Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Gore compares today's global warming skeptics to racists of the past

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:28 AM
Original message
Al Gore compares today's global warming skeptics to racists of the past
I agree. Once again, thank you Al.

(video at Raw Story link below).

Al Gore compares climate change skeptics to racists

Al Gore continued his criticism of climate change skeptics in an interview with Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky on UStream, going as far as to compare them to the racists of the 20th century.

There came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural, Gore said. Then there came a time when people would say, Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I dont go for that so dont talk that way around me. I just dont believe that. That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/al-gore-compa...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. unrec for a stupid analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. it's not stupid. did you watch the video?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Some people will do anything for
a few coins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. you mean gore? because i assure you, i don't get paid for this, wish i did, because i need the
work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. Need work? Write your Republicon reps and tell them to support America
for once, and to stop larding out the Republicon socialism to their fatcat cronies.

Americans have to agree with your implications: Republicons are continuing to screw America's economic pooch, and to block efforts to put US citizens back to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
73. democrats control the white house & senate. so why just republican reps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. no, i read the gore quote in your post. i do not have a high opinion of gore's honesty
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 02:15 AM by indurancevile
in relation to his "lock box" bullshit on social security & his carbon futures business.

there is no analogy between racism and global warming. none. it's bullshit.

i'd be more inclined to give some creedence to gore if he wasn't making money off it.

and if he wasn't such a hypocrite in his personal energy use. which he is, i don't care how many fucking "carbon offsets" he buys.

i despise people like him telling everyone else they need to use one square of toilet paper when they are burning rolls of the stuff in bonfires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. He didn't say there is an analogy between racism and global warming
He compared the ways we as a society make ignorance into shame, and educate people, by demanding better with our conversations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. no, he just *made* the analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. no he didn't. he's talking about winning the battle in public discourse
the analogy is not between global warming and racisim. it is between global warming denial and racists attitudes in public discourse. he is saying that people need to criticize public display of global warming denial today like they did decades ago. It's not like a nuance or anything. you just have to watch the video. if you don't like the headline, please keep in mind that is only one brief comment he made in a 1 hour video. the person who posted this on Raw Story took a short segment out of the interview and put a headline on it.

even ifyou don't like this particular line, you have to admit there aren't many people out there using their prominence to rattle the cages about global warming, and he continues to fight the fight when he could just sit back and do nothing if he wanted to.

I'm very glad he's on our side and it irks me when environmentalists and progressives and lefties get on Gore's case so much. They don't even realize they are just buying the rightwing talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. the analogy is between people who don't believe in global warming & racists.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 02:30 AM by indurancevile
the analogy is stupid.

i am not buying right wing talking points, and i'm not buying al gore. i think he's a fraud, a hypocrite, and a con. that is my opinion, & i have given you my reasons. he misled the public about social security, he's making bank on carbon trading (which is a fraud), & he lectures people on how to save energy while using it profligately. not only in his own home, but in jetting about the world lecturing the "little" people about how wasteful they are.

the us military is the single biggest user of energy on the globe. fuck gore. i don't need a hypocrite "leading the public discourse".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adhd_what_huh Donating Member (368 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
26. you are stupid for not reading the article....title and content are not the same
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
67. i read the quote, & i believe calling a poster stupid rather than the poster's
argument = violation of du rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
28. I imagine we more often than not interpret things
I imagine we more often than not interpret things only in such a way as to better validate our own presumptions; regardless of the validity of an original statement, we'll do our best to mistranslate it if that's what it takes... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. yes. That is my understanding as well. Education is key
Educate Ignorance.

It is the stupid that worries me . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. yes, people like you & gore should educate the benighted masses.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 04:15 AM by indurancevile
gore's so damn educated he can't even practice what he preaches.

education fails there, so what use is it?

the rich are the only people who can be wasteful, is that the message?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. take from it what you will. Good luck to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
33. Gore can afford his own Creedence, anyway nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
56. why sooooo upset?
hehe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. It's a perfect analogy,


There came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural, Gore said. Then there came a time when people would say, Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I dont go for that so dont talk that way around me. I just dont believe that. That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate.

When asked by Bogusky about Rick Perrys recent comments against climate change, Gore focused on not just the Texas governor, but the entire anti-science movement.

This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money, Gore said.

These scientists dont make a lot of money. Theyre comfortable as they should be, but they dont make a lot of money. Its not in their nature to get ready to constantly defend themselves against political attacks. Thats not want they expected to be doing in their lives.



Whether it was the argument used to deny equal rights to African Americans or the argument used to deny global warming climate change, the modus operandi of both methods of attack worked primarily to demonize or dehumanize the integrity of groups in the former case the targeted group was based on race and on the latter it was based on occupation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
100. +1
No excuse for comparing this to racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
132. Rec for accurate analogy. In fact most denialists I know are racists.
Pure and simple. Many of them believe the Bell Curve nonsenes, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
9. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
13. I promise to keep my carbon footprint
below Al Gore's carbon footprint. As Al Gore's carbon footprint is about 100 times bigger than anything I can hope to achieve, I never have to worry about breaking my promise. It's interesting how the carbon prophet admonishes the rest of us for doing a fraction of what he does every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. ad hominem
that doesn't make him wrong. hypocritical mayhaps, but not wrong. but interestingly, if he convinces enough people who end up producing less of a carbon footprint he could end up with a negative footprint. ;P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. it's not ad hominem. the poster says he's a hypocrite, and he is. why should anyone else
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 04:00 AM by indurancevile
do shit when al gore doesn't practice what he preaches and is living large?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. well
when you attack the man and not the argument, that is an argument ad hominem. thank you for reinforcing my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. the poster wasn't debating al gore.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 04:43 AM by indurancevile
and in this case, "the man's" behavior demonstrates that "the man" doesn't believe his own argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
29. you re reading these right?
alright, the vp during one of the most popular presidencies of the lastt twenty years and the winner of the popular vote for the presidency is going to command some hefty speaking fees. and you are mad because he uses that pulpit to speak for the earths future? he would be hard pressed to find something les sexy. you would no doubt prefer a sarah palin style bus tour? or perhaps something more pro corporate

