Maybe it would be easier to take global warming seriously if the high priests of climate catastrophe weren’t such amazing hypocrites

From Darleen Click, we learn that His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales believes we have but 96 months to Save the World:

Direct from god Gaia: The Divine Right of Kings

When I last posed the question of what the fundamentialist religion of Environmentalism is really about I closed with

[I]s this just the use of power to play out their dearest Medieval Times fantasy where they figure they are the lords and ladies and the rest of us are serfs?

Here comes Prince Charles to answer my question.

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince CharlesThe heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the “age of convenience” was over.

Think about that for a moment. Here is a “man” who has been a hothouse orchid his whole life … never made a bed, never cooked a meal, never held a job or met a payroll, never worried about bills or had to make choices about stretching the household budget so the kid can get into soccer camp and scouts. Yet Prince Charles, pining for the days of old as he travels between his palaces, is telling Mr. and Mrs. Middle-class “Your life stinks of convenience and We Are Not Amused”.

Mrs Click proceeds through some well-merited mockery of the prince, but what amused me was the precision with which His Royal Highness has calculated our impending doom:

Delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Charles said that without “coherent financial incentives and disincentives” we have just 96 months to avert “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

By specifying 96 months, the Prince specifies that the unit “months” is the precision with which his calculations have been taken. It has occurred to me that 96 months might not be quite the Vulcan-precise calculation presented by Mr Spock in Star Trek, but might more probably represent the length of what His Royal Highness might hope to be Barack Obama’s term as President of the United States. Of course, with that type of precision, and the fact that the speech was given in July, t’would be five months into what I hope will be our 45th President’s second term, so perhaps that’s not what the Prince meant. :)

Still, it is entirely possible that His Royal Highness was being overly optomistic: former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., said in December of 2008, that the North Polar icecap would completely disappear in five years:

Mark that one down on your calendar, boys and girls: there will be no Christmas in 2013, because Santa’s workshop will have sunk! (Hat tip to serr8d.)

Of course, his film An Inconvenient Truth claimed that we had ten years from 2006:

We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin,

so there we are again, at 2016 — apparently three years after the North Polar cap melts away.

Perhaps some of our friends on the left who believe that we must make serious and fundamental changes in our lifestyle to avert a catastrophe brought on by global warming would be better served in making their arguments if they didn’t have such obvious nutjobs — and hypocritical nutjobs, to boot — making their arguments. How seriously am I to take Mr Gore’s arguments that we must act now to save the world when he flies around the country and the world in private jets, dumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere, to bring us his message?

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore’s office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

As for His Royal Highness, it gets difficult seeing a man who has been pampered his entire life, who has almost anything he wants delivered to him, and is waited on hand-and-foot by a staff of servants, a man of many residences, as being anything but a hypocrite when he tells other people that

we can no longer afford consumerism and that the “age of convenience” was over.

Mr Gore wanted to be our leader, and thought that he was the right man for the job of being our 43rd President. Well, I say that it’s high time he actually led! Mr Gore, sell those extra houses. Better yet, tear them all down and replace them with one small, energy efficient home. If you believe that we must sacrifice our lifestyle because it’s the only way to prevent looming global disaster, then lead us by your own example! Your Royal Highness, you can do without Highgrove and Birkhall; Clarence House alone ought to be more than sufficient — and really, even that’s way too much; maybe a flat in Chelsea would suit? — for a family of just four people.

Until they start practicing what they preach, you can count on me giving them exactly the respect that they deserve.

83 Comments

  1. The actions and lifestyles of the self proclaimed saviors of the the planet are the precise reason I don’t believe a word of it. They aren’t hypocrites they are nincompoops. Other than the impressionable college kids who bite for everything, the people on the front lines for AGW are all wealthy and the most outspoken are millionaires and billionaires. They do not believe what they say proven by their lifestyles. Only a stary-eyed lib kid would buy their snake oil. As I’ve said before in this site, if I believe something is a good idea, I do it. They preach and pull in cash but theynever are willing to do it themselves.

  2. And that’s just it, John: why should we take seriously something that they don’t take seriously?

    I sort of wonder why the people who do take this seriously aren’t speaking out about the failure of their “leaders” to act like they take it seriously.

  3. When I can make $100M scaring people and on Carbon Credits, I’ll believe. But when Poope Algore 1/2 uses more energy in a month that I do in a year, I call that hypocritical.

  4. The amazing thing about all this hype is that they are willing to strangle and destroy the US economy over it. Cap & Trade or anything else is meaningless as far as climate is concerned. Emerging nations like China and India will offer safe harbor to any and all industries we force out of the US. Now, let me ask you this: Where do you think industry will polute less? Here with our technology, or in China with theirs? So these companies relocate to China and India and we lose jobs, lose tax revenue, increase the volume of global polution because of lax regulations and primative technology. But we do get to buy our own products back as imports. So what is the REAL goal of this AGW crap? Cause it sure ain’t cleanin’ up the planet!

  5. How seriously am I to take Mr Gore’s arguments that we must act now to save the world when he flies around the country and the world in private jets, dumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere, to bring us his message?

    How seriously are we supposed to take you, when you base your arguments about science on wingnut antipathy to personalities?

  6. Tell you what, Dana – revisit this thread for a moment.

    Now, Al Gore is is currently the founder and chair of Alliance for Climate Protection, the co-founder and chair of Generation Investment Management, the co-founder and chair of Current TV, a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Inc., and a senior advisor to Google. He is also a partner in the venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, heading that firm’s climate change solutions group. In addition, Gore is on the faculty of Middle Tennessee State University as a visiting professor, and was a visiting professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Fisk University, and the University of California, Los Angeles.

    Gore is the recipient of a number of awards including the Nobel Peace Prize (together with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 2007, a Primetime Emmy Award for Current TV in 2007, a Webby Award in 2005 and the Prince of Asturias Award in 2007 for International Cooperation. He also starred in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2007 and wrote the book An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, which won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in 2009.

