Cynical Nation

Can someone list off for me Al Gore's environmental achievments prior to 2001?

How did the Clinton administration do on reducing greenhouse gas emmissions? Which environmental bills did Gore sponsor or co-sponsor during his tenure in Congress? And why did the Clinton-Gore administration fail to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification?

Just asking.

Sorry for posting in two threads -- I meant this to go here.

"And amongst former Tennessee senators, why is it Bill Frist who's installed a geothermal heating system in his residence?" (BNJ)


Well, in Al's defense, Bill Frist is a very bright man, while Al Gore is, well, pretty much a blithering idiot, so it's kind of like comparing apples to oranges there.

Also, because of the Gore family's huge stake in Occidental Petroleum (yeah, the Gore's are "oil men") it wouldn't look good if he switched away from "clean, dependable oil heat."

Which reminds me of my favorite "Stupid Gore trick," which was the time, when as VP, that happy-funster up and sold the U.S. Naval Oil reserves at Elk Hills to Occidental Petroleum...I think that was back in 1997 or '98 and I'm still laughing over that one!

Ah, yes. Thank you for helping me to understand now, Barry and JMK. Gore is actually a hypocrite liar oil man priest. That explains everything. And the whole global warming debate is a conspiracy by Gore and the other rich liberals. Still don't know the motive for the conspiracy yet, but since all the arguments now are devolving to analyzing the motives of people in the debate, I expect to hear that soon, too.

Oh, and Al Gore isn't actually concerned with global warming. He's just a high priest of the global warming religion.

Yes, that's truly excellent stuff. You have summed up the entire non-issue of global warming so perfectly I don't see how anyone can't get it. I don't know why I never saw it before. Your arguments, your logic, are so reasonable and precise, the entire thing hangs together like Gaudi's architectural stress models.

So, DBK, help me understand what some of Gore's environmental achievements were before global warming became a favorite political bludgeon of the liberal elite.

> And the whole global warming debate is a conspiracy by Gore and the other rich liberals.

Never said it and you know it. I said Gore is a hypocrite. And I was right.

In your sarcasm-laden post, you duke it out with a lot of straw men, but you never once address the actual subject of this post, which is the contrast between Al Gore's public posturing on energy conservation and his private consumption habits. Perhaps it's because you know that Gore's hard to defend on this one.

Barry, you give me too much credit for an agenda. I actually have far less agenda here than you and others seem to attribute to me. When I questioned the conclusion that Gore was selling "snake oil", I hardly thought it was a controversial thing to say that, while people of good faith may disagree about the causes of global warming, the documentary An Inconvenient Truth hardly qualified as "snake oil" selling. I was then approached as though I were arguing whether or not global warming was caused by human activity. That isn't what I wrote. And yeah, that was a sarcasm-laden comment. You know you love it.

Here's the problem I have on this site. It isn't whining or complaining but an explanation. I now have something like four or five people who want to argue about global warming with me here: you, JMK, Dan O. (Dan doesn't actually want to argue, now that I think about it, but really just wants to drop snotty remarks about Al Gore and leave the heavy-lifting to you and JMK), and now withoutfeathers. JMK has a master's thesis in another thread and you have this one. Seems like nobody will let me get away with dropping a sarcastic remark. Well, I have to drop a card off at my in-laws right now and then I have to complete an outline for an 850 book that will, through the magic of single-sourcing, become eight separate books ranging in size from 30 to 850 pages by next September. Which includes, by the way, moving from the current doc platform to a new platform in that period. At home, well, I think you know by now that I do stuff at home and don't just watch television or sit at the PC all evening.

I don't have the time for this much homework.

So I apologize for not going into this in detail. I don't actually care if you think Al Gore is a hypocrite because he has a big house and uses a lot of energy. He's clearly trying to find ways to continue to do the work in which he believes and also lower his energy consumption or, at the least, the overall level of emissions for which he is responsible. Criticizing the credits system seems a shallow criticism, especially with that cheap and easy target, the "liberal", to chunk pumpkins at. You do what you can. Your criticism is fair in the sense that, if he is a hypocrite, then it is fair to chunk at it, but I don't think you prove anything other than he's rich, uses energy, and hasn't made enough sacrifices for your taste.

