Hello Keith, > > 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. >
Ok. If it isn't relevant, then I have learned more today than I knew when I woke up. >> >> > 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. > Then you would care to share your results? But, my guess (yes, a guess, not a calculation) would be that someone staying local to their home and either seeing a FREE screening of the movie, or seeing it on television would result in lower GHG emissions compared to the GHG emissions of many people traveling to some central location, along with all the extra people needed traveling to such an event to make it possible. > > 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. > Nope. Just common sense. I applaud what is trying to be accomplished, but I do not applaud Mr. Gore's lifestyle or choice of proposed methods to deliver his message. You can try as much as you like to write or assume more into my statements if you so choose, but you will be wrong. Just because a news item comes from someone opposed to Mr. Gore, or the message he is delivering, doesn't make it untrue. 'nuff said. >> >>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. > That is my point...if the movie was so influential, then there is no need for large gatherings, before less environmentally unfriendly methods are first used. Never considered that as a career but thanks, I guess. > >> > 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? > I am quite certain that he doesn't just do it for the money, as is obvious by his long record of environmental causes and then Global Warming. However, it does show a lack of personal accountability for his choices despite his stated beliefs. Once again, the messenger is getting in the way of the message...much like the much maligned Televangelists. > >>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. > Morally bankrupt? Please explain. Such sources? Tennessee Center for Policy Research ? >>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? > Yes. Actually, if he did more, especially within his means, that would be wonderful! Actually, I think the TCPR does believe their message--that doesn't make the message correct...but that also doesn't make some of their facts incorrect, either. But, if that is important that TCPR believes their message, then it is certainly important if Mr. Gore believes his message. > >>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. > Do you mean like what you are doing to me? >>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. > Since I haven't read about anything else they have done in their personal lives that is particularly pro-environmental (solar hot water, geo-thermal heating/cooling, taking the train to events, downsizing their personal home, etc), I will leave it to you to let me know what else they have done that I am unaware. I will confess that in the absence of additional information, I will draw my own conclusion. If you know of more, please let me know, and I will gladly change my personal opinion of Mr. Gore accordingly. Which question? How about I answer all three questions: > Why do you conclude that? Make up your mind, is it the money or the > personal attention he needs? Or both? If he was truly interested in reducing GHG's, he would do so as much as possible in his personal life to reduce his GHG emissions. Just my opinion. I believe that he wants money and the personal attention...so 'Both.' However, I do also believe that he wants a reduction in GHG emissions to combat Global Warming...but with everyone else starting first. Again, just my opinion. > > 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? > Not quite true...but since the thread was about Mr. Gore that is what I followed. I don't trust TCPR for its conclusions, but the utility figures I do believe. I did do a Google and some reading before posting...and admittedly, if I was going to write a newspaper article, I would have done a LOT more research, but sadly, I am at work and do not have that much time when posting a message to a discussion forum to fully investigate every source of information and verify all the information presented by that source. Is it incorrect to discuss things further and get a better understanding in this forum? That said, do you care to show why we SHOULD personally trust Mr. Gore? I have posted my personal opinions and some additional information (mostly positive, BTW)...however, I do not believe that I have been unfair. You disagree...bully for you! I have said when I am stating a personal opinion and citied sources when I haven't. But, do keep in mind, I am not a professional publicist (as you have pointed out, that I lack the qualifications) nor am I a professional writer ... I am just an interested, yet highly skeptical (especially of ANY politician) reader/researcher since my college days who happened upon your mailing list a while back. Just don't confuse my inherant distrust of politicans with discrediting the message. The message is good, if a little softly delivered--too bad it wasn't someone else delivering it. >> >>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 Quite true...my politics are as irrelevant as are your's. I speak as loudly and clearly for AEI as you do. Saying I do doesn't make it so, you should know better. --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/