but none of this changes the fact that he is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #29
77. his speaking fees are the least of his income. do some research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #77
93. deal!
alright. thanks for the tip.


in return i would like to point out that just because you dissaprove of someone does not make them wrong. as i read up on Gore, please read up on logical fallacies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. why should anyone else do shit . . .? uh -- because they are
responsible for their own actions regardless of how Gore may or may not act.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. the same bullshit since the 60s. "consumer choice, individual choice". no, it's not.
people's lifestyle is not in any significant way a matter of individual choice. it's a matter of the prevailing socio-economic conditions, of how we MUST make our living, in what kind of environment -- it's not about what kind of lightbulb we use or what car we drive, it's about the fact that we cannot live a "normal" life without using lightbulbs or driving cars.

and please don't tell me about how you ride your bike everywhere.

they were preaching in the 60s about how if everyone just made the "right" choices everything would be hunky-dory, 50 things you can do to save the environment, etc. etc.

you can see how well it's working. i guess another 40 years of moral exhortation & "education" by phonies like al gore, & we should be in utopia.

sick of people who make environmentalism an individual moral issue, sick of "environmentalists" who fly more in a year than most people do in a lifetime, sick of all the phonies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #24
127. I must say you chose a very appropriate user name. suits you perfectly.
well done :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #127
131. i must say you made it obvious you don't know what the name means
Edited on Tue Aug-30-11 01:25 AM by indurancevile
and when people have to resort to personal attack, they obviously demonstrate their own fecklessness
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #131
148. try to give someone a compliment. sheesh. good bye indurance vile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
146. "why should anyone else do shit when al gore doesn't practice
what he preaches and is living large?"

First, we should "do shit" because it's the right thing to do to change the damage that is being done to the planet and the chances of survival of most of us oxygen breathers.

Second, we should "do shit" because MOST of us are smart enough to realize that someone who has a high profile and is in a leadership role who is trying to educate us should not be restricted to sitting in his totally sustainable buffalo hide teepee and sending smoke signals or good vibes to the rest of the world in hopes that the word might get out.

Third, we should "do shit" to show everyone else that Al Gore knows what he is talking about and that he is doing far more to educate us and help us to change our habits than indurancevile the antagonist who likes to sound off on a blog.

I'd love to know what indurancevile thinks should be done to educate the masses and to help us to convert the climate change skeptics. Besides throwing rocks at Al Gore and his efforts, that is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
36. Al has no credibility, because his walk don't match his talk. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #36
74. refuted above nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #74
83. Nonsense. Al Gore uses 20 times more energy than the average American, then pays HIS OWN company
for "offsets". :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #83
137. Relevance? Is his own company not investing in physical offsets?
They're real offsets, the problem with offsets is that they don't punish the users, they're not, effectively, mandated. And as we all know, without mandates (carbon taxes and the like), nothing will get done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
78. I submit that Al Gore
does NOT believe what he preaches. His actions and lifestyle betray his core beliefs...

global warming is a scam and he is going to ride this pony to the billionaire bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #78
97. i submit
that you have swallowed corp propoganda until the BS is coming out of your eyes. there is no controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #97
118. i submit that the info on gore's energy use & lifestyle isn't "corp propaganda".
it's a matter of public record -- for example, his power bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #118
121. sigh
who said it was? no one on this thread, thats who.

agw deniers are corp pawns who spew misinformation. aren t there better targets out their for your insatiable wrath besides gore? or me for that matter? though i do love that you keep kicking this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #78
126. Do you dispute the science of global warming?
It's one thing to argue that Al Gore is exploiting the issue to make bank. People often do that with good causes. It's another to completely deny the science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #126
129. Denying global warming or climate change should be a bannable offense
We wouldn't tolerate some teabagger pushing the latest right-wing talking points. We shouldn't tolerate any "global warming is a hoax" bullshit either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #129
134. our very own star chamber
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #134
138. Do you think we should allow Right-wing propaganda on DU?
Maybe we should just do away with tombstoning, and allow freepers and teabaggers to post whatever they want, whenever they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #138
141. i think your definition of "right wing propaganda" = overly wide
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
digitaln3rd Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:35 AM
Response to Original message
18. Methinks Al has just jumped the shark.
Racist, really? Have some more crazy juice, Al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
23. methinks they could have given the article a better subject line n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
25. THank you Al Gore
The fuggers at M$Greedia never played a line of his recent interview with Olbermann.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zax2me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
27. Well, he should not have made wild claims.
Hurricanes, specifically.
Since Katrina, they have been mild to below average at best.
Mr. Vice-President Gore himself predicted more storms hitting and stronger ones every year.
Each year, WRONG.
It is difficult to support a theory when your own predictions in support of that theory prove incorrect every year.
I'm not a denier but I also don't deny the facts.
Get the facts straight, the people will follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. just denier-y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #27
140. I do not think you understand how the science works
but let's try for shits and giggles.

