| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2007 11:08:24 AM · #326 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by karmat:
hold gore to a higher standard? i hold him at the same standard i hold for all of the guys. |
You are one of the few and I applaud you for that. Unfortunately others hold him to a higher standard because he is asking them to do something they don't want to do. It's easier for them to try and discredit him instead of being responsible for their footprint on the environment. |
Bulllllllllllllshit! There are many of us here who feel the same way karmat does. Some just choose to believe the word from an SC over the word of a mere member. Remember this though, for all of those people you think hold him to a higher standard there are just many who give him a free pass on his hypocrisy for the simple fact that they were "on his side" to begin with.
Edit: karmat beat me to it :P
Message edited by author 2007-03-13 11:09:05.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:10:46 AM · #327 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What I read you saying here, is that it is OK to recreationally burn fossil fuels, but driving a hummer is irresponsible to the enviornment because it is a fossil fuel pig. This is precisely the reason I started this thread, to expose those who in my opinion, have no clue what they are arguing. If it is permissible to recreationally burn fossil fuel (ie. snowmobiles, ATV's, watercraft, etc), then a person who did not recreationally consume fossil fuels (due to their conservation by hiking, canoeing, snow shoeing or cross country skiing), then they should have energy credits (kind of like Gore) to which they could apply them towards a less fuel efficient vehicle like a Hummer. My guess is that you, like so many others in the greenie stable, cannot see the forest through the trees. You are fixated on a "symbol" without realizing the hypocracy in your stance. |
I agree with a lot of what you say. However, you are also a little fixated on the desire to drive the poster boys of inefficient vehicles - you say where there is a need (with which I agree) - but ignoring the fact that for most people there is no need.
The hummer as a military vehicle is unquestioned - as a runaround for doing the shopping, it is grotesque for its excess. It is a symbol of excess for the green lobby because of the shopping example, not when used for its intended purpose.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:19:23 AM · #328 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Some just choose to believe the word from an SC over the word of a mere member. |
What the hell!?! I must have missed the FAQ that says all SC are experts in political and environmental science. Hell lets close the forums as mere members know nothing and should bother posting. Maybe we can turn them into a SC blog so all us mere members can bask in their glory.
dudephil = internet troll who takes good photos |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:22:58 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
From the article:
"Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician."
I know most (all?) politicians lie but are we really getting to the point where we accept it and think it is "reasonable"?
Sad. |
This point is being taken out of context. In the article, the inaccuracies being reported are the result of generalisation (turning scientific analysis into lay-speak) - the phrase refers to Gore using non-scientific/political language, rather than the very precise but hard to understand language of science. It is nothing to do with the concept that politicians lie.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:28:11 AM · #330 |
Didn't say there was a faq that says all SC are experts in political and environmental science. Didn't say they were an expert at anything. Just said that you took her word that she is unbiased and holds all politicians to the same standards over my word that said the same thing.
And you last sentence lets me know exactly the person I'm dealing with. I am no troll and I don't take good photos.
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Some just choose to believe the word from an SC over the word of a mere member. |
What the hell!?! I must have missed the FAQ that says all SC are experts in political and environmental science. Hell lets close the forums as mere members know nothing and should bother posting. Maybe we can turn them into a SC blog so all us mere members can bask in their glory.
dudephil = internet troll who takes good photos |
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:38:47 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Just said that you took her word that she is unbiased and holds all politicians to the same standards over my word that said the same thing. |
The thread is 14 pages long must of missed it. If you said the same thing then I applaud you too.
Originally posted by dudephil:
I don't take good photos. |
that's your opinion |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 11:50:22 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
[I agree with a lot of what you say. However, you are also a little fixated on the desire to drive the poster boys of inefficient vehicles - you say where there is a need (with which I agree) - but ignoring the fact that for most people there is no need.