Anyway, have to do a TOC.

> Seems like nobody will let me get away with dropping a sarcastic remark.

You're always welcome to leave sarcastic remarks here, DBK. ;-)

> I don't actually care if you think Al Gore is a hypocrite....

See, now that seems a perfectly reasonable response. The important thing for environmentalists should be defending the planet, not defending Al Gore.

> I don't think you prove anything other than he's rich, uses energy, and hasn't made enough sacrifices for your taste.

My taste? You miss the point. I don't care if he sacrifices or not, but he sure does seem awfully keen that I do. But I guess now I can have a clear conscience knowing that I consume less than a tenth the energy that Captain Environment does.

Well, first of all, the concept of "carbon offsets" isn't a rediculous one. While it can be a scam, a wealthy individual could decide to spend significant amount of money so the net effect of him personally on the environment is positive.

That said, he could live like my high school biology teacher did. Mr. Wilcox never needed the garbage man to visit because he took his own containers to the market and composted everything he did not eat. He had solar panels back then as well.

So Al Gore could live like that and if he did he wouldn't engage in the hypocrisy he does.

Of course, all the Iraq supporters could all be fighting in Iraq right now, instead of paying for "war on terrorism offsets", also known as soldiers who you hire to risk their lives instead of your own.

Of course, bringing up "Why don't you fight in Iraq?" is just so unfair, because it is really about whether the sacrifice in Iraq is good for the country or not, not whether all are personally risking their lives. So bringing up the hypocrisy of why William Kristol isn't himself fighting with his band of brothers from the Weekly Standard is really besides the point.

Same here. You want to go bitch about Al Gore being a hypocrite over Global Warming, well so are you over the War in Iraq.

You make very reasonable about Gore's exaggerations in his movie, as well as reasonable concerns over the economic effects of the Kyoto accords which conservatives rightly point out was rejected by the Senate. You have a good debate on the merits, but if you want to bring up hypocrisy.. so be it...

I don't think Barry actually supports the Iraq fiasco, though I believe JMK does. One of the things I admire about Barry is that he does hold consistent positions (wrong as some of them may be :-) ). However, your point is a good one regarding the hypocrisy of some people, so I will have to hang onto that.

I also feel it is weak on my part to leave a response hanging, even if I am pressed for time most of the time. Sorry about that.

>You want to go bitch about Al Gore being a hypocrite over Global Warming, well so are you over the War in Iraq.

Balls. I've never once lectured people about what sacrifices they should make in their own lives, especially not when I'm unwilling to make those same choices. Al Gore has made a career of it.

My point is that we all do it and specifically all politicians do it. If you support a war, you are paying people to risk their lives for you.

If there is an impending global warming crisis, it really doesn't matter whether Al Gore himself is a hypocrite, it matters whether what he is saying is accurate or not.. and whether his solutions are wise or not.

Actually, to PE's point, let me say this. A while back I wrote a draft for a post on "hypocrisy" in general, but it never completely materialized and I didn't post it.

The gist of it, however, was that there seems to be a movement afoot to turn hypocrisy into a mortal sin, when the truth is I think it's venial in most cases.

None of us live our lives the way we think we should, or by extension, the way we think others should in an ideal world. To that extent, no one is truly free from hypocrisy, but I think that's okay. You can't jettison your moral code just because you sometimes fail to live up to it.

When hypocrisy really troubles me is when people try to deny rights to others that they reserve for themselves. The classic example for me is Carl Rowan, a tireless advocate for strict gun control, who ended up shooting an intruder with a handgun. Gore's actions here aren't as offensive as Rowan's, IMO, but there's enough of the same flavor that I thought it worth mentioning.

Still, I don't want to make *too* much of this issue. As I said, I wasn't going to mention it at all until Gore's ridiculous "response" pushed me over the edge.