    (Wikipedia, of course)

    Sarah Palin has a BA in journalism and is unemployed.

    Who’s scared of whom?

  7. A Nobel Prize has become a bit of a joke. Terrorists and liars can get an award.

    Al Gore knows some buzz words but has never had a real job in his life. What does he know of science? Did he ever take a math class after graduating from his exclusive prep school?

    His environmental indulgences are a scheme that could make Madoff envious.

    Why trust the second generation of a family of pseeudo-populist hustlers?

  8. The Phoenician wrote:

    BTW – just a reminder – more people voted for Gore than Bush…

    And we thank God for the wisdom of the Framers who created the Electoral College!

  9. Phoe, this isn’t about Sarah Palin vs Al Gore. Mrs Palin seems unlikely to me to be our 2012 presidential nominee. Rather, this is about Al Gore, and his hypocrisy in trying to get others to do as he says, not as he does.

    Mr Gore uses carbon “offsets” to buy credits from non-polluters, to make his net out to zero. That’s a great way to make money, I suppose, but when this clown tells us that we have to cut back on our lifestyles, I want to see him really lead the way, by example.

    What I really don’t understand is why those who take global warming as a serious problem don’t demand such from their leaders.

  10. Because it’s not about global warming. It’s about power over other people, their property, their mobility and ultimately their freedom. There is no definitive science involved. I say that because science tells us that there have been significant cooling and warming cycles throughout the history of the earth without even the existence of mankind. It is the way nature eliminates the weak and renews itself. To quote my liberal friend Susan: “It’s natural.” The arrogance of these earth worshipers to believe man could be that important and powerful is to me astounding. The earth could shake us off like we would an ant crawling on our arm. This is what happens when people deny the supremacy of God and replace it with the belief in the perfectibility of man. They start to believe in utopias and cannot accept that “shit happens” and that’s just the way it is. But to sacrifice the one true gift from God, your liberty, following a charlatan who does not practice what he preaches is like following Jim Jones and drinking the Kool-Aide. The whole idea is preposterous and its followers are immature fools

  11. And by the way, what does Sarah Palin have to do with this? Or is that just BDS redux?

  12. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    How seriously am I to take Mr Gore’s arguments that we must act now to save the world when he flies around the country and the world in private jets, dumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere, to bring us his message?

    How seriously are we supposed to take you, when you base your arguments about science on wingnut antipathy to personalities?

    Because for decades Liberals have been good for do what I say, not as I do. Ever hear of lead by example?

  13. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    if they didn’t have such obvious nutjobs — and hypocritical nutjobs, to boot — making their arguments.

    BTW – just a reminder – more people voted for Gore than Bush…

    Pho, can you give me the dates of the Gore Presidency? Thank goodness for the Founding Fathers.

  14. JohnC.:
    And by the way, what does Sarah Palin have to do with this? Or is that just BDS redux?

    John, it’s a whole new syndrome called PDS. Libs think she is so bad, they have to talk about her 24/7 to convince themselves she’s that bad. Who was Kerry’s VP candidate in ’04? I asked that a week ago and hasn’t been answered. Yup, it’s PDS. :-)

  15. Pho, as much as I enjoy learning so much about all the knowledge and worldly experience you have to impart I find it difficult since you are probably half my age. And yes, I realize that when you are a twenty-something you are far more enlightened than we old farts (who experienced what you are now about 30 years ago) and likewise understand that since mommy taught you to Google your expertise is just a mouse click away. Your ability to cite articles and statistics to support a view are legion. The only thing you now lack to be credible is common sense and a track record.

    I particularly loathe the way you talk down to Dana Pico, Other Dana, Art Downs, Eric, Yorkshire and myself as if we were uneducated Appalachian trailer trash. I assure you we are not.

    I graduated high school and enlisted in the Army in 1968 knowing full well (to my mother’s dismay) I would go to Nam. But in our family the men from each generation have served since the Revolution. So did I. In Nam I was wounded three times and was awarded the Bronze Star (with a “V”). On my return I did a BS at Princeton mainly on the GI Bill. I then married my first wife and opened my first restaurant. Subsequently, I opened 16 more restaurants and am now on my fourth wife (mostly due to those damn restaurants). Over those years I’ve employed more than a thousand people. Now I am a partner in sixty-four restaurants in South Korea employing over 300 people. We are building a shopping center in Suwannee, GA also at this time.

    I’ve seen friends die in battle and have killed many men in combat. I’ve held the hands of my parents and others as they died in bed. Having no children (those damn restaurants again), I’ve held my nieces and nephews when they were born and prayed their lives would be better, freer than mine. Watching kids grow up and my friends grow old I’ve wondered what it’s all about. After all this time, I still don’t know. So please don’t tell me the certainty of your correctness. ‘Cause kid, you don’t know Jack Shit and I do.

  16. This entire thread, with the exception of Phoenician who sees through your antics, is a diversion from the issue of global warming/climate change to messenger personalities and religios-like beliefs.

    You folks do not understand the distinction between science and religion: Science is based on observable reality, and religion is based on faith.

    For whatever reason, probably economic and/or political, you folks would rather ignore the observable trends (facts) in global temperature, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, arctic ice depletion and rising sea levels, trends going back thousands of years compared to the post-industrial revolution period.

    Progress cannot ever occur when relying solely on religious-like concepts in place of scientific facts!

  17. Dana Pico, I would like to apologize for going off on Pho like that on your web site. But you understand that sometimes we old geezers suffer from dementia. I’m just sick and tired with the disrespect and distain with which we are treated by younger people these days. If you take away their movies, TV and computers they don’t know how to interact respectfully with other human beings. Sorry.