MORE DRAMATIC and VIOLENT Weather Events.

Now you remember the incredible snowgeddon? How about the terrific things at places like Joplin? Even the SIZE of Irene is part of the pattern.

We are talking of TRENDS here... that does not mean that EVERY STORM will be more damaging than the last. Wether does NOT equal climate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
31. Does that mean Al Gore gets to use the N word so long as he donates to the UNCF?
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 11:05 AM by Dreamer Tatum
That's how it works, right? He gets to ride private jets and own mansions so long as he plants a tree somewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broderick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Do as I say
Not as I do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #31
69. yep. the rich get to do whatever they want with a "green" mask -- AND lecture the masses about how
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 02:38 PM by indurancevile
wasteful they are.

i hate these arrogant hypocritical gits.

and YOUR analogy is a lot better than gore's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #31
70. Come on... some of Gore's BEST FRIENDS are black.
Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
34. The Gore hate on this thread blows my mind
I don't even recognize this place any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. It's not Gore hate, it's Gore is being a Hypocrite. Why would you support a hypocrite?
He hurts the global warming argument but not leading by example.

Nobody likes people who 'Do as I say, not as I do'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Gore leads a carbon neutral lifestyle, he's not a hypocrite but even if he were
the message is what matters and people not able to see that are as those people "not able to see the forest for the trees."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. he doesn't lead a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. buying "carbon offsets" from your
own corporation doesn't = a carbon neutral lifestyle.

gore's plane travel uses more "carbon" than an ordinary person's entire life does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. The only thing that matters is what are the offsets used for, if it neutralizes or counter balances
any use of carbon burning or promotes the transition away from fossil fuels, that's the ultimate goal until the world can wean itself away from the use of fossil fuels, carbon offsets work as a stopgap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Or Al could use his fair share of energy. You know, like he admonishes us to do.
There's not enough cash in the whole world for all of us to live like Al Gore! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. You missed the message, Gore has never mentioned "fair share" Gore has promoted
the switchover to green, sustainable, renewable energy sources to prevent or minimize the impact of global warming climate change. :hi:

You can make make billions if you want to and Al Gore has put his money where his mouth is, if we had more entrepreneurs following Gore's example, we would be much further along in the creation, development and use of green, sustainable renewable energy sources and a smart grid for the nation. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Bullshit. If you believe Al's Armageddon spiel, MASSIVE cuts in consumption are needed.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 01:27 PM by Romulox
Lead the way, Al! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. I hate it when you cuss, it makes me cry.
:cry:

Again you missed the message, MASSIVE CHANGES are needed and Al is leading the way. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #60
98. he's leading the way to the bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #98
104. The final paragraph in your own link from post #94.


Ultimately, mandatory government policy must be our primary approach to dealing with climate change and the GHG emissions that cause it. However, voluntary GHG offset markets can contribute to emissions mitigation and sustainable development objectives while government-mandated schemes are under development. Voluntary markets can also foster innovation through new technologies and project types still under evaluation by compliance emission markets. While governments focus on developing a consensus on GHG mitigation policies, or more stringent policies, the voluntary offset market, with proper government oversight, has the potential to play a significant role in mitigating future climate change.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #104
111. spamming that quote doesn't help your case. the article is about how at present carbon markets DON'T
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 04:21 PM by indurancevile
do any of those things, irregardless of whether they "can" in some ideal world.

and the conclusion is that gov'ts will have to step in to make the transition -- as they always have. as indeed, they are, at present (funding for example the majority of wind projects).

and it doesn't demonstrate that gore & his for-profit "green" companies are anything but hypocritical scams.

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08...


if it's such an immediate crisis, why aren't these folks doing anything but making bank? they evidentally think the world is going to last in roughly its present configuration long enough for them to collect their profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #111
116. Spamming that paragraph became a requirement because you asked the same question and made
the same baseless accusation against Gore's integrity.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention, I have no problem with the government stepping in and neither does Gore, for that matter he's been promoting for them to do so.

As to Gore's house it has the second highest energy rating that you can get, it was a near one hundred year old energy hog when the Gores' bought it, someone would have lived there regardless so the Gores took a negative and turned it into a positive.

Your article is obsolete and misleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. i didn't ask the same question, gore does enough to impugn his *own* integrity, and the article
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 04:47 PM by indurancevile
isn't obsolete.

i don't care how high the energy rating of gore's (multiple) houses are, the fact is he uses multiples more energy in his house(s) than the average person. he uses multiples more in travel, and i'd bet multiples more in consumer goods as well. he makes money off petroleum shares held in the family for generations (one of the sources of his present status) & he makes money selling "carbon offsets". and peddling influence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #119
123. Gore uses 100% Green Power Switch though NES


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Responding to Drudges latest attack, Vice President Gores office told ThinkProgress:

1) That his family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the familys carbon footprint a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gores office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gores do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gores house uses and even then they distort the truth.