Well said, Barry.

I'm actually someone who admires many things about Al Gore, while at the same time I'm a skeptic regaring the Global Warming Crisis. I studied meterology at the University of Michigan back when the impending Ice Age was being debated and I have not studied the matter enough since then to have my own opinion.

I am skeptical, though, and I believe that conservatives do make a valid point that academics have a vested interest in creating hysteria over the matter... because what they want in the end is that there is more funding for more research. Now that is not necessarily bad ... still I keep that in mind when I hear that academics are all in agreement.

"...the whole global warming debate is a conspiracy by Gore and the other rich liberals..." (DBK)


That was never implied.

I for one, believe (1) global warming IS real, (2) that man's contribution is unknown at this time, (3) that there appears to be NO effective governmental solution out there, but there do seem to be a number of interesting and promising private sector (money-making) "solutions" out there.



"When I questioned the conclusion that Gore was selling "snake oil", I hardly thought it was a controversial thing to say that, while people of good faith may disagree about the causes of global warming, the documentary An Inconvenient Truth hardly qualified as "snake oil" selling." (DBK)


It certainly sounded more like you were defending Gore's very flawed film, rather than just saying "it wasn't snake oil," but in this thread, Barry merely noted a disconnect in the way a lot of folks like Al Gore live and the way they preach.

Gore was caught in at least two major LIES in that film, (1) he used the evidence from the Vostok Core (in Antartica) to claim that proved that CO2 CAUSED global warming, when a report out that very same year showed that the science showed that the warming came first and the CO2 levels rose 600 years latter, and (2) in predicting a 20' rise sea level by 2100, when even the IPCC's 2001 report set that rise at 34" and its 2007 report set it at 17" - in either case, a lot LESS than 20'.

Moreover, Gore like many Liberals both in and out of governemnt inanely support the Kyoto Accords, which would mandate a 35% redction in energy usage by the West for a 0.5 degree Celsius drop in temperature, as Dr. Singer says, "A high premium for a negligible impact."

"None of us live our lives the way we think we should, or by extension, the way we think others should in an ideal world. To that extent, no one is truly free from hypocrisy, but I think that's okay. You can't jettison your moral code just because you sometimes fail to live up to it." (BNJ)


Great way to put that, Barry, but PE's likening fighting in Iraq to "carbon credits" is as inane as saying that New Yorker's who pay taxes so that others fight their fires and go after criminals is similar to a "carbon credit."

It's NOT.

That argument, could and has been used to argue in favor of drastic increases in many Municipal salaries (cops, teachers, firefighters, sanitation, etc).

The current Captain of HazMat-1 (a Mechanical Engineer) has a seventeen page mathematical schematic that explains not only why "NYC taxpayers AREN'T paying us to fight fires here, so THEY don't have to fight them there (in their own homes)" and why such taxes aren't, in any sense a "fire credit," but it's long and protracted, with ~ equaling wind velocity and *+* equaling the price of a cup of coffee on 165th street...and well, I compounded matters on page nine by forgetting to carry the three.

Suffice to say, it's a real mess.

I SUPPORT a MILITARY war against radicalized Sharia-based Islam.

I support that because, in the wake of the 1993 bombing of the WTC, James Fox (then Director of the FBI's New York office) said, "Dealing with international terrorism is beyond the scope and purview of U.S. law enforcement."

I am certain that that was a correct assertion.

The criminal justice WoT had been waged from 1983 (right after the Marines Corps Barracks bombing in Lebanon) through 9/11/01...and it failed miserably.

The current Military WoT is, despite the nay sayers, going very well.

Yes, despite the fact that the percentage of Muslims worldwide who were "radicalized" back in 2001 was about 15% and that today it stands at closer to 40%, with most experts predicting it to rise to over 80% before too long.

In my view, that rise in radicalism has NOTHING to do with our Military WoT.

Western culture is so decadent, so averse and even offensive to the most basic tenets of Islam, that it's far easier to radicalize those people than moderate them.