  18. BTW – just a reminder – more people voted for Gore than Bush…

    So? I don’t know how they do things in Hobbit-land (perhaps you should just elect Gandalf President-for-Life) but here in the USA presidential candidates compete for states, not individual voters. That’s what they base their election strategies on, which is why Bush didn’t campaign in liberal states like Massachusetts and Gore didn’t waste time in conservative states like Texas.

    It must also be noted that, had Jean Francois Kerry won about 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he’d have been our 44th president, never mind Bush getting over 3 million more votes overall. Had that happened, I don’t think we’d have heard a peep about the “Popular vote” from the Libs.

  19. Progress cannot ever occur when relying solely on religious-like concepts in place of scientific facts!

    The problem isn’t the science (which, when it comes to global warming, is inconclusive at best) but rather the hypocrisy. Al Gore, the Pope of the Global Warming movement, lives as if he doesn’t believe a bit of it. As Dana pointed out, if Gore isn’t willing to cut his high flying standard of living to reduce so-called Greenhouse gasses, then what business does he have lecturing the rest of us to do so? It’s like having Hugh Hefner preaching the virtues of celibacy!

  20. Eric, you apparently did not understand. This is not about Gore, this is about the current state of scientific understanding about global warming.

    Furthermore, Eric, you need to review the concept of the scientific method; then you will realize that no scientific conclusion/theory is ever an absolute statement like religious doctrine purports to be, instead, it is always subject to criticism, double-checking, and possible revision or even refutation.

    To read about criticisms of the global warming/climate change theory is normal and expected scientific processing. To be accepted, these criticisms have to rise to the level of general acceptance in the scientific community, otherwise they remain just that, criticisms, no more than that.

    On anthropogenic global warming/climate change theory, the state of the science to date accepts it overwhelmingly, therefore we must respond to it, not ignore it for religious or ideological reasons. Therefore folks who, instead, choose to attack a messenger or two, such as on this thread, are not making a valid scientific statement about global warming/climate change theory.

    To do the latter is equivalent to violating all the basic science that you, Eric, were taught in your AP Physics and college Physics courses, all of which would not hold together without accepting scientific facts for what they are and for what they mean.

  21. you apparently did not understand. This is not about Gore, this is about the current state of scientific understanding about global warming.

    The current state of scientific understanding about AGW is, at best prognostication. It is guess work based on computer models which spit out answers based on the info in-put. The info may or may not be correct. Any scientist who prognosticates enters the realm of soothsayer. Scientists who get grants to perpetuate soothsaying are frauds. Science has over just the last 30 years predicted ice ages, global warming, global cooling, world famine, world drought and overpopulation. They have all been proved wrong. What makes anyone think they are right this time?

  22. Perry:

    Furthermore, Eric, you need to review the concept of the scientific method; then you will realize that no scientific conclusion/theory is ever an absolute statement like religious doctrine purports to be, instead, it is always subject to criticism, double-checking, and possible revision or even refutation.

    And thus the heart of the problem. The leaders of the GW movement are absolutists where no skepticism is allowed, entertained, or discussed. When any skepticism is brought up, the door is slammed in their face. So, when you see a hypocrite like Gore who spouts off in absolutes, then has a carbon footprint bigger than all the people who respond here together, the natural thing for me is to be skeptical.

  23. Perry,

    No, you don’t understand. The topic isn’t about the theory of global warming or who won more votes in 2000. It’s about the utter hypocrisy of people who claim to believe manmade global warming is wrecking the planet, but who continue to use an inordinant amount of carbon-based energy in order to tell the rest of us that we just need to quit living so luxuriously (like having air conditioning).

  24. Al Gore is a hypocrite. That some people are unable to deal with blunt truth is not only telling but makes it clear that entering into an honest debate and discussion is futile. It is not possible with his followers, these religionists.

    It’s also very telling when someone like Al Gore can be awarded the Nobel Prize for hustling a theory in spite of the Nobel and noble nominees like Irena Sendler, a 96-year old Polish woman who literally saved 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto during the Holocaust. Obviously, the Nobel Prize has lost it’s own dignity.

  25. Sharon, Other Dana, you two persist in diverting to an attack on the messenger, which is not objectively convincing because you are not addressing the science, either that you do not understand the science, or that your ideology is not consistent with the scientific findings that lead to the fact of global warming/climate change.

    JohnC: “The current state of scientific understanding about AGW is, at best prognostication. It is guess work based on computer models which spit out answers based on the info in-put.”

    John, sorry, but you are confused on this point. The scientific conclusion about the fact of global warming is solid and based on data, not on computer models. What is based on computer models are some of the projections about the future of global warming. Some future predictions are based on extrapolations of existing known trends, and some is based on creating computer models that fit current data and attempt to then attempt to predict the future taking, account of various scenarios. So we are less certain about the future than we are about where we are presently.

    Yorkshire: “The leaders of the GW movement are absolutists where no skepticism is allowed, entertained, or discussed.”

    This ‘absolutism’ may be true of the GW movement, but it is definitely not true of the science of global warming, because any interpretation of the data is always subject to question by skeptics. This is the way scientific inquiry works. However, for the skeptics to be believed, they must present their case such that the overwhelming participants in the science are convinced. That has not happened so far, to my knowledge, as every skeptic I know of has been refuted. To a scientist, there is no such a thing as absolutism, otherwise, by definition, we have someone who is not a scientist!

  26. A good example of the difference between science and absolutist religionists is the debate over the age of the earth. Based on radioisotopic dating, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, which is when the solar system as we know it was formed. On the other hand, creationists go with the Biblical version which puts the age of the earth at 6000 years, with no scientific data to support it. Which do you accept as being scientifically factual?

  27. Perry,

    I don’t believe you enter into a good faith debate. You are convinced of your rightness re a theory. Period. And your sense of ‘rightness’ in this appears to be more important to you than an honest discussion. Therefore, it benefits me not at all to discuss this with you and I really have no interest in it.