The hummer as a military vehicle is unquestioned - as a runaround for doing the shopping, it is grotesque for its excess. It is a symbol of excess for the green lobby because of the shopping example, not when used for its intended purpose. |
Matthew,
I hope you are confusing a few things regarding Hummers. 1st, the H1 is the basis for the Military vehicle and they are not available to the general public as of I believe 2006. There are a few in very specialized jobs (like ranching) however very few are on public highways. Those that are, get about 6 mpg and originnally cost was in execss of 100K when new. The 2 civilian versions of the Hummer brand are the H2 and the H3. The H2 is the the same size (frame/interior space) as any full size SUV made by Range Rover, Land Rover, Cadillac Escalade, Lincoln Navigator, etc. The H3 is a midsize and the same dimensions as many of the Jeep products, Chevrolet Trail Blazers, Saab 9-7X and other similar vehilces. The H3 can achieve upwards of 20mpg highway, very similar to other vehicles in that class.
Therefore, the intense focus on one particular brand by a group of folks with a very specific agenda, does get my attention. Especially when many of those on the bandwagon either behave personally outside of their own standards or fail (by ommission) to call out all others equally guilty.
An example I have used elsewhere to argue similar points is: represented by those who critique the Hummer as evil and gas guzzling, when these same drivers of more fuel efficient vehicles feel they have a free reign to drive excessively fast (thus burning more fuel than needed), accelerate quickly from a stop (thus burning more fuel than needed), or otherwise behave in a socially irresponsible manner. Hypocrisy to me.
You have stated elsewhere about this dilema as you frequently Holiday and typically fly to your destinations. Is the driver of a Hummer, who practices ecologicly friendly outdoor activities like canoeing (no motors) Hiking (no motors) snow shoeing (no motors) cross country skiing (no motors) bycicling (no motors) has a motorcycle that gets 50 mpg and flys to Holiday only once a year, are they less friendly to the enviornment, simply due to their daily (20 mpg) vehicle. I think not. Thus my "sensitivity" to those who are IMO hypocrites.
sp edit
Message edited by author 2007-03-13 12:53:59.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 12:14:41 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Flash:
An example I have used elsewhere to argue similar points is: represented by those who critique the Hummer as evil and gas guzzling, when these same drivers of more fuel efficient vehicles feel they have a free reign to drive excessively fast (thus burning more fuel than needed), accelerate quickly from a stop (thus burning more fuel than needed), or otherwise behave in a socially irresponsible manner. Hypocrisy to me. |
You have some statistics (I hope) which conclusively show that drivers of fuel-efficient cars drive more inefficiently than drivers of, say a Camaro or Mustang. My experience on the freeway is certainly the opposite.
I think you are engaging in wishful thinking ... I'm pretty sure that any survey of citations for speeding and reckless driving will find that drivers of muscle cars and small SUVs violate these laws at a far higher rate than those who drive a hybrid or other high-mileage vehicle. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 12:47:30 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
An example I have used elsewhere to argue similar points is: represented by those who critique the Hummer as evil and gas guzzling, when these same drivers of more fuel efficient vehicles feel they have a free reign to drive excessively fast (thus burning more fuel than needed), accelerate quickly from a stop (thus burning more fuel than needed), or otherwise behave in a socially irresponsible manner. Hypocrisy to me. |
You have some statistics (I hope) which conclusively show that drivers of fuel-efficient cars drive more inefficiently than drivers of, say a Camaro or Mustang. My experience on the freeway is certainly the opposite.
I think you are engaging in wishful thinking ... I'm pretty sure that any survey of citations for speeding and reckless driving will find that drivers of muscle cars and small SUVs violate these laws at a far higher rate than those who drive a hybrid or other high-mileage vehicle. |
I do not have statistics to link to, nor do I feel compelled to do so if I did. My point was not that only fuel efficient vehicle drivers are wasteful, but only that those fuel efficient vehicle drivers that are wasteful are hypocrites if they engage in bashing SUV's for their mpg. For my own driving, I historically travel at 60-65 mph on the highway weather in my 18 year old Buick Reatta or now my H3. At 60 mph fuel savings can be realized (one reason the nations highway speeds was reduced to 55 back in the 80's). Needless to say, I am the person most of you cuss out on the freeway as you zoom around me. I am also the person who gradually increases speed from a dead stop and begins braking further back than most. Could I do more? Absolutely yes. So could everyone else. My point exactly.