All one has to do is hold up a Koran and anyone who believes that "word" SHOULD revile the decadent West of today.

I understand some Liberals want to sit down with the radicals and say, "Let's talk," but I'd say, "We've talked and we're done talking, now it's time to defend oursleves by crushing this enemy."

So what does the left have to say about George W. Bush's eco-footprint? Commondreams.com tears George a new one over his "irreconcilable" Crawford Texas ranch: Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home

And here's a photo of stately Bush Manor:

I don't know exactly where Crawford is, but both conservatives and liberals are very aware of the environment in much of Texas. If you are in a rural area with limited water supply, for instance, you are forced to conserve.

There's nowhere in Texas where you are "forced" to use geothermal energy to heat and cool your house. That is purely an ecological decision.

Poor George. What a come down after Walker's Point in Maine.

[img]http://www.schrohe.com/images/Maine/Walker%20Point.jpg[/img]

Well, give George points for his house.

Hey Barry,
I think you are being unfair to Gore. If you really want to talk about scarifices and hypocrisy, pick on some much bigger problems. Like Bush and Cheney calling on the American people to "sacrifice" for their disastrous war in Iraq. Why aren't the twins volunteering to go and fight there. I think the title of this post applies more to Bush, Cheney and other chickenhawks. I have never seen you calling them hypocrites, when it is more than obvious that they are. Or are n't they?

> Why aren't the twins volunteering to go and fight there.

I guess you'd have to ask the twins.

Well, you did not answer my second question :) Let me repeat:

"I have never seen you calling them hypocrites, when it is more than obvious that they are. Or are n't they?"

What role did the twins play in formulating U.S. policy in Iraq?

"What role did the twins play in formulating U.S. policy in Iraq?

They probably told their father what to do over dinner. I have no doubt that they are smarter than him.

"What role did the twins play in formulating U.S. policy in Iraq?

They probably told their father what to do over dinner. I have no doubt that they are smarter than him." [BW]

Uh huh. Gore flunked out of Divinity school and Bush had both a higher IQ and slightly better GPA than Kerry at Yale but BW is still stuck on his supposed stupidity.

Oh, and Bush graduated from both Yale and Harvard.

Where did you graduate from, BW? Anything comparable?

Mal,
You have every right to admire the intelligence of W and his work as a president. My comment was not really serious. I dont think he has low I.Q. I think he is probably average. Anyway, it is impossible to know what is W's I.Q is. All I know is that he is a complete failure as a president.

Hmm, thought this was a "comments" section not an argument section. My mistake.

DBK, you like so many others misuse these comments sections, IN MY OPINION. They are to "comment" on the subject of the post, not on the individuals posting other comments. But, then that IS the typical liberal attack when they have nothing constructive to say.

I didn't come here to argue or attack any other commenters or to be attacked for having an opinion. I didn't comment on anything but the subject of the post.

If anyone has been 'snotty' I would have to say it's DBK.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. ;D
(w/ apologies to D.Miller)

"All I know is that he is a complete failure as a president." (BW)


That is an opinion completely unsubstantiated by facts, BW.

Like most Presidents (exceptions being Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan), GW Bush has been a mixed bag - GREAT on the economy, GREAT on both the domestic and military (foreign) WoT and POOR on the porous southern border issue and POOR on reining in out of control federal spending.

I agree with those Libertarians you admire, "We need $1.98 government." That's what Lew Rockwell and others have long advocated - a "bare bones," "cheap Charlie," or stripped down version of the federal government (except for the courts and the military, of course)...I think we also probably agree on the border (close it, control it...and eradicate illegal immigration, rather than greenlight it), but aside from those two issues, Bush Jr has done, at least OK.

The economy = A+.

The WoT again = A+ (simply because we haven't been attacked here at home since 9/11/01)...the Patriot Act, the NSA program, etc are all brilliant moves that greatly increased security.

On Iraq, the war against Saddam's Iraq was brilliant! Over in 3 weeks!!!