    Regarding that supposed “fact” of global warming/climate change, I read your comment to my dad who chuckled. He’s a scientist, holds several adv. degrees and just finished at age 75, teaching another year at the college – biology and chem. I know the science, Perry. And I believe that what you refer to as a “fact” is anything but.

    We shall have to agree to disagree. I can graciously accept that. I assume you can too.

  28. Perry wrote:

    This entire thread, with the exception of Phoenician who sees through your antics, is a diversion from the issue of global warming/climate change to messenger personalities and religios-like beliefs.

    Actually, my initial post didn’t address the issue of whether global warming is real or not, or, if real, is caused by man. Rather, it addressed the fact that some leading proponents of the idea that climate change is real, is a threat, and must be addressed by man’s action, say one thin g but do something entirely different. Can you tell me why I should believe that Al Gore, the most prominent and mopst vocal advocate of your position, takes his message seriously if he doesn’t abide by the restrictions he says ought to be placed on other people?

  29. Other Dana: “And I believe that what you refer to as a “fact” is anything but.”

    Then how do you explain the data, Dana? Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, about a degree Celsius increase in global temperature, almost doubling of greenhouse has carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, melting arctic ice, rising sea levels — this does not even cause you pause?

    And Dana, as I said earlier, I fully recognize that a scientific “fact” is always subject to revision. However, until the revision is accepted by the scientific community, the original “fact” is the accepted fact, as I indicated earlier. So I don’t accept your accusation that I don’t enter a debate in good faith.

    I am sure that your dad will accept that statement, since he is the same age as I, so we’ve both lived through the revision of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “fact” only to see it significantly revised. Likewise, I have spent my entire career in scientific research, development, engineering, and education.

    I will also quickly point out that your previous post in this thread was focused on attacking the messenger. I don’t see where that is at all relevant to the science of global warming. Be that as it may, since you wish no further discussion with me, so be it, that is your choice!

  30. Dana Pico: “Actually, my initial post didn’t address the issue of whether global warming is real or not, or, if real, is caused by man. Rather, it addressed the fact that some leading proponents of the idea that climate change is real, is a threat, and must be addressed by man’s action, say one thin g but do something entirely different.”

    My question to you is: What does the personal behavior of Al Gore have to do with the global warming science that he is presenting?

    “But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences.”

    Wrong! Here is the current situation with Gore’s house: “The Gore’s home is certified by the US Green Building Council as a Gold LEED certified home for retrofitted homes. As part of the LEED certification process, they upgraded their windows, lighting, appliances and insulation, among other items in and around the home [...] The residence is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. The Gores also participate in the “Green PowerSwitch” program offered by their utility [company].”
    http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/al-gore-house-47062202?src=rss

    But I’m not going to defend Gore any further, rather I will attempt to keep you folks focused on the current status of the science on global warming, since all you want to do is divert from the science to the messenger!

  31. Perry,

    Who is to blame for the last period of global warming our planet endured?

    As a man of science I’m sure you can’t believe this is the first instance of global warming in our planets history.

  32. h., to my knowledge, there have been no abrupt global warming incidents generated by the activities of man like we are seeing right now. We have had volcanic eruptions and meteor/asteroid strikes that have momentarily caused rapid climate change, but nothing like we are observing now, to my knowledge. We have had alternative warming and cooling (ice ages) spanning periods of tens and hundreds of millions of years, but again, nothing abrupt like we are seeing now.
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

    In this reference, scroll down to the chart labeled: “Temperature in the Northern Hemisphere Over the Last 1000 Years”. Or, here it is!

    Temperature in the Northern Hemisphere Over the Last 1000 Years

    Here you can see the abrupt change that we are currently experiencing.

  33. Perry: “But I’m not going to defend Gore any further, rather I will attempt to keep you folks focused on the current status of the science on global warming, … “

    Good for you. You can talk about the science, and the others can talk about the politics of those leftist appetite entities trying to leverage the “science” into a form of political control and domination.

  34. Actually, my initial post didn’t address the issue of whether global warming is real or not, or, if real, is caused by man. Rather, it addressed the fact that some leading proponents of the idea that climate change is real, is a threat, and must be addressed by man’s action, say one thin g but do something entirely different.

    When you make comments such as “how can I take it seriously” you are addressing the issue of whether global warming is real or not. If Marx said that the sun comes up in the east, would you immediately start plumping for the “dawn in the west” position?

    Can you tell me why I should believe that Al Gore, the most prominent and mopst vocal advocate of your position, takes his message seriously if he doesn’t abide by the restrictions he says ought to be placed on other people?

    Because he may consider his actions necessary or hypocritical – but this doesn’t alter the science he publicises one little iota. And only a wingnut would think that it does.

    And, as it turns out, you’re wrong:

    So, where is the disjunct between what he says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there isn’t one. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if people like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out bucks for carbon offsets — and you might even be right — but that’s a policy disagreement, not proof that he’s a hypocrite. Folks who dislike his politics will no doubt call him hypocritical just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches, the case against him is a sham

  35. Perry wrote:

    Dana Pico: “Actually, my initial post didn’t address the issue of whether global warming is real or not, or, if real, is caused by man. Rather, it addressed the fact that some leading proponents of the idea that climate change is real, is a threat, and must be addressed by man’s action, say one thin g but do something entirely different.”

    My question to you is: What does the personal behavior of Al Gore have to do with the global warming science that he is presenting?

    It has a great deal to do whether I find him and his proposed solutions serious.

    You have two issues here, Perry: Is the world getting slightly warmer, and, if it is, is this the result of man’s activity? The data suggest that the world is warming up slightly, though not out of range with what has occurred naturally before. The proof that man is responsible, or could do anything about it, no, that isn’t proven.