If recreational burning of fossil fuels is permissable, then those that don't burn fuels recreationally have stored up energy credits. ;-]
I do not mind consistency. If bashing Hummers is based on mpg ratings, then bash all vehicles that get similar ratings, including high performance muscle cars, tuners, trucks, top end luxury cars etc etc etc.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 01:38:13 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by karmat:
hold gore to a higher standard? i hold him at the same standard i hold for all of the guys. tell the truth. it's not that hard to do. unless you are trying to hide something, or don't think the whole truth will support you. then telling the truth is more difficult.
dishonesty is unacceptable. period. politician or not. there is no "within reason" in my opinion. |
Exactly! I don't blindly follow or agree with someone because the have an R or D next to their name on CSPAN. You lie to me, you suck, no matter what letter you put next to your name.
If this article was refering to Bush and what ever he lied about (stating he lied then stating the lie was reasonable because he was a politican) I would have made the same post. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 01:43:55 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
From the article:
"Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician."
I know most (all?) politicians lie but are we really getting to the point where we accept it and think it is "reasonable"?
Sad. |
This point is being taken out of context. In the article, the inaccuracies being reported are the result of generalisation (turning scientific analysis into lay-speak) - the phrase refers to Gore using non-scientific/political language, rather than the very precise but hard to understand language of science. It is nothing to do with the concept that politicians lie. |
23 inches vs 20 feet and other examples of inaccuracies in the article are not simply errors caused by "turning scientific analysis into lay-speak".
Message edited by author 2007-03-13 13:45:13. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 01:52:42 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
23 inches vs 20 feet and other examples of inaccuracies in the article are not simply errors caused by "turning scientific analysis into lay-speak". |
please provide links to the examples for us. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 02:24:26 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=GeneralE] [quote=Flash]An example I have used elsewhere to I do not have statistics to link to, nor do I feel compelled to do so if I did. My point was not that only fuel efficient vehicle drivers are wasteful ... |
Your unsupported allegation, which you don't even pretend to be able to show is true.
What if I tell you that drivers of fuel-efficient cars typically operate those vehicles in a conserving manner, with slow, gentle acceleration from a stop and driving the speed limit on the freeway, despite the risk of being crushed from behind by an SUV doing eighty -- which I (nearly) saw just this morning while taking my son to school.
Whose hypothesis of driver behavior is more plausible, yours or mine? |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 02:42:48 PM · #339 |
honestly? either one.
Next to me this morning at a red light was a big ole' blue hummer. Driving very "efficiently," while smaller more "efficient" cars were zipping all over the place.
Likewise, I saw some opposite this morning as well. Efficient cars being driven efficiently, and etc. so on and so forth.
Message edited by author 2007-03-13 14:43:12. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 02:50:50 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
23 inches vs 20 feet and other examples of inaccuracies in the article are not simply errors caused by "turning scientific analysis into lay-speak". |
please provide links to the examples for us. |
It's all detailed in the article that says Gore's inaccuracies are reasonable for a politican. The one Flash linked to.
Scientist say the ocean would rise about 23 inches if the ice caps were to melt. Al Gore (not a scientist) says it will rise 20 feet and shows a scary map where florida and newyork become ocean.
or
Scientist say if you look back to weather patterns as far back as 1600 that our current trend is not abnormal. Al Gore (not a scientist) ignores that.
or
Scientist say they are not all funded by big oil. Al Gore (not a scientist) says all scientist that disagree with him are funded by big oil. (which I have to say is a brilliant way to deflect all conflicting viewpoints right off the bat when stating your position).
I don't consider any of those points to be inaccuracies caused by "turning scientific analysis into lay-speak". I haven't seen the movie and I'm far from an expert on the topic, I'm only going off what the new york times wrote. I don't believe the times is a right wing media source out to smear Gore (or funded by big oil), is it?
Message edited by author 2007-03-13 14:53:01. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 04:12:27 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What if I tell you that drivers of fuel-efficient cars typically operate those vehicles in a conserving manner, with slow, gentle acceleration from a stop and driving the speed limit on the freeway, despite the risk of being crushed from behind by an SUV doing eighty -- which I (nearly) saw just this morning while taking my son to school. |
1st I would say that you are describing driver behaviour. The very driver behaviour that I complain about and criticise - regardless of the vehicle they are driving. Inconsiderateness is not acceptable.
