- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,927
- Reaction score
- 2,112
- Location
- Birmingham, UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I have never seen his movie, nor do I care to. But there's no denying that he is the person who has brought on the most awareness of this subject. Since his movie came out, people have started to think about their affect on the planet, and what they can do to change some destructive ways. Jeepers... for that he is hated. :doh
Yes, but a public figurehead only publicises; he doesn't affect either the way that data is handled, nor (more importantly) the validity of the data in the first place.
What has brought on all of this vile hatred?
Exactly. He's taken the role of voice for the science because it is a subject that he's been passionate about for at least 2 decades. So he cares about the planet and the future of mankind... wow, what a dick.
I have never seen his movie, nor do I care to. But there's no denying that he is the person who has brought on the most awareness of this subject. Since his movie came out, people have started to think about their affect on the planet, and what they can do to change some destructive ways. Jeepers... for that he is hated. :doh
In a way, I regret Al Gore publicizing global warming. The research is real and true regardless of what he says, but because he is a Democrat that automatically polarized the American debate. I'm glad a high profile person spoke out, I just felt that the second Al Gore did, the fate of the debate was sealed.
It's because he represents a major threat to the status quo. Industry hates him, and so by proxy the American right wing hates him since the right wing represents business interests before it represents public safety. In a way, I regret Al Gore publicizing global warming. The research is real and true regardless of what he says, but because he is a Democrat that automatically polarized the American debate. I'm glad a high profile person spoke out, I just felt that the second Al Gore did, the fate of the debate was sealed.
It's now very unconservative to believe humans are destroying the planet, even though it's true. Political lines are drawn faster than scientific and factual ones. It has always been that way in the United States.
Right... it's not because he's a snake oil salesman peddling exemptions to those feeling guilty or self-righteous enough to buy them. That has nothing to do with it, right?
Do you honestly think that Gore is doing this solely for the money? Is that what you think?
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships.
Gore invested the money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products, according to a Feb. 1 securities filing. Capricorn was founded by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll, former president of EBay Inc. and an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary film on global warming.
All right, I'll excuse myself. That's all I wanted to say, and I'm no scientist, just one of the unfortunate 90s kids who had to listen to it, not knowing if it was real or not. And I still don't, but I do notice that Al Gore doesn't act very concerned like he really believes it. And yes, a scheduled End of the World was less scary to me than a completely harsh random one with no mercy. Just trying to voice my view on GW. Cya.
Well, since he has actually admitted to having stakes invested in companies that will benefit from global warming hysteria... what do you think?
Something to consider from Bloomberg:
Let me interpret that for you.
The longer he can prop up the GW scare, the more money he stands to make, thanks to his investments.
Also, he charges roughly $175,000 every time he speaks publicly.
I think it was L. Ron Hubbard who once said that the easiest way to make money was to start your own religion.
I never could understand this "scientists can do now wrong" belief. Last time I looked they were people just like us, and all people make mistakes. Naturally, they can't admit it because that would negate all their papers and books and destroy their credibility.
Not... It could be that way, but it IS that way.
ricksfolly
Well, since he has actually admitted to having stakes invested in companies that will benefit from global warming hysteria... what do you think?
Something to consider from Bloomberg:
Let me interpret that for you.
The longer he can prop up the GW scare, the more money he stands to make, thanks to his investments.
Also, he charges roughly $175,000 every time he speaks publicly.
I think it was L. Ron Hubbard who once said that the easiest way to make money was to start your own religion.
Just because you profit off the work doesn't mean the work is not valuable or that you are automatically biased, and it certainly doesn't mean you're deceiving people or that you are doing it solely for the money.
You're making an assumption based largely in your pre-judgment of the issue and your biased opinion about liberals.
The problem with engaging you in any debate is that you constantly presume to know what my system of beliefs are.
Since you've decided to play the "it's not about the money" card, tell me, what real, tangible effect do carbon credits have on the environment?
Right... it's not because he's a snake oil salesman peddling exemptions to those feeling guilty or self-righteous enough to buy them. That has nothing to do with it, right?
According to Wiki, he's been an environmentalist for 34 years. A lot of what he makes goes into environment education (such as his movie).
So again I ask, is he in it for the money?
The goal is a reduction in CO2 emissions worldwide, so trying to frame this discussion purely around carbon credits is a bit odd. Carbon credits have the effect of increasing the financial incentive to operate more cleanly. A company that operates above its "target" emissions must either figure out how to reduce emissions or absorb the extra cost of purchasing those carbon credits. A company that operates below its target can use that extra-cleanliness as an asset, in that they can sell those credits for some cash. Hooray free market! Of course, all of that really only has the effect of making companies operate more efficiently.
My question was not how carbon credits affect the economy, it was how do they impact the environment. I'm really surprised that I have to break this down for you. You seem like a bright enough guy.
Assume the following:
Large Company produces x in carbon emissions
Small Company produces y in carbon emissions
n is total carbon output for the two companies
x+y= n
With me so far?
Large Company needs, for the sake of conjecture, two more carbon credits for their expanding production, Small Company has two to sell.
(x+2) + (y-2) = n
Total carbon output is the same, only the companies emitting have changed. Sure there's a market for selling intangible goods, but this does not equal reduced carbon emissions.
Your equations assume that carbon dioxide emissions are a constant, zero-sum "product," and that the emissions cap is equal to the average company's present output. These are both incorrect.
The trading of the credit itself is not what reduces the output, it's the change in business practices in the attempt to take advantage of the credit that reduces emissions. Since all companies would have a financial incentive to reduce CO2 emissions, it is reasonable to expect that the total emissions will decrease.
Oh yes, one more question. Is carbon dioxide the problem? But isn't that what we exchange for plants for oxygen, or am I thinking of a different term? How can us and plants sharing breath with each other cause Global Warming?
If the company gains a larger benefit from running at whatever capacity they need in order to meet market demands, the financial incentive is a moot point, unless the price of carbon credits becomes so cost ineffective that they are forced to scale back output, thereby paying financially in lost profits.
How's your free market looking now?
Btw, I'm thinking about selling carbon credits on ebay. For every $100 I'm sent, I'll plant a ficus. Are you interested in buying? I'll really make sure to reduce your carbon footprint. I promise.
The whole point behind carbon taxes is to charge companies who have no care in the world about the damage they are doing. Environmental damage is never calculated as being part of the input costs of production, and such tax laws allow it to be factored in. Someone has to do the cleanup. If the money isn't going towards appropriate projects then the whole idea is just a senseless cash grab.
Oh yes, one more question. Is carbon dioxide the problem? But isn't that what we exchange for plants for oxygen, or am I thinking of a different term? How can us and plants sharing breath with each other cause Global Warming?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?