    What our former Vice President wants us to do is live more poorly, to use less and have less, while he goes merrily on his way consuming rather conspicuously. I cannot see how even he believes what he says.

    Me, I’m not willing to live more poorly. If others wish to do so, I have absolutely no problem with letting them exercise that choice.

  36. In this reference, scroll down to the chart labeled: “Temperature in the Northern Hemisphere Over the Last 1000 Years”. Or, here it is!

    Here you can see the abrupt change that we are currently experiencing.

    So what does it say from 1999 to 2008?

  37. What our former Vice President wants us to do is live more poorly, to use less and have less, while he goes merrily on his way consuming rather conspicuously

    You are, of course, not telling the truth. From the link provided:

    Through a spokesperson, Gore has responded to criticism of his bloated electric bill by arguing that his lifestyle is actually “carbon neutral” because 1) he purchases all of his power through a special program that supplies “green energy,” and 2) he offsets 100% of any remaining environmental impact by investing in projects that promote renewable resources and reduce overall energy consumption.
    [...]
    In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth where Gore discusses what ordinary citizens can do to help combat global warming, he stops well short of calling for deep sacrifice or lifestyle change.
    First, he lists a number of modest steps individuals can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly — like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible — all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore is not taking himself.

    Second, he preaches activism — voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role.

    Third, he argues that everyone ought to try to achieve a “carbon neutral” lifestyle. How? By doing precisely what he does — offsetting one’s environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall.

    So, where is the disjunct between what he says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there isn’t one. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if people like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out bucks for carbon offsets — and you might even be right — but that’s a policy disagreement, not proof that he’s a hypocrite. Folks who dislike his politics will no doubt call him hypocritical just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches, the case against him is a sham.

  38. So what does it say from 1999 to 2008?

    Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998:

    Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).

    Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.

    In fact, most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.

    The record warmth of 1998 was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.

  39. Eric, you apparently did not understand. This is not about Gore, this is about the current state of scientific understanding about global warming.

    Actually, it’s about both. The reason Gore matters is because he is, by far, the most prominent spokesman for the Global Warming movement. York and I are only partially joking when we call him the “Pope” of GW, because that’s essentially the role he has assigned himself, never mind that his own background in basic science is pretty weak. And when Gore famously proclaimed the “Debate” was over, that showed a profound ignorance of how science actually works. So, what Gore says matters, because he has millions of followers who just accept his proclamations because he’s, well, famous, and because he’s won several prestigious awards (tho none in science, BTW). And what Gore does matters as well. As Dana pointed out, if he can’t live by example, then he’s in little position to make demands on how the rest of us live. If Gore took public transportation, rode a bicycle, and lived in a small, energy efficient house with few or no luxuries, then at least he’d have some credibility. But living in a mansion (with a heated pool no less!) and travelling Gulfstream instead of Greyhound proves him to be a phony of the first order. Why should people like me give up our fun (Jet Skis, power boats) and our comforts (air conditioning) when Gore lives like a prince?

  40. Here you can see the abrupt change that we are currently experiencing.

    The “problem” with that change is that it’s just so damned small. The scale on the left side of that graph is measured in fractions of a degree C, with the total rise over the past century amounting to maybe one degree F max. That really ain’t much, it basically means average temps have gone up 1/100th a degree per year. I live in a state where the temps can range from -60F in winter to over 100F in summer, and a rise as small as you’re talking about would barely register here.

    And that’s the problem with GW theory. The actual evidence is pretty small, and the vast bulk of the theory is predictive. Al Gore asserts that we are heading for a catastrophe, with temps going up dozens of degrees, vast amounts of polar ice melting, sea levels drowning coastal cities, etc., a prediction that is only slightly connected to actual reality in terms of scientific measurement.

    Is it any wonder we consider Gore to be a fraud and Global Warming largely a hoax?

  41. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    What our former Vice President wants us to do is live more poorly, to use less and have less, while he goes merrily on his way consuming rather conspicuously

    You are, of course, not telling the truth. From the link provided:

    Through a spokesperson, Gore has responded to criticism of his bloated electric bill by arguing that his lifestyle is actually “carbon neutral” because 1) he purchases all of his power through a special program that supplies “green energy,” and 2) he offsets 100% of any remaining environmental impact by investing in projects that promote renewable resources and reduce overall energy consumption.

    The reason Poope Algore 1/2 claims to be Carbon Neutral is that he buys Carbon Credits or Offsets (sale of indulgences in his religion) from None Other Than Poope Algore 1/2.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

  42. A good example of the difference between science and absolutist religionists is the debate over the age of the earth. Based on radioisotopic dating, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, which is when the solar system as we know it was formed. On the other hand, creationists go with the Biblical version which puts the age of the earth at 6000 years, with no scientific data to support it. Which do you accept as being scientifically factual?

    I’m not sure that’s the best comparison. Science is pretty good at telling us what happened in the past, because the evidence is already there. But Global Warming theory is mainly about predicting the future, for which (for obvious reasons) we have no evidence at all. Indeed, to borrow a theme put forth by Yorkshire a few days ago, Global Warming theory resembles actual religion on several fronts, not the least being that most of it is predictive (i.e., prophesy) and that, just like religion, it has an Apocalypse where all the evil sinners (SUV drivers) will be punished, presumably in a Great Flood (yet another religious reference).

  43. This perhaps explains the recent “the sky is falling” rant of hard left Senator Barbara Boxer, who in a fit of pique exclaimed that if the cap and trade bill is not passed, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more. Would her warnings not have been more temperate had she simply invoked the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2913-Boston-Republican-Examiner~y2009m7d13-As-the-folly-of-cap-and-trade-is-revealed-hysteria-of-global-warming-alarmists-intensifies

  44. The reason Poope Algore 1/2 claims to be Carbon Neutral is that he buys Carbon Credits or Offsets (sale of indulgences in his religion) from None Other Than Poope Algore 1/2.