Green Power Switch

TVA and participating local public power companies, working with input from the environmental community, have created a program called Green Power Switch to produce electricity from renewable sources and add it to TVA's power mix. Read more.


http://www.tva.gov/greenpowerswitch /



As I said before Gore's house was an existing early 20th century energy hog, someone was going to live there regardless and the Gores improved it making it far more energy efficient, I believe they pay a %50 premium on their electric bill under the Green Switch Program.

That is turning a negative into a positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #123
128. Gore apologists are hilarious, if nothing else
His message is for people to cut this, stop that, and so on.

Please show me where this fucking hypocrite ever said, "You know what? Do whatever you want. Just make sure you pay for it."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #128
150. Gore said to do your best to live a carbon neutral lifestyle and as the government
Edited on Tue Aug-30-11 10:02 AM by Uncle Joe
hasn't enacted any comprehensive energy reform to change our society to green, renewable, sustainable energy sources, your choices are either to reduce energy consumption, pay premiums for energy ie: Green-switch, carbon offsets etc. or a combination of the above according to each person's ability.

Green-switch funds and carbon offsets can be used to stimulate the economic growth of green, renewable, sustainable energy sources, there is nothing hypocritical about that, it's just basic common sense and logic.

By changing the economic sphere of energy usage, the government's policies will follow and Gore is on the forefront of changing the economic sphere via his venture capital fund which promotes and subsidizes green energy development.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #57
72. i could only "make millions" if i had some influence to peddle, which i don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
66. none of that matters unless you buy into the principle that the rich can use whatever they like &
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 02:34 PM by indurancevile
the poor can be lectured to.

oh, & "carbon offsets" = phony as a 3 dollar bill. just a dodge for corporations to use as much as they want & pretend they're "green".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. Gore isn't lecturing, he's promoting change and if he didn't care he wouldn't be paying premiums
Perhaps you have proof that your blanket attack of all carbon offsets are "phony" but I doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #71
87. He's hurting the cause through his flat refusal to "be the change" he advocates.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #71
89. carbon offsets just marketize construction projects that would take place anyway.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 03:12 PM by indurancevile
Environmental commodity markets are inherently more susceptible to market failures than traditional markets because the commodity transacted is both intangible and represents a public good. Where buyers cannot easily evaluate the quality of a good or service, there is a clear need for quality assurance mechanisms. Without such mechanisms, competitive pressures force sellers to minimize quality and limit transparency. The result will be that bad projects will drive good projects out of the market.

What has proven most vexing for those involved in GHG offset markets is defining 'additionality'. This is a key factor determining a project's eligibility to sell credits. The crucial question is whether the added revenue or other resources gained from selling GHG offset credits somehow enables a project's implementation, or if the extra revenue simply lines the pockets of those who would have implemented the project anyway? In markets for public goods that lack some form of mandated quotas (for example, emission caps), additionality determinations serve the function of maintaining scarcity in the marketplace. Without them, GHG offsets representing business-as-usual reductions will tend to flood the market.

There is no correct technique for determining additionality because it involves the evaluation of counterfactual circumstances. No test for additionality can provide certainty about what would have happened otherwise. The challenge is akin to statistical hypothesis testing. Adopt tests that are too stringent and one risks disqualifying many truly additional projects, thus restricting offset supplies and increasing their prices. But adopt tests that are too lenient, and the market will be dominated by 'free riders' who would have implemented their projects anyway.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0711/full/climate.20...


The problems with carbon offsets from tree-planting

One of the most common types of carbon offsets on the market comes from tree-planting projects. Many companies sell these offsets and claim they can be used to offset greenhouse gas emissions from other sources, such as air travel, automobiles, etc. While planting trees obviously has environmental benefits, selling carbon offsets from these projects is problematic in a number of ways...

It is simply not possible to plant sufficient numbers of trees to deal with the increased carbon dioxide emissions that are expected over the next half century. For example, scientists have estimated that to soak up just the United Kingdom's annual greenhouse gas emissions, we'd need to plant a new forest the size of Devon and Cornwall every year, and look after them in perpetuity...

Many forestry offsets are from tree plantings that would, or should, have replaced logged forests anyway. It is therefore difficult to claim that such plantings can be used to offset emissions from elsewhere.

Old-growth forests are often replaced by tree-farm plantations that are heavily managed (including with chemicals and fossil fuel-intensive machinery) and do not offer the same biodiversity benefits as natural forests.

Investment in forestry offsets does not contribute to reducing society's dependence on fossil fuels, something that is ultimately needed to address climate change.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/scienc... /


gore didn't increase his net worth 300% in ten years by being a philanthropist.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #89
101. Did you read the final paragraph of your own link?


Ultimately, mandatory government policy must be our primary approach to dealing with climate change and the GHG emissions that cause it. However, voluntary GHG offset markets can contribute to emissions mitigation and sustainable development objectives while government-mandated schemes are under development. Voluntary markets can also foster innovation through new technologies and project types still under evaluation by compliance emission markets. While governments focus on developing a consensus on GHG mitigation policies, or more stringent policies, the voluntary offset market, with proper government oversight, has the potential to play a significant role in mitigating future climate change.



Did you didn't read my previous posts describing offsets as a good stop-gap or temporary method?

As to the second link, planting trees is just one aspect of carbon offsets, funding alternative, green, sustainable energy sources is another.