If you are claiming that all drivers of fuel efficient vehicles operate those vehicles in a conserving manner, then based on my daily experiences (which I cannot provide a link to), I would say that you are blowing smoke. If you believe that I am claiming that all drivers of SUV's are responsible in their road manners, then you have not read closely enough my points. We agree that irresponsible driving is a problem, however I do not see the correlation between Global Warming and irresponsible driving behaviour. What I suspect your position is, is that due to "safety" concerns for smaller vehicles when impacting or being impacted by a larger vehicle, you believe they should not be used for daily transportation. If this is so, then please make that argument apart from the Global Warming hype. Then we can discuss the true motivation which is limiting peoples choice. Which leads me directly back to where I was a page ago in limiting peoples recreational use of fossil burning machines. This then is where you can lead the charge to outlaw all motorized vehicles and permit only Sail boats as pleasure craft, walking, hiking, bicycle riding, communal transportation, etc etc etc.
We have already established that you are an example to be followed, if one wishes to practice what they preach. Your choice of vehicles puts you behaviour exactly where your rhetoric is. Your use of public transportation and choice of living near your place of employment is admirable indeed. My criticism is with the other's who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Many of whom claim exemption to their poor driving habits simply because they have a 30mpg vehicle. To them I say - get a motorcycle. Or better yet - walk.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2007 04:44:30 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
23 inches vs 20 feet and other examples of inaccuracies in the article are not simply errors caused by "turning scientific analysis into lay-speak". |
please provide links to the examples for us. |
It's all detailed in the article that says Gore's inaccuracies are reasonable for a politican. The one Flash linked to.
Scientist say the ocean would rise about 23 inches if the ice caps were to melt. Al Gore (not a scientist) says it will rise 20 feet and shows a scary map where florida and newyork become ocean.
or
Scientist say if you look back to weather patterns as far back as 1600 that our current trend is not abnormal. Al Gore (not a scientist) ignores that.
or
Scientist say they are not all funded by big oil. Al Gore (not a scientist) says all scientist that disagree with him are funded by big oil. (which I have to say is a brilliant way to deflect all conflicting viewpoints right off the bat when stating your position).
I don't consider any of those points to be inaccuracies caused by "turning scientific analysis into lay-speak". I haven't seen the movie and I'm far from an expert on the topic, I'm only going off what the new york times wrote. I don't believe the times is a right wing media source out to smear Gore (or funded by big oil), is it? |
The article says 23 inches this century where Gore doesn't give a time frame. How is that inaccurate?
The scientists who are looking back to 1600 seem to be missing that thing called evidence or a published science paper. I couldn't find one, if you have a link please share it.
Please provide a reference to the quote of Gore saying all scientists who disagree with him are funded by big oil.
The article over all was fairly positive towards Gore, mentioning some minor errors in his presentation, movie, book. It even goes to mention that Gore has already updated his slide show/next revision of this book with the corrections presented to him. |
|
|
|
03/13/2007 05:55:00 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
The article says 23 inches this century where Gore doesn't give a time frame. How is that inaccurate? |
What is Gore's time frame then? Why didn't he state what it is or that it's more then the next 100 years?
Originally posted by poonaka:
The scientists who are looking back to 1600 seem to be missing that thing called evidence or a published science paper. I couldn't find one, if you have a link please share it. |
Ask the times, they published the info. You can get the name of the guy that stated that in the article if you want to look it up yourself. That's probably a good place to start. As I said, I'm not an expert on the topic and only going off the article.
Originally posted by poonaka:
Please provide a reference to the quote of Gore saying all scientists who disagree with him are funded by big oil. |
They don't use the word big oil but it's on the second page of the article where this is referenced. If you disagree with it, contact the times.