    No, he claims to be carbon neutral because he offsets the carbon he produces. If he also invests in companies that offer carbon offsets, this is no different than a farmer eating the stuff he grows, or a builder living in a house he built.

  45. Eric: “I’m not sure that’s the best comparison [creationism versus evolution theory wrt the distinction between religion and science].”

    Phoenician addressed your misunderstanding of the meaning and use of scientific theory. Now you need to be able to distinguish between religion and science. The former is based on faith, the latter on observable reality!

    Don’t feel too badly, Eric, because there are many, many people whom I have encountered over the years who do not understand this extremely important distinction.

  46. Phoenician addressed your misunderstanding of the meaning and use of scientific theory.

    No, he just resorted to the usual name calling without addressing my point at all.

  47. Now you need to be able to distinguish between religion and science.

    Or the similarities between global warming theory and conventional religion, namely, that both rely on prophesy. Remember, as noted, we’ve experienced minimal global warming so far, approx one degree F over the past century. The prophet Algore has gone from that minimal evidence and predicted horror, doom, and catastrophe. And this from a man whose background in math and science is little more than a joke!

  48. The Phoenician wrote:

    No, he claims to be carbon neutral because he offsets the carbon he produces. If he also invests in companies that offer carbon offsets, this is no different than a farmer eating the stuff he grows, or a builder living in a house he built.

    It’s just a paper transaction: he hasn’t done what he asks us to do, reduce our energy consumption — and our lifestyles — but has simply spent a few extra bucks to push a paper claim that he is environmentally conscious. Why won’t he practice what he preaches?

  49. No, he just resorted to the usual name calling without addressing my point at all.

    You see the bit in my response that indicates a hyperlink? if you use your mouse and click on it…

    Idiot.

  50. Dana: “It’s just a paper transaction: he hasn’t done what he asks us to do, reduce our energy consumption — and our lifestyles — but has simply spent a few extra bucks to push a paper claim that he is environmentally conscious. Why won’t he practice what he preaches?”

    Dana, normally a reasonable debater you, I am amazed that you continue to uncharacteristically cling to this weak diversion onto Al Gore, instead of debating the science of global warming.

  51. Perry, surely you’ve noticedthat the debate on whether global warming is real or not has persisted through several recent threads.

    As for me, even if global warming exists and is man-made, I am unwilling to give up modern life to stop it. There was a time when man barely made any impact on the environment; life spans were around forty years back then, too.

  52. Poope Algore 1/2 has the ability to use all the energy he wants and he says he’s bought offsets from himself for that luxury. He also sells that “luxury” to others and makes a profit. Now what about the other side of the coin where the Libs are soooooooo concerned for the poor. What happens when the Poope Algores get their $6/gal gas and the poor slob can’t afford to go to work. What happens when electricity doubles and triples and the poor slob at the bottom decides whether to turn on a light, or turn on the refrigerator? What happens when the poor slob at the bottom loses his job because his employer can’t fund power to operate. What happens when the price of food doubles and people don’t have a job, can’t drive, and can’t buy food.

    What will happen is Poope Algore 1/2 will say that’s the price of the environment. The slob at the bottom will tell him to go somewhere where the sun doesn’t shine. Oh, the libs have a solution, income tax credits, and income redistribution. What if there is no income to redistribute?. Oh, then we get to the heart of Lib Land, equal distribution of all things, if we get that far.

  53. Yorkshire: “Oh, then we get to the heart of Lib Land, equal distribution of all things, if we get that far.”

    Yorkshire, you can’t substantiate that stupid straw man, and you know it.

    Speaking of redistribution of wealth, it is not a straw man to point out the fact that Bush tax policy was just that, a redistribution of wealth to the rich. Why is it that you Conservatives never complain about that?

    I know you won’t reply, because you have none!

  54. Perry:
    Yorkshire: “Oh, then we get to the heart of Lib Land, equal distribution of all things, if we get that far.”

    Yorkshire, you can’t substantiate that stupid straw man, and you know it.

    Oh Perry, did you notice the price of everything go up last summer when gas was $4/gal? Food was up, cost of construction up, and the economy slowed down. And BO commented he didn’t mind the cost of gas at $4, he just wished it hadn’t happened so fast. Didja notice people traveled less last year? Didja notice the businesses closing due to disposable income going to fuel? Didja notice it cost more to heat your house last year? The environmentalists where in heaven because fuel use went down. But they didn’t give a rat’s butt that businesses closed and people were out of work.

    Here’s something to mull on Perry, rich people buy big items, and rich people employ more people. Take away their money, and watch the ripple effect. It was shown with the stupid luxury tax on large yatchs. The rich went elsewhere to buy and that industry never recovered.

    Yes, Perry, when the rich have less, we’ll all have less. But I guess you believe Gummint knows how to spend your money better than you do. Just ask Clinton.

  55. No, he claims to be carbon neutral because he offsets the carbon he produces.

    Rather than buy indulgences carbon offsets, why can’t Gore set an example by simply producing less carbon?

  56. Yorkshire: “Yes, Perry, when the rich have less, we’ll all have less.”

    Not true, Yorkshire, as proved during the Clinton years when the economy prospered when Clinton imposed the “greatest tax increase in history” (on the wealthy).

    Even though the economy prospered, wages for the middle stagnated, that overcome by more wives going to work. Now, after the Bush-43 economic crash, that solution is no longer possible, which is why so many people are hurting badly. But not the rich people. We just learned yesterday that the bailed out firm, Goldman Sachs, is paying their employees an average wage of 900,000 per year.

    This shows how distorted our economic system is, a terribly weakened middle class, a stronger than ever wealthy class. This is unsustainable, as we are learning as we speak! Yet you Conservatives want more of the same!! I don’t get it!!!

    The next step will be vastly increased crime and rioting in the streets. People have to eat!!!