Furthermore, I never said Gore was a "philanthropist," I said he put his money where his mouth is and by his vision, investments and action humanity would benefit.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. "can". not "do". the article has already described the presently existing problems.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 03:50 PM by indurancevile
so the "temporary" fix is actually a "temporary" scam.

and there's a great deal more scamming which can be documented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. "Can" is better than nothing and if you "can" find some
scamming directly attributed to Gore or his organization by all means present it otherwise you're just farting in the wind.

I realize you just joined us last month, so welcome to D.U. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pintobean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #44
113. Pile your carbon footprint under enough bullshit and
......no...wait...that doesn't work either.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #44
135. Carbon offsets are offsets regardless of who is using them.
They're actual physical product that ... offsets the carbon you produce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Translation: Al is RICH and therefore he pays for the right to pollute.
There is no such thing as a "carbon neutral lifestyle" that includes mansions, SUVs, and private jets. Al PAYS for the right to pollute. Basically, he buys personal "carbon credits".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. No, Al Gore is rich and he should pay more.
And you're wrong about carbon neutral, what matters is the total amount of carbon and ultimately methane released into the atmosphere if one person burns more carbon but then pays via carbon offsets for carbon sponges, ie; forests to be planted or subsidizes energy efficient switch-overs for other industries to use or develop, the effect is no pollution insofar as greenhouse gases are concerned, that's why they call it neutral.

Having said that carbon offsets are just a stopgap method of being financial, environmentally friendly tool to use until the world can wean itself away from the use of fossil fuels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. It's no more than the modern form of "indulgences" sold by the Catholic Church to rich sinners.
Indulgence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Inscription on the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome: Indulgentia plenaria perpetua quotidiana toties quoties pro vivis et defunctis (English trans: "Perpetual everyday plenary indulgence on every occasion for the living and the dead")
In Catholic theology, an indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment<1> due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the Catholic Church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.<2> The belief is that indulgences draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints.<3> They are granted for specific good works and prayers.<3>
Indulgences replaced the severe penances of the early Church.<3> More exactly, they replaced the shortening of those penances that was allowed at the intercession of those imprisoned and those awaiting martyrdom for the faith.<4>
Alleged abuses in selling and granting indulgences<3> were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation (1517).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. Major differences, indulgences went to the church, not the peasants.
Carbon offsets are used to as a means to raise money to fund the development and usage of green, sustainable, renewable energy and the planting of carbon sponges, most all of society benefits from this.

One other major difference religion and science are not the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. Al is chairman of a private company that SELLS carbon offsets
Word is, Al "buys" his carbon offsets from his own company!

http://www.generationim.com/strategy/climate.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. I'm all for this, Gore puts his money where his mouth is and he's taking an active
role in using the current workhorse of capitalism to rapidly foster the needed change.


Focus on Key Priority Areas
The climate crisis is an urgent, multi-dimensional challenge that requires business and government leaders to accelerate the development of sustainable, scalable solutions. Among the many investment opportunities in the transition from a high-carbon to low-carbon economy, Generation has prioritized four initial areas of focus for the Climate Solutions product:

Renewable Energy Generation and Distribution
Energy Efficiency and Demand Destruction
Carbon Markets and Climate-Related Financial Services
Solutions for the Biomass Economy


(snip)

Growth Capital
The Climate Solutions product offers growth capital to help companies scale and deploy their solutions. We provide funding and global business-building expertise to a range of businesses. We typically do not take pure technology risk, preferring to focus on business strategy, regulation and scale up risk.

Partnering with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Generation has a strategic alliance with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) to find, fund and accelerate green business, technology and policy solutions with the greatest potential to help solve the climate crisis.

The Generation and KPCB alliance represents a landmark alignment of resources to effect global change to protect the environment. It combines the research expertise of both organizations with a track record of successful investments in public and private companies, from early stage to large capitalization business.



Honestly, if Al Gore's actions both in bringing out the message and in creating financial vehicles to foster change that saved the world from climatic catastrophe, would you be pissed because he made money from doing it?

What if his investment firm used it's resources to promote the legalization of cannabis, would you still be angry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #65
85. You were just claiming that ol' Al pays "the peasants" for the right to overconsume
He doesn't. He "pays" a company in which he has a financial stake. Face it: your hero is a FRAUD! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #85
95. No, I said indulgences went to the church, not the peasants as there was virtually no middle class.
Gore's company has a financial stake in promoting green, sustainable, renewable energy sources that benefits everyone, no matter the income class.

Keep your eye on the ball, the goal is changing the world's energy usage to green, sustainable, renewable sources, that's a major undertaking and Gore is doing far more on multiple fronts to move the world in that direction than any other individual that I know of. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. You're not making much sense. Profits from Al's corporation don't go to "the peasants" either
so your intended point of contrast is actually a point of comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #99
109. From post #94 final paragraph, everybody benefits regardless of income class.


Ultimately, mandatory government policy must be our primary approach to dealing with climate change and the GHG emissions that cause it. However, voluntary GHG offset markets can contribute to emissions mitigation and sustainable development objectives while government-mandated schemes are under development. Voluntary markets can also foster innovation through new technologies and project types still under evaluation by compliance emission markets. While governments focus on developing a consensus on GHG mitigation policies, or more stringent policies, the voluntary offset market, with proper government oversight, has the potential to play a significant role in mitigating future climate change.