Post-Saddam Iraq has been costly, costly to us and even costlier to the jihadists (over 60,000 by conservative estimates killed, many of them from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran).

An acquaintance of mine who is an Albanian Muslim (my FRIENDS are Bosnian & Serbian Christians, NOT Albanian Muslims) once said, "What the jihadists are fighting for, at least what they believe they're fighting for is nothing less than their right to practice true Islam. Does that make them evil?"

My answer was, "Well, YES! Yes it does make them evil, at least from an American perspective.

"Most Americans really don't give a damn about Islam, but even if G W Bush said, 'You can't practice Islam,' (he NEVER did), well, God-dman it, then you shouldn't practice Mother-f*cking Islam. Maybe the next President wouldn't be such a tight-ass about it."

What that fellow meant, of course, is that the U.S. under Bush has come to see "strict Islam," what we call "radicalized" or "fundamentalist" Islam as an "enemy ideology," like Communism or Nazism.

That's very true...and the Bush administration is right about that! America can't abide by an intolerant religious code that would seek to force us out of the Mideast and out of the world's oil market and have us abandon our efforts to globalize the world's 1.2 BILLION Muslims - we're not giving up the oil, OR those potential customers...and THAT is worth remaking the Mideast over and eradicating an ideology that is in our way over.

Just because you don't understand Iraq, doesn't make it nonsensical.

"That is an opinion completely unsubstantiated by facts, BW.

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!

I'm not a Bosnian & Serbian Christian.. so I guess we can only be acquaintances, JMK. (On the other hand, I know that Mal is my friend because he always says "my friend" when he is telling me how wrong I am.)

And.. oh.. Blue Wind.. if you want the FACTS.. you got to type in CAPITAL LETTERS. Otherwise, you just have an opinion.

"And.. oh.. Blue Wind.. if you want the FACTS.. you got to type in CAPITAL LETTERS. Otherwise, you just have an opinion."

Well, apparently I JUST HAVE AN OPINION. Did my opinion become a fact now? :)

I'm actually someone who admires many things about Al Gore, while at the same time I'm a skeptic regaring the Global Warming Crisis. I studied meterology at the University of Michigan back when the impending Ice Age was being debated and I have not studied the matter enough since then to have my own opinion.

I am skeptical, though, and I believe that conservatives do make a valid point that academics have a vested interest in creating hysteria over the matter... because what they want in the end is that there is more funding for more research. Now that is not necessarily bad ... still I keep that in mind when I hear that academics are all in agreement.

Well said, PE.

PE, I gave you the facts on the economy and the WoT....it's not that there can't be an argument against them, it's just that no one here has ever been able to argue against that.

The closest was GZ's attempt to claim that the national debt undermined the economy.

Unfortunately he also claimed the national debt went down during Clinton's tenure - NOT true.

The deficit began to drop, AFTER 1995 and "the Gingrich Revolution," but the national debt still rose...and it continues to rise, because the government still spends more money than it takes in.

So, the national debt is as much a separate issue from the day-to-day economy as climate is from the day-to-day weather.

While weather is related to climate, the day-to-day weather is not a climate indicator.

I also mentioned those areas Bush Jr was POOR in - the border issue and reining in excessive spending (esp the prescription drug boondoggle and the NCLB Act).

Bush Jr is clearly a mixed bag, though on the 2 primary issues, the economy and the WoT he's been very good.

It is NOT a valid opinion that Bush is "a complete failure as a president."

It cannot be supported by the facts.

Hey!

I mean if it could be, I suppose, one or both of you would've at least tried to make a case for that eh?!

"I'm not a Bosnian & Serbian Christian.. so I guess we can only be acquaintances, JMK." (PE)


I made a fair distinction there, PE.

I know quite a few Bosnians and Serbs and a very few Albanians.

I suppose I could be "friends" with a Muslim like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, considered a "traitorous Muslim" by strict Muslims even in Europe, but I've met few of those.