  57. Eric just reminded me we had this much fun with this subject 3 years ago on this site. I wonder how many of the world’s 99.9% of all scientists are still on board with GW?

    Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Earth in the Balance – by Al Bore
    http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=756

    And Perry, you’re describing class warfare especially when you tell one class the enemy is really the other class. They are the sole reason for all your problems. That’s what will cause the riots. And what I see of the GW, Health Insurance and all the other ills in the country is the leaders are pointing to the Rich and blaming them. Real team building there Libs.

    Whatever happened to Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage? Not much of that in the Us vs. Them warfare being promoted by this administration.

  58. HOUSE # 1:
    A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.

    HOUSE # 2:
    Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms). A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground
    cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

    OK, who owns House #1, and who owns House #2????

  59. Perry: “This shows how distorted our economic system is, a terribly weakened middle class, a stronger than ever wealthy class. This is unsustainable, as we are learning as we speak! Yet you Conservatives want more of the same!! I don’t get it!!!

    The next step will be vastly increased crime and rioting in the streets. People have to eat!!!”

    Why the frenzy, Perry? Exclamation points won’t go stale if you don’t use them all at once.

    Oh, and speaking of moral responsibility and all, you forgot to thank me for reminding you of what you had said regarding population control. You know, that other voguish, supposedly moral cause celebre that placed strictures on and demanded sacrifices of us all. And from which strictures and obligations, the enthusiasts of the same, are seen constantly granting themselves personal and/or ideological indulgences.

    Perry forgetting on July 10, 2009:

    “As far as the population control issue, I don’t know what you are talking about. You must have me confused with someone else.”

    Perry on June 16th, 2009:

    ” Another issue little discussed is our global population. In terms of the skyrocketing per capita energy consumption, there is good reason to conclude that we are already overpopulated, to the point that if the trend for increased energy continues, we will need to take measures to cut back on population growth.

    So let’s take the next step, DNW, and work on a global salvation strategy based on viable alternate energy and control of population growth”

    Perry, acknowledging that he should have contacted “Population Connection” regarding their canting, politically motivated, immigration hypocrisy, on an issue so dear, if difficult to remember, to his heart:

    ” … …”

  60. No, he claims to be carbon neutral because he offsets the carbon he produces.

    Rather than buy indulgences carbon offsets, why can’t Gore set an example by simply producing less carbon?

    Gee, Eric, possibly because he has things to do, carbon emissions are the cost of doing them, and carbon offsets are a responsible way of dealing with this cost?

    But we note that you’ve stopped trying to bash him for “hypocrisy” and are now whining that he’s not playing the straw-greenie role you want him to play.

  61. ” …who owns House #2????”

    Why it couldn’t be that chief executive guy who soon after an unsettling national disaster, and while under enormous psychological pressure, especially given all of the potentially negative symbolic and propaganda significance of a possible failure, could actually walk alone across the infield, step up to the mound, and then throw a strike, could it?

  62. DNW:
    ” …who owns House #2????”

    Why it couldn’t be that chief executive guy who soon after an unsettling national disaster, and while under enormous psychological pressure, especially given all of the potentially negative symbolic and propaganda significance of a possible failure, could actually walk alone across the infield, step up to the mound, and then throw a strike, could it?

    Yeah, that’s the guy. The one they alluded to who couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time, the one who lead by example in building his house to the most energy efficient, where as Door #1 is getting rich on the selling of carbon offset indulgences, oooops, scheme.

  63. Who is more financially responsible,

    Nothing worse than a fool who won’t even bother to practice what he preaches.

    Except, of course, that Al Gore practices what he preaches – he just doesn’t preach the straw-greenie position you’re dishonestly ascribing to him.

    Through a spokesperson, Gore has responded to criticism of his bloated electric bill by arguing that his lifestyle is actually “carbon neutral” because 1) he purchases all of his power through a special program that supplies “green energy,” and 2) he offsets 100% of any remaining environmental impact by investing in projects that promote renewable resources and reduce overall energy consumption. The latter strategy, known as “carbon offsetting,” has won acceptance among the environmentally conscious as a way to effectively zero out their “carbon footprint” without living in a grass hut. Some argue that carbon offsets are a cop-out — the ecological equivalent of expiating one’s sins by purchasing indulgences from the church — but others tout them as a crucial weapon in the longterm fight against global warming. Count Al Gore among the latter.

    So, is Al Gore a hypocrite or not?

    We are urged to view Gore’s lifestyle as hypocritical because on the one hand he advocates energy conservation by all, while on the other consuming an “extravagant” amount of energy in his own home. And put in just those terms, it may seem an open and shut case. But how far, really, do Al Gore’s deeds differ from his own words?

    In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth where Gore discusses what ordinary citizens can do to help combat global warming, he stops well short of calling for deep sacrifice or lifestyle change.

    First, he lists a number of modest steps individuals can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly — like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible — all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore is not taking himself.

    Second, he preaches activism — voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role.

    Third, he argues that everyone ought to try to achieve a “carbon neutral” lifestyle. How? By doing precisely what he does — offsetting one’s environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall.

    So, where is the disjunct between what he says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there isn’t one. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if people like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out bucks for carbon offsets — and you might even be right — but that’s a policy disagreement, not proof that he’s a hypocrite. Folks who dislike his politics will no doubt call him hypocritical just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches, the case against him is a sham.

    Or, in other words, yet another case of Wingnuts Making Shit Up.

  64. Who is more financially responsible, a family that has a mortgage bill of $40,000 annually, and no household income, or a family with a mortgage bill of $80,000 annually and plenty of disposable income through which to service it?

    Most human activities generate carbon. Gore’s activism revolves around taking modest steps and pursuing a carbon neutral lifestyle – that is, paying for the carbon you emit via activities to take it out of the atmosphere.

