would like to make the arab bastards suffer when their sand-gold doesn't command as much green as it once used to.

I would like our dependence on oil to diminish so that my daughter and future grandchildren can breathe clean air, drink clean water and ultimately lead healthier lives. But what can I say...I'm a positive person.

[Texsox]

Tex you don't need (or want) our answers, thoughts, or ideas.

 

You have your mind made up and filled with stereotypes. You have had no desire to debate anything, instead you have pulled out the worse of every commment and used it in the worst possible light. I know you are trying to bait someone into continuing the stuff that was going on before, but it just isn't worth it. I personally have no desire to have anything I say taken and blown into the worst thing possible, all of the while sitting back and nitpicking it to death. There is no "discussion" possible without respect for an opinion different than your own. I tried explaining my opinion 10 different ways to get around the insane interpretations you were making it of, but it just got worse and worse the longer I tried to explain anything to you. To be honest, I don't know that I have ever seen the blood in the water mentality that I saw surrounding this, except for a very few other times on here. It just isn't worth wasting my time and energy discussing something that will get absolutely no where good, and only serve to make me question things on a personal level instead of an issue level.

 

This house has been burned to the ground, no matter how much gasoline you try to pour on it.

 

try me. Alpha made some great points and if you bothered to read my reply, I agreed with him. Kap suggested liberals get our heads out of Goracle's ass and look. I'm looking and waiting for some conservative to comment on the environment and what the GOP's position is. I am very consistently pro-business. The GOP usually links anti-polluting measures to what is good for business. I can't think of one position I've taken that could be considered anti-business. I imagine I would be much in line with GOP environmental positions, if I actually knew them.

 

So I sit and wonder why the GOP doesn't have a champion for the environment. It could possibly be one more area that I agree with Republicans.

[whitesoxfan101]

I think his general intentions are good, but he's so damn clueless about the subject of which he champions (and yes, i've seen the movie) that he comes out of it looking mind bogglingly stupid.

 

But then again, most people in his position (ie, who are 100 percent sure that humans are causing a path of global warming and future planetary destruction) are just as, if not more, misinformed and misguided, so I can't really single out Gore.

 

So I sit and wonder why the GOP doesn't have a champion for the environment. It could possibly be one more area that I agree with Republicans.

 

I agree with you here, but I keep the ideas of being a champion for the enviornment and a champion for global warming seperate. We NEED to treat the enviornment better, that's obvious fact, but the idea that humans are causing a path of disasterous warming could, to say the least, be strongly debated.

[BigSqwert]

...but the idea that humans are causing a path of disasterous warming could, to say the least, be strongly debated.

An overwhelming majority of scientists would disagree with that statement.

[kapkomet]

try me. Alpha made some great points and if you bothered to read my reply, I agreed with him. Kap suggested liberals get our heads out of Goracle's ass and look. I'm looking and waiting for some conservative to comment on the environment and what the GOP's position is. I am very consistently pro-business. The GOP usually links anti-polluting measures to what is good for business. I can't think of one position I've taken that could be considered anti-business. I imagine I would be much in line with GOP environmental positions, if I actually knew them.

 

So I sit and wonder why the GOP doesn't have a champion for the environment. It could possibly be one more area that I agree with Republicans.

Again, no one is suggesting anything, because it would do no good. There's DEFINITELY good platforms on the environment by the GOP. But they're not championed by a sociocrat like the Goracle, so it's like finding a needle in a haystack.

[EvilMonkey]

An overwhelming majority of scientists would disagree with that statement.

Humans are A cause, not THE cause. Very different things.

[Texsox]

I agree with you here, but I keep the ideas of being a champion for the enviornment and a champion for global warming seperate. We NEED to treat the enviornment better, that's obvious fact, but the idea that humans are causing a path of disasterous warming could, to say the least, be strongly debated.

 

I agree, I think it ten years we will see the global warming "industry" as producing a net negative impact on the environment. It is causing people to stop thinking about the small things we can do to help. Starting as far back as I can remember (late 60s) there wasn't an over night change, it was a slow gradual change for the better. Each person doing their part to reduce, reuse, and recycle. By painting environmentalists as extremists and crazies we are hurting ourselves.

 

There are many examples of my brand of environmental stewardship. As I wrote yesterday, we can't get people to live in a yurt, but if everyone will take small steps within their current lifestyles, we can have a huge impact. I was just reading that if every American used a third less ice in our drinks we could shift from being an energy importer and become a net exporter. I find it a little unbelievable, and use too much ice myself to offer that suggestion.

[BigSqwert]

Humans are A cause, not THE cause. Very different things.

So fumes from cars and trucks aren't poisoning the atmosphere? I guess I'll leave the car running in the garage and close all the doors.

[Texsox]

Humans are A cause, not THE cause. Very different things.

 

Exactly. We are also the only cause that can actually change our behavior.

[EvilMonkey]

So fumes from cars and trucks aren't poisoning the atmosphere? I guess I'll leave the car running in the garage and close all the doors.

Where did you get that idea from? You really do have a comprehension problem. How about this: humans are not the only f***ing problem here. We are A problem, but not the single solitary problem. Clear enough for ya?

[BigSqwert]

Where did you get that idea from? You really do have a comprehension problem. How about this: humans are not the only f***ing problem here. We are A problem, but not the single solitary problem. Clear enough for ya?