Any way, I really did not want to get into the argument of facts, details or if global warming exist or not. I just wanted to state that it was sad that anyone would consider inaccuracy "reasonable" for a politican. Republican, Democrat, Bush, Gore, anyone. It's a stupid statement in my opinion. Our politicans, even Bush, need to be 100% accurate and we should expect and accept nothing less. When we forgive Bush, Gore, or anyone for inaccuracies because we agree with their message, we are telling them it's okay to lie as long as we agree with them. I prefer the truth, even if you are fighting for my favorite causes.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2007 07:42:25 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by poonaka:
The article says 23 inches this century where Gore doesn't give a time frame. How is that inaccurate? |
What is Gore's time frame then? Why didn't he state what it is or that it's more then the next 100 years? |
Exactly - Gore failed to deal with all the underlying risks, parameters, risk factors, model choice, etc etc etc - he presented forcefully some headline issues. He did not present a scientific paper. This is one example of Gore presenting a worst case scenario without properly setting out a few hours worth of assumptions and details of his working model. But in order to make the presentation watchable, this was a necessity.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 01:05:11 PM · #345 |
I read recently that the BBC did a documentary effectively refuting some of Gore's claims - or at the very least placing them into a more accurate context. One being the literal non-contribution of gasoline engines. Another being that although CO2 was found in ice cores (as Gore claims), it occured AFTER a warming period, not before. Thusly negating his claim of a causal link between man made CO2 and Global Warming.
BBC - The Great Global Warming Swindle
edit to add link
I know, I know...someone is going to now claim that the BBC is a Right Wing broadcasting network...
Message edited by author 2007-03-15 13:37:07.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 01:32:55 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I read recently that the BBC did a documentary effectively refuting some of Gore's claims - or at the very least placing them into a more accurate context. One being the literal non-contribution of gasoline engines. Another being that although CO2 was found in ice cores (as Gore claims), it occured AFTER a warming period, not before. Thusly negating his claim of a causal link between man made CO2 and Global Warming.
BBC - The Great Global Warming Swindle
edit to add link |
Seems the director has been caught making up facts and taking quotes out of context. Martin Durkin |
|
|
|
03/15/2007 02:31:11 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I read recently that the BBC did a documentary effectively refuting some of Gore's claims -
I know, I know...someone is going to now claim that the BBC is a Right Wing broadcasting network... |
I'm in no position to say if the claims are right or not, but when the linked article can't even get the right network within the first sentence, you have to wonder. FWIW, Channel 4 is part of the commercial competition to the government funded BBC.
If the blog doesn't even know which network it is talking about, I suspect the rest of it might not be the height of accuracy either. Maybe he thought claiming it was the BBC would lend it an air of authority or something, or he could just be confused.
Context to the Channel 4 show
Message edited by author 2007-03-15 14:34:56. |
|
|
|
03/15/2007 02:34:54 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Maybe he thought claiming it was the BBC would lend it an air of authority or something |
fox news does that a lot by pulling quotes out of context from reputable news sources. |
|
|
|
03/15/2007 03:20:57 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm in no position to say if the claims are right or not, but when the linked article can't even get the right network within the first sentence, you have to wonder. FWIW, Channel 4 is part of the commercial competition to the government funded BBC. |
Gordon,
Point taken. In an attempt to verify the article I had stumbled upon I did a Yahoo search and found the "BBC" link to the link I posted.
Yahoo search page last entry
There was no intentional misrepresentation on my part. 2 sources linked the documentary to the BBC and I followed it no further. Goes to show, that I should have questioned it even further than 2 sources. I will admit to being predisposed to finding waht I was looking for.
Good lesson.
This fault of mine, should not necessarily diminish the evidence in the documentary, however I do understand how it would raise some questions of credibility.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2007 03:49:32 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This fault of mine, should not necessarily diminish the evidence in the documentary, however I do understand how it would raise some questions of credibility. |
Though the link to the Independent (newspaper name) article that I posted does a lot to diminish the credibility of the documentary, when they have the main scientist in the show claiming to have been completely misrepresented and that the documentary producer having been found to have often totally misrepresented subjects (and been censured by the Independent TV complaints body for that in the past)
'Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.'
'Any complaint would provoke a crisis at Channel 4, now recovering from the Jade Goody Big Brother storm. It had to make a rare public apology after the Independent Television Commission convicted previous programmes on environmental issues by the same film-maker, Martin Durkin, of similar offences - and is already facing questions on why it accepted another programme from him.'
[Prof Wunsch] said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".
Message edited by author 2007-03-15 15:52:54. |
|