    But, of course, that’s not going to stop wingnuts continuing to lie about these issues.

  65. Phoenician, in the above two posts you spelled it ‘Phonecian’! Is this a test?

    Moreover, you have not responded about the query regarding the New Zealand earthquake and the hope that you and yours are OK.

  66. Perry:
    Phoenician, in the above two posts you spelled it ‘Phonecian’! Is this a test?

    Moreover, you have not responded about the query regarding the New Zealand earthquake and the hope that you and yours are OK.

    Hmmm, good catch Perry. And one of the two he had posted a day or two ago. Wazzup?

  67. Simple enough – my computer ate my settings, and I made a spelling error.

    NZ is not a small country – in land area, it’s the size of Colorado (counting sea areas, we’re the 14th largest country). You’ll note here that the earthquake was about 800 miles away.

    Having said that, if there’s one in WELLINGTON, you’ll probably have a bit of peace.

  68. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    Simple enough – my computer ate my settings, and I made a spelling error.

    Good, no one hurt and all seems fine. We thought someone kidnapped you and used the earthquake as an excuse to post under a fake name.

    OK, back to our regularly sponsored “fun.”

  69. Gee, Eric, possibly because he has things to do, carbon emissions are the cost of doing them

    I have things to do, too, but somehow I manage to do them without a heated pool and a private jet.

    You can make excuses for Gore all day long, but you can’t hide the fact that, when it comes to the environment, Pope Al is as phony as a three dollar bill.

  70. HOUSE # 2:
    Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms). A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground
    cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

    House number 2 belongs to Gerge Bush at Crawford, TX. The first is Algore’s.

  71. I have things to do, too, but somehow I manage to do them without a heated pool and a private jet.

    People in Ethopia get by without computers, too. Why aren’t you living like them?

    You can make excuses for Gore all day long, but you can’t hide the fact that, when it comes to the environment, Pope Al is as phony as a three dollar bill.

    Phony in the sense that he seems to practice what he actually preachs, not what you are putting into his mouth.

  72. Yorkshire:
    “DNW:’ …who owns House #2????’

    Why it couldn’t be that chief executive guy who soon after an unsettling national disaster, and while under enormous psychological pressure, especially given all of the potentially negative symbolic and propaganda significance of a possible failure, could actually walk alone across the infield, step up to the mound, and then throw a strike, could it?

    Yeah, that’s the guy. The one they alluded to who couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time, the one who lead by example in building his house to the most energy efficient, where as Door #1 is getting rich on the selling of carbon offset indulgences, oooops, scheme.

    Yes, well haven’t you heard? It’s ok if he hires someone else to take the hit by buying their share of credits, so he doesn’t personally have to.

    This is of course nothing but the free market you “wingnuts” love so much, at work. And it is perfectly acceptable as long as a socially conscious and progressive minded lefty is leveraging the system.

    If and when however, you – insufficiently social as you are – accumulate enough economic leverage to do something similar, it will then be time to clamp down.

    The important thing for you to remember is that your understanding of the principle of equity is totally defective; being based as it is on what you mistakenly conceive of as more fundamental notions of voluntary association and reciprocity.

    These impartially distributive political notions must be discarded if you are to acheive any degree of postmodern enlightenment. Equality doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Think instead in terms of, “from each according to his (bureaucratically determined) ability, to each according to his ideologically justified entitlement.”

    It’s kind of like the Christian religion, only stripped of the supernatural element, any claims to real truth, individual responsibility, judgment day, and any kind of promised personal reward.

    What remains is the command to render unto Ceasar’s managers (“too old to dig, too ashamed to beg”) and their political pets what is their’s; and, unto … well, there is no other unto.

    Thus: their need to have, and your need to pay. Which is why taxing you in order to enable some coprophage’s images of sodomitic self-debasement to be publicly displayed, can be justified as being for the “general good”, if not your own.

    You are part of society, “society” in its official construction benefits from these things, ergo you benefit too, even, if you … don’t.

  73. I have things to do, too, but somehow I manage to do them without a heated pool and a private jet.
    People in Ethopia get by without computers, too. Why aren’t you living like them?

    Nice way to duck the issue. Why don’t you address it instead? Why can’t Gore use a public pool? Why can’t he fly commercial? If he really believes his globaloney (and expects others to take him seriously), he ought to live a bit more modestly, don’t you think?

  74. Most human activities generate carbon. Gore’s activism revolves around taking modest steps and pursuing a carbon neutral lifestyle – that is, paying for the carbon you emit via activities to take it out of the atmosphere.

    Which is why York and I bring up the issue of indulgences. It’s basically buying your way out of sin. Pope Al continues to sin against the environment with his lavish lifestyle, but since he’s filthy rich, he can just “buy” his way out of his sinful lifestyle in much the same way that the wealthy in Medieval times could sin to their heart’s content and just pay the Church to buy a slot in Heaven. You can dress it up any way you like, but it’s still pure BS.

  75. Which is why York and I bring up the issue of indulgences. It’s basically buying your way out of sin. Pope Al continues to sin against the environment with his lavish lifestyle, but since he’s filthy rich, he can just “buy” his way out of his sinful lifestyle in much the same way that the wealthy in Medieval times could sin to their heart’s content and just pay the Church to buy a slot in Heaven. You can dress it up any way you like, but it’s still pure BS.

    Except, of course, that it is not like sin at all, Eric. Haven’t we already established that your judgement isn’t very reliable?

    The objective is to reduce or negate the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by your activities, Eric. It is, in theory, a concrete and measurable real object, Eric. it doesn’t matte how much someone puts into the atmosphere as long as they take the same amount or more out, Eric. It is not buying your way out of sin, Eric, because putting CO2 into the atmosphere is not a sin, Eric. That’s your weak analogy, Eric, and it is not held up by anything that Gore states, Eric.

Comments are closed.