What's so hard to understand about that? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #109
112. Echoes of Orwell: We're ALL equal, it's just that some of us are MORE equal than others.
When it comes to profiting off of all of this while living a gluttonous lifestyle, I mean. :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. Did you even read the paragraph I just posted or is comprehension of it the challenge?
I have some breaking news for you, the world, industry, society lives by profit and using profit to change it is a most logical path.

If Gore makes millions because he helped foster humanity to a sustainable, renewable, green energy way of living, I say more power to him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. That paragraph speaks to neither Al Gore's gluttonous over-consumption nor his financial stake in
selling "carbon credits". I think it is YOU who are having trouble following along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #115
117. Gore started selling carbon offsets primarily because the government wasn't moving fast enough
if at all and so he entered the economic sphere to affect drastically needed change.

Timing is running out in regards to global warming climate change and so I applaud Gore's decision to do what he could and if he profited from this, so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #64
76. i.e., he doesn't buy them at all. shell game. and what are those "carbon offsets" anyway?
carbon offset = something like helping to fund a solar array.

excuse me? building a solar array doesn't reduce al gore's carbon footprint. in the short term, it actually increases greenhouse gases. in the long term, it makes money for al gore.

what is this crap? we don't need "carbon offsets" to build solar arrays -- just build them.

just another way to financialize the real economy.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0711/full/climate.20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #76
102. The final paragraph in your own link from post #94 explains but I will bold it here again
for your reading convenience.



Ultimately, mandatory government policy must be our primary approach to dealing with climate change and the GHG emissions that cause it. However, voluntary GHG offset markets can contribute to emissions mitigation and sustainable development objectives while government-mandated schemes are under development. Voluntary markets can also foster innovation through new technologies and project types still under evaluation by compliance emission markets. While governments focus on developing a consensus on GHG mitigation policies, or more stringent policies, the voluntary offset market, with proper government oversight, has the potential to play a significant role in mitigating future climate change.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. "can". in some ideal situation that (as the article has already documented) DOESN'T PRESENTLY EXIST.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 03:53 PM by indurancevile
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. Logic should tell you, "can" is better than nothing, Furthermore, Gore isn't President so
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 03:59 PM by Uncle Joe
take your concerns about government policy making this an "ideal situation" up with Obama, and the Congress, Gore is already doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #59
91. who says the "people" benefit?
The desire to make amends for everything from a trip to the Oscars to a morning commute has spawned a plethora of for-profit and nonprofit carbon offset providers... But the growing retail market, which is largely unregulated, also is raising questions among environmentalists who say not all offsets are created equal.

Theres a lack of standards in the voluntary market, and the offsets that people are purchasing might not be accomplishing what they hope they will, said Deborah Carlson, climate change campaigner with the David Suzuki Foundation, a Canadian environmental advocacy group.

When the environmental group Clean Air-Cool Planet commissioned a study on carbon offsets, communications manager Bill Burtis was surprised to find how few groups offered transparent details of their projects or had set up any process of independently verifying their environmental benefits...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659716/ns/business-going_... /


Please explain why an unregulated "carbon offset market" is needed to transition to solar, wind, etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #91
108. The final paragraph in your own link on post #94 explains the benefits
of carbon offsets.



Ultimately, mandatory government policy must be our primary approach to dealing with climate change and the GHG emissions that cause it. However, voluntary GHG offset markets can contribute to emissions mitigation and sustainable development objectives while government-mandated schemes are under development. Voluntary markets can also foster innovation through new technologies and project types still under evaluation by compliance emission markets. While governments focus on developing a consensus on GHG mitigation policies, or more stringent policies, the voluntary offset market, with proper government oversight, has the potential to play a significant role in mitigating future climate change.



Changing the world's societies is like turning a ship, not a sports car, in an ideal world, they wouldn't be needed but we don't live in an ideal world and time is running out to avert the worst effects of global warming climate change, so carbon offsets can be a useful tool until governments get their acts together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #34
133. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
35. Al Gore uses an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more energy than I do.
Mansions, SUVs, private jets. He's also a big advocate of "free trade" which merely moves pollution to the third world.

Where does he get the room to point fingers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. As does Gore's influence in bringing the issue of global warming climate change
front and center into the nation's consciousness in-spite of the powers arrayed against the message.


"Where does he get the room to point fingers?"


Are you suggesting the First Amendment doesn't apply to Gore in-spite of the fact that he championed magnifying your own freedom of speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. His personal hypocrisy hurts the cause in at least an equal measure.
?Are you suggesting the First Amendment doesn't apply to Gore in-spite of the fact that he championed magnifying your own freedom of speech."

No. I'm flat out saying that Al is a big fat hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches. (The First Amendment has to do with government restricting citizens' speech, btw. Not a THING to do with a private citizen criticizing Al Gore for personal hypocrisy! :silly: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. You're suggesting Gore should have no right to speak out because you perceive him
as being a hypocrite.

Gore lives a carbon neutral life style and he's preached global warming for decades long before he became a private citizen, but you know that.

The real reason you're pissed off at Gore is because he supported NAFTA which whether you believe it or not is or could be an *economic path to reducing the threat of global warming climate change.