You need to deal with your anger issues.

[kapkomet]

Where did you get that idea from? You really do have a comprehension problem. How about this: humans are not the only f***ing problem here. We are A problem, but not the single solitary problem. Clear enough for ya?

 

 

You need to deal with your anger issues.

If we (humanity) all died today, "global warming" would still happen or be occuring. So, yes, humans are "A" problem, but not "THE" problem.

[Balta1701]

If we (humanity) all died today, "global warming" would still happen or be occuring. So, yes, humans are "A" problem, but not "THE" problem.

Of course, because there's still roughly 1-2 degrees C of warming left in the pipeline due to the Carbon we've already released.

[Texsox]

If we (humanity) all died today, "global warming" would still happen or be occuring. So, yes, humans are "A" problem, but not "THE" problem.

 

And of the list of problems, humans are the only ones that can change their behavior. People would still die from heart disease, even with diet and exercise. People will still die in auto accidents, even while wearing seat belts. But we diet, exercise, and wear seat belts.

 

I look at most of the environmental choices as they can only help and probably not hurt. If everyone takes small steps, within their own lives, we make a nice impact. That's realistic. We may even have a shared goal, or ideal, to achieve. Perhaps a zero impact, it won't happen but I will not insult people for setting big goals and trying to reach them.

[EvilMonkey]

... but I will not insult people for setting big goals and trying to reach them.

I will, if they fail to do so, but act like they are better than me because their 'intentions' were pure.

 

Must be some of that anger I have still around.

[kapkomet]

And *gasp* as a conservative, as I duly noted about 10 pages ago in this thread, I do my part. And it's not because of the Goracle.

[Texsox]

I will, if they fail to do so, but act like they are better than me because their 'intentions' were pure.

 

Must be some of that anger I have still around.

 

And that is the beauty of living in America. You can insult any public official for any reason. I try and look at where the person is trying to lead us to, knowing that we almost never achieve the big plans. But if the path is right and not harmful, I think it's a good thing.

 

Near as I can tell, reducing our oil usage offers something for liberals and conservatives to embrace. I don't mind if someone hates Gore, it amusing.

 

And Kap, we know you don't do it because of Goracle, (I love that name) but as long as you do it, everyone benefits. And that's the important thing.

[knightni]

my conservation skills cut my energy consumption all the way down to using as much energy in 3 years as Al Gore does in a month. yes, i am the best.

 

 

You should make a movie about it so that we may worship you!

 

[hitlesswonder]

An overwhelming majority of scientists would disagree with that statement.

 

The overwhelming majority of scientists need to keep their grant funding coming, and a crises is a great way to do that. Of course, corporations that produce CO2 emissions have a financial interest as well, I suppose.

 

I'm not a conservative, but I think a conservative's environmental viewpoint is that the Earth is in pretty good shape (as Limbaugh says, "the Earth is not fragile"). The book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomborg probably sums up the conservative view the best. They take the prgmatic approach that human influence on global warming is unproven and that's is irresponsible to destroy an economy based on something very uncertain. Assuming global warming is happening, Lomborg calculates that it would be far cheaper to adapt to a warmer climate than to try stop the process.

 

Anyway, I probably shouldn't speak for conservatives, but that's my impression of their "environmental platform".

Edited March 4, 2007 by hitlesswonder

[EvilMonkey]

Hypocrit, thy name is Goracle! It seems that the company The Goracle uses to buy his carbon offsets, is owner by The Goracle! So he is shifting money from one pocket to another, probably getting some sort of tax writeoff for 'saving energy', while making money by providing carbon offsets. So, when the Goracle stands in front of you and asks you to be green, he is really making a sales pitch! "Save energy, save the planet! Oh, and while your at it, boost my stock value!"

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl...EWS01/702270382

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, she said.

 

Oh, and just an FYI, here is a link to it's current holdings.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/137...00053-index.htm

Interesting mix: Biosciences, Insurance, General Electric, an eco-friendly plasics company, a consulting company, a company that makes equipment used in stem cell research (TECHNE CORP ), a vet company and Whole Foods.

[Rex Kickass]

The overwhelming majority of scientists need to keep their grant funding coming, and a crises is a great way to do that. Of course, corporations that produce CO2 emissions have a financial interest as well, I suppose.

 

I'm not a conservative, but I think a conservative's environmental viewpoint is that the Earth is in pretty good shape (as Limbaugh says, "the Earth is not fragile"). The book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomborg probably sums up the conservative view the best. They take the prgmatic approach that human influence on global warming is unproven and that's is irresponsible to destroy an economy based on something very uncertain. Assuming global warming is happening, Lomborg calculates that it would be far cheaper to adapt to a warmer climate than to try stop the process.

 

Anyway, I probably shouldn't speak for conservatives, but that's my impression of their "environmental platform".

 

I think its foolish to say that the changes necessary would "destroy" an economy. Especially when that economy is based on a finite amount of resources that seems to be near its pinnacle of production. There are ways and methods of reducing CO2 that will benefit our economy in several ways in the long term.

 

Limbaugh is right, the earth is not fragile. It will adapt and fix itself - however the conditions that creates on the planet might make life a lot less pleasant for Joe Sackopotatoes.