Strict or "radicalized" Sharia-based Islam is as anti-social and anti-human an ideology as Communism & Nazism are.

I really enjoy the exchanges here, but aside from this nebulous online connection, I'm not even real acquaintances with the folks here.

Mostly my own fault for missing those get togethers. I've spoken to Barry, but I haven't actually met anyone here...I'd like to, but I haven't yet.

"Bush Jr is clearly a mixed bag, though on the 2 primary issues, the economy and the WoT he's been very good."

JMK,
I am impressed with the amazing ability that you have, seeing things exactly the opposite from what they are in reality. Like if you see something of black color, you perceive it as white. It must be some sort of talent or something :)

"I am impressed with the amazing ability that you have, seeing things exactly the opposite from what they are in reality." (BW)


Uhhhhh, that's NOT an argument for your POV, BW. In fact, it's not even a half-hearted attempt at defending your view.

An argument on behalf of your viewpoint would go something like this, "I don't believe we have even a 'good' economy today, just as I don't believe the economy under Carter was at all poor.

"Carter was trying, through progressive taxation, to reduce the income disparity between those who earn the most and those poor workers who earn the least, doing all the grunt work. What you saw as a 'poor economy' was actually one that was becoming more egalitarian and one that over time, most Americans would've come to prefer.

"On the WoT, well there is NO legitimate WoT. We are wrong! We are trying to impose our way of life on others. strict Islam is not a threat to West, and no enemy of America's. We've made ourselves an enemy to the Muslim world with our militarist reaction to 9/11 and by supporting a globalization that many Muslims see as a very real threat to their culture and way of life.

"On the border issue and federal spending, what you see as the 'poor' things that G W Bush did, are actually the only neutral things he did.

"On the border issue, he should've worked with Vincente Fox to open our border with Mexico in an orderly fashion, in a way that we both could live with.

"And on federal spending, the PROBLEM with the Bush administration is that they haven't spent enough! Sure they've spent heavilly on domestic security and on the Military, but that money should have been used on more social spending for the millions of very needy Americans right here at home."

Now that's an argument for your viewpoint and what I mean when I say that "No one here's been able (or willing) to make such arguments...probably because they can't back them up.

I'd destroy the above argument, but I'd still respect someone for making it.

P.S. You know what they say about "When your opponent can make a better argument for your case than you can?"

They say that's when you should be afraid...be very afraid.

Turns out Gore is maybe not so much a hypocrite. Note that his 10,000 sq. foot home includes office space for staff and also space because of security (ex-VP, you know). The more that comes out about it, the better Gore looks.

> The more that comes out about it, the better Gore looks.

So wait, you mean he had a home office *and* he still only managed to use, like, 20 times more electricity than I did, not counting the heated swimming pool? Wow, he's, like, an ascetic or something....

Shoot. The article didn't show up in the comment. The article, which was at Huffington Post, claims that the figures given for Gore's usage are way exaggerated. I'll have to try and find it again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/talking-points-on-the-gor_b_42335.html

There. Hope that citation comes out when I save this comment.

Yeah, the citation came through loud and clear, but I'm still not buying it. There's no way in hell to make Gore's energy consumption appear "average," or even close to it, much less representative of someone who's truly committed to energy conservation and has the means to follow through.

Hell, I have an old, poorly insulated, drafty three-storey house in a colder climate, and my power bills are less than a tenth of his (of course I don't have a heated pool.)

My favorite part in Roberts' post was the "square footage" rationalization: "Sure, Gore might have burned through 50 million barrels of fossil fuel, but when you divide that by his two-square-mile mansion, it comes out okay, so see, he's not wasteful after all!" That made me lol.

To be sure, Gore's personal energy consumption and global warming are entirely separate issues. I'd advice Roberts and Gore's other defenders to focus more on the latter, as they'll be on much firmer ground.

This is exactly why I voted for Chimp in 2000. Thanks for making me feel better about that. It was a race between two lying, hypocritical psychopaths. Ditto 2004.

What will we get to choose from in 2008?