Hello Randall >Hello Keith, > > > How do you equate GHGs to "overall pollution"? > >I equate GHG's to overall pollution in this instance because Mr. Gore >positions himself as an environmental advocate. Granted, most recently, Mr. >Gore has spoken almost entirely about Global Warming. I see no reason to >limit the discussion in this forum to just one aspect of protecting the >environment, since it is all related.
Indeed it is, but the subject under discussion is about global warming, not about general pollution, and I think I agree with Michael Klare about how relevant general pollution issues are to dealing with global warming (not very relevant). It's about energy, not pollution. The attack on Gore is about energy, not pollution. There's a difference between broadening the discussion and smokescreening. >BTW: Mr. Gore started his >environmental discussions/career in the 1970's around toxic waste and other >pollution, not Global Warming...that started in the 1980's. > > > To keep it to GHGs, did you calculate the carbon emissions of the > > more than a few people you're betting travelled more than 20 minutes > > against the potential reduction in carbon emissions if they bought > > the message they went to hear, especially if they spread it? > >Did you? It's a good bet, I'd have taken a chance on it. >I agree, if a significant number of people that hear Gore's >message actually do anything to reduce their contribution of GHG's, it is a >good thing. However, wouldn't it be an EVEN BETTER thing if when delivering >the message to those same people, they found a method that was the most >efficient with regards to GHG emissions? Wouldn't that be a good, first >practical lesson to all of those people? Just a thought. It's not just a thought, Randall. You're using it to try to discredit what is being accomplished as well as the man himself. > > If you were planning such a media and publicity campaign would you > > choose video conferences or personal appearances? This is for an > > Oscar-winner, right? In America. > >If I was planning such a campaign, 'In America' ... I would do it in such a >way that allows the vast majority sit on their couches, watching TV and not >actually needing to go somewhere or do something to hear the message. :-) I guess that's what the movie accomplishes, no? I'd advise against your seeking employment as a publicist. > > So he just does it for the money? Oh, well that's okay then, we can > > all buy another SUV. > >(sarcasm duly noted an accepted) :-) Does that mean he doesn't just do it for the money? > > His attackers also assume something of a moral high ground in > > delivering their message, why don't you also suggest examining their > > motives? > >Excellent point! I agree wholeheartedly! (and it appears that in later >posts, you and other have done this...bravo!) However, Mr. Gore does assume >a moral stance on this issue, Yes, so I said. >so the criticism is not unfair: You're saying it's a moral criticism? Do you actually believe that? It's typical of the kind of morally bankrupt cheap hits one has come to expect from such sources. > >From his Academy Award speech: "My fellow Americans, people all over the >world, we need to solve the climate crisis, it's not a political issue, it's >a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible >exception of the will to act, that's a renewable resource, let's renew >it." -- >http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/gore-wins-hollywood-in- >a-landslide/ > > >>Otherwise you will need to bring back a bunch of "fallen" > >>televangelists. :-) IMO he is simply another person that wants (or > >>needs) > >>to be heard and doesn't really HONESTLY care what happens as a result. > > > > Why do you conclude that? Make up your mind, is it the money or the > > personal attention he needs? Or both? > >Because, if he really BELIEVES his message, he would do more in his personal >life, even if it was "inconvenient." And if he did do more, if he did do EVEN BETTER, would it ever be enough, in your judgment? At what stage would his doing more allow for the possibility that he might actually believe his message, this man you say has been campaigning on environmental issues for the last 30 years? Why don't you apply the same criteria to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research? Do you think they really believe their message? Or should they do more? >So, I exercise my right (as previously >stated) to be skeptical of the man and his motives. Nothing more. Yes it was, it was not even-handed, it was biased, and it included some ugly accusations you're not prepared to substantiate. More like character assassination than honest scepticism. >Granted >Mr. Gore purchases carbon offsets when he flies >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) and his family drives hybrid >cars...but why not also downsize their lifestyle and resulting impact on the >environment? Why do they need so much power for their home? Why stop >there? Who said they stopped? You didn't answer the question. > > You mean Gore could just as well have left the stage arm in arm with > > Jerry Falwell as with Leonardo DiCaprio? > > > >In my personal opinion (and that is all that this is, really)...YES. I do >not like (insert name) and I do not trust (insert same name). Feel free to >choose from Al Gore, Jerry Falwell or your recent addition to my list, >Leonardo DiCaprio. Why should I trust any one of them? But you showed no distrust of the rather suspect folks who're slinging rather suspect mud in a direction you seem to approve of. Why do you trust the Tennessee Center for Policy Research? Or at least why do you not distrust them, if you're claiming to be even-handed? > > I think your US party political views are leaking. Much more > > important than the global warming crisis is which wing of the US > > Business Party people should vote for, I guess. > > > > Well done AEI! LOL! > >Care to guess what my party political leanings actually are? They are >likely not what you are implying... :-) My point is that your party political leanings are irrelevant. Care to guess what mine are? Or were at the time? "Vote for Bush." Check it out. Either way I don't hold any brief for Gore. >Last time I checked, AEI doesn't >speak for me. You speak for them. Keith >--Randall _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