*Subject to wise leadership in the White House and Congress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. I'm "suggesting" nothing. I am directly stating that Gore is a hypocrite,
and that therefore his advocacy for environmentalism tarnishes the whole movement with his hypocrisy and self-interest. :hi:

"Gore lives a carbon neutral life style"

Al pays someone money for the "right" to pollute more than 99.99% of the people on the planet. He's the worst sort of hypocrite. :hi: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. If Gore was a hypocrite, he wouldn't be paying any extra money for his energy usage.
The premiums he pays goes toward the development of renewable, sustainable energy, so you're wrong on all counts. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. No. If he was a hypocrite, he would use 10 or 100 times more energy than the average person
Then whine that the average person (who uses much LESS energy than ol' Al) should start conserving! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. Gore pays premiums to offset his carbon burning and that extra money goes toward the development of
green, sustainable renewable energy sources, most all people and society in general benefit from that.

It's a shame you can't see that. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #62
79. the rich can use whatever they want, the poor can be lectured to. fuck gore. we don't
need "carbon offsets" to build solar & wind. just a disguised cut for finance capital & a scam where big players can waste whatever they like & drive small players out of business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #79
90. You may not know this but the vast majority of the world runs on fossil fuels, the development
of green sustainable, renewable, energy sources can't come fast enough and carbon offsets is a useful tool in channeling much needed resources toward that goal.

If anything small players have another potential, financial resource; due to offsets to aid them against the behemoth fossil fuel corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. explain why it's a "useful tool".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #92
110. The final paragraph on your own link on post #94 explains it.


Ultimately, mandatory government policy must be our primary approach to dealing with climate change and the GHG emissions that cause it. However, voluntary GHG offset markets can contribute to emissions mitigation and sustainable development objectives while government-mandated schemes are under development. Voluntary markets can also foster innovation through new technologies and project types still under evaluation by compliance emission markets. While governments focus on developing a consensus on GHG mitigation policies, or more stringent policies, the voluntary offset market, with proper government oversight, has the potential to play a significant role in mitigating future climate change.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #110
120. it doesn't explain anything. it makes a claim without supporting evidence.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 04:59 PM by indurancevile
After devoting most of the article to explaining why carbon trading isn't functional NOW.

hERE ARE more reasons:

***

But how do people know they are getting what they are paying for? After all, this is a market that trades in a gas, or more accurately, units of a gas that are not produced.

In the United States, the trading is voluntary and nobody is in charge. That worries people whose job it is to protect consumers.

"Our concern is that because these claims are very hard to substantiate and consumers can't easily tell they're getting what they pay for, there is the real possibility of fraud in this market," says Jim Kohm of the FTC's enforcement division...

One of the things the FTC will investigate is "double selling," Kohm says. "So, for example, if I have solar panels on top of my store and then I sell somebody else the right to claim that carbon scrubbing, I can't then claim the carbon scrubbing for myself, as well."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17...


Carbon credit fraud:
The white collar crime of the future

Australias Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will
soon require the largest emitters
of greenhouse gases to offset their
carbon footprint. Such schemes
have already been subject to fraud,
misstatement and the involvement
of organised crime in the UK and
Europe. Deloitte Forensic is now
warning Australian companies
and regulators to prepare for the
potential fraud risks

Even a cursory look at the global carbon market in its
current form reveals some carbon credit fraud red flags
that simply cannot be ignored.

The global carbon market is now estimated to be worth
approximately $118 billion1. With the main participants
to this market being big business and government, these
features may attract highly organised fraud offenders to
Australias proposed CPRS. The CPRS is due to commence
in July 2011 but already evidence of fraud is being
uncovered that may seriously impact the reputation and
financial viability of Australian corporates.

Deloitte Forensic Financial Crime Partner Chris Noble
warned, An emissions trading scheme may well attract
highly organised fraudsters from overseas and Australia
prepared to exploit arrangements that will be trading
in billions of dollars. The warning signs are already
apparent...

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Australia/Local%20A...


Get in early on the ground floor! Superprofits!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #120
124. The economy drives or leads the government, surely you know that by now.
Most every development, industry or creation began as a private endeavor until the government stepped in to regulate it.

As I said before I have no problem with government regulation and neither does Gore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. I'm willing to give Gore a pass on private jets and stuff because he's got to compete with the likes

of Perry and Bachmann who also have private jets, corporate money and such. It helps him spread the message.

His "mansion" also houses his offices and his businesses. Much of what you hear about his energy consumption comes from Mt. Rushbo and the RW noise machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. And how about the multiple SUVs. Is there also a "perfectly good" explanation as to why Al gets 'em
and we don't?

"His "mansion" also houses his offices and his businesses"

As does my suburban bungalow. Why does Al get to suck down the juice if I can't? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. you may give him "a pass" but he's still spending energy. and in what sense does he have
to "compete" with bachmann?

he could stay in dc & send out daily psa's to the world to "spread the message".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #46
96. Bachmann and Perry and the others make statements against climate change across the nation every day

Its a campaign. You have to take it to the people.

Is Gore ever alone when he's in the SUV's? I highly doubt he travels without a cadre of at least 3-4 people. Security, personal assistants, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
82. His "mansion" also houses his offices and his businesses
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 03:01 PM by guardian
Yeah. Looks like every 'office buiilding' I've ever worked in. :sarcasm: Funny, I don't see many filing cabinets in the photos. But I'm sure they are right wing photos.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-gore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
55. I think the Conservatives don't like this
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 01:35 PM by fascisthunter
for obvious reasons....

poor, poor dick heads

"Oh my... global warming is worsened by man-made polution. Quick... attack Gore's credibility before people start listening to him!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #55
80. nice smear. yeah, posters who think gore is a hypocrite are "conservatives"
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 02:58 PM by indurancevile
who like pollution.

that's the ticket.

the criticism sticks on both sides of the aisle because IT'S TRUE. He's a hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #80
94. ...your efforts are a Smear and now you are
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 03:44 PM by fascisthunter
the hypocrite... you do nothing but try to get people here to dismiss the man and his concern's/efforts. So what's your end game if it isn't about smearing someone bringing attention to the most important topic of today's world? Are you doing anything to counter man's hand in Global Warming? No one spends the amount of time you have over such a thin argument...

... if I drive a car, does that mean I can say nothing about global warming to others hypocrite? You know damn well we all use energy to one degree or the other... so would all of our thoughts on this subject of man's hand in global warming be dismissed? That would be convienient, but that is not how reality works...

Think tanks need to come up with a better "smear tactic". Not smart...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #94
125. i dismiss the man and his efforts. if my argument is so "thin," why do you take such pains
to counter it?

as for your insinuation that i am part of some think tank devoted to smearing al gore, it's laughable, and also a violation of the du rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
61. I understand that he's making a rhetorical comparison
But it seems to me something science related would make a more reasonable comparison.
Language reflecting personal human discrimination can not be reasonably compared to that reflecting the equal opportunity effects of a denial of science.
Bad choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Gore isn't talking about the denial of science, he's talking about the demonization
of the scientists.



There came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural, Gore said. Then there came a time when people would say, Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I dont go for that so dont talk that way around me. I just dont believe that. That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate.

When asked by Bogusky about Rick Perrys recent comments against climate change, Gore focused on not just the Texas governor, but the entire anti-science movement.

This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money, Gore said.

These scientists dont make a lot of money. Theyre comfortable as they should be, but they dont make a lot of money. Its not in their nature to get ready to constantly defend themselves against political attacks. Thats not want they expected to be doing in their lives.



Personally I believe Gore could have used McCarthy Era language as an analogy but whether it's racism, witch hunts against political opponents or the denial of science, the required propaganda modus operandi of using demonization against a targeted group are the same.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. Racist language was not an organized attack
The language he refers to was not cleverly developed by organized groups who were involved in a political movement. It was not "used" to perpetuate and reinforce the validity of violence and hate towards individuals. It was ordinary daily language used en masse that perpetuated a hideous cultural norm. Average Joes with no relation to the klan were involved in randomly killing black men for looking at white women.

There is a personal distance between the scientist and his\her ideas that does not exist in the case of racism. The language attacks are not nearly as personal or hateful.
A comparison of efforts to discredit ideas and attacking integrity with speech that reflects personal hatred of an individual to a point that the person was potentially subject to violence is just not valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #68
84. I agree the language is not as hateful but the primary difference is the maturity of the language's
effect and hold on the people.

One thing is for certain it was the wealthy that promoted capturing, indenturing and eventually enslaving the African People, to facilitate the acceptance of such policies and institutions did require propaganda to normalize that kind of hatred in society.

Had the press of the day not demeaned people based on the color of their skin and/or land of their birth whether in print or toon, the "Average Joe's" perspective may have been more enlightened as well.

As I said the language isn't as hateful, but these aren't individuals being attacked, but a group of world wide messengers numbering in the thousands.

Furthermore should these scientists be demonized successfully, I'm convinced it won't stop there, intellectuals in general, and scientists in particular with the exception of those working for the military industrial complex will be hammered.

One of the hallmarks of most all autocratic societies is the persecution of intellectuals, the basic difference is a matter of degree and maturity.

So if Gore's warning serves to nip this in the bud, I would consider that to be a great service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
75. for those of you spewing hate..
and attacking Al Gore. here is a forum that would love your support!!!!!

http://www.americanthinker.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #75
81. ..
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 03:04 PM by indurancevile
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
War Horse Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
86. His point was
"How could they have thought that way", as in what future generations will think about the denialits. There could easily be a "Mad Men" series centered around AGW down the road.

I get the analogy, but from a communications viewpoint he might as well be chumming in shark infested waters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. It's like Jefferson giving a speech on civil rights...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek_sabre Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
122. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
130. This thread is like Bizarro World
Where else on DU can you get Gore-bashing and claims that climate change is a hoax?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #130
136. Agreed.
I don't even think offsets are sufficient but I'm not dishonest about how they work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
139. I get the linguistic analogy and he is very correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #139
142. there's no "linguistic analogy"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #142
143. I could try to 'xplain it
but I won;t try to hit my head agains the wall.

:banghead:

Peace

Oh and I do get your User Name, I am sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indurancevile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #143
144. yeah, i'm too stupid to grasp your "linguistic analogy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. I did not say that
but after readying upthread I really do not feel like hitting head on wall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
147. One more reason for Al Gore to be ignored and not taken seriously -
- He's no better than the rest of the "Do as I say, not as I do" evangelists out there and now he's calling names??

It's unfortunate and sad. The man once had access to the largest pulpit in the world to preach about environmental issues yet he didn't do it. Now he alienates people with this poorly conceived remark.

Certainly not the way to win friends or influence people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshguitar Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #147
149. deja vu
ad hominem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC