Save the Planet!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailpower

... it seems to this non-elite "we" that these discussions couched as environmental concerns are really just about creating the “To each according to his ability, to each according to his need” utopia that some find so appealing. For some reason it hasn’t ever worked has it?

It appears that the interests who benefit from the status quo have been quite successful at portraying the very real energy/climate/pollution issues we face, as nothing more than some sort of leftie power grab. So I can't completely blame you for buying into it.

None of us here, bobbing about in our expensive water-toys, will live to see the outcome of inaction anyway, so, who gives a f$@k, amirite? Too bad if you have kids and grandkids, of course.

There are of course 1001 reasons besides climate change why it might make long-term sense to maybe set policies to pollute less, and leave just a bit of the oil for future generations, but everyone's doubled down on climate change, so if one can successfully portray "climate change" as just a left-wing plot, then no-one has to change a thing. More drive-thrus! Again, kudos to the masterminds behind that.

Once, the root of conservative was "conserve", but times change, I guess.

[Blue Crab]

Thanks hpeer for the cool song. I'd forgotten my "Political Science."

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The whole "Al Gore needs to sit perfectly still and emit 1 megawatt/hr of usable energy before we'll believe him about conservation" argument is ...juvenile. Really. Grow up people.

Not least because, like the others, you don't actually know what his personal action has been. You only know "rich guy, big house". What - rich people don't know from energy conservation? They don't try to save energy and money? Clue: there are actually guys who got rich by inventing things that have improved energy efficiency. Are they suddenly hypocrites too?

As I asked of the others - prove it. List out the things Al Gore has "preached", then indicate the activity/behaviour that makes him a hypocrite. Because of the mountains of bs around this whole argument, links and cites would be deeply appreciated.

Many economists and energy advocates have praised the concept of trading carbon credits. Take that up with them.

I certainly understand your desire to evade this topic and implying that the comments are juvenile and thus require “growing up” is certainly one way to do it although rather juvenile in its own right if I may point that out.

Same with, no I won’t actually talk about carbon credits myself because defending them would make me look silly and I don’t like that.

Got it.

RE: your strawman point about the comment, "Al Gore needs to sit perfectly still and emit 1 megawatt/hr of usable energy before we'll believe him about conservation"...

I will offer these observations;

• It is very clever to put that in quotes as if someone had actually said it thus giving you the opportunity to point out how stupid it is and therefore how stupid anyone must be to even bring up algore.

• If algore actually had a more normal carbon foot print then there would be no need to point out his hypocrisy.

• You may have heard that as his “science” crumbles around him he has recently closed over 90% of his field offices. Interesting, no?

On to the brave new world.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailpower

RE: your strawman point about the comment, "Al Gore needs to sit perfectly still and emit 1 megawatt/hr of usable energy before we'll believe him about conservation"...

I will offer these observations;

• It is very clever to put that in quotes as if someone had actually said it thus giving you the opportunity to point out how stupid it is and therefore how stupid anyone must be to even bring up algore.

Homework - read up about sarcasm and hyperbole.

• If algore actually had a more normal carbon foot print then there would be no need to point out his hypocrisy.

Who's evading now? What's a normal carbon footprint for an ex- Vice-President of the United States, and how has Al overstepped it? How stupid can we get with this?

• You may have heard that as his “science” crumbles around him he has recently closed over 90% of his field offices. Interesting, no?

... meaning what, exactly? I wouldn't have endured the sh!tstorm one-tenth as long as he has. And the science isn't crumbling, just the attention-span of the great unwashed. This will play out over decades, not a handful of years.

On to the brave new world.

We won't be around for it. let the kids and grandkids sort it out, amirite?

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Krogensailor

So the guy who works at the jiffy lube is going to have the same needs and requirements as the guy who run's a nation? There will always be people in and around our lives that require more in order to accomplish what we ask them to do. It's a matter of scale. And if we're for capitalism, and my guess is that you are, than those who produce more get more. If we just take you or I for example. We're sitting here tapping away on our keyboards, interacting with half a dozens folks. Doesn't take much infrastructure to pull that off. Bump that up to interacting with thousands of folks on a weekly bases and the needed resources climb. Often to the level of personal or leased air craft. These facts have nothing to do with politics or parties.

Your right. It has everything to do with capital gains and self aggrandizement. These things you reserve for a privileged few while trying to justify why the rest of us should aspire to something less. To make matters worse, you would codify this privilege into law. Smarten up.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Conachair,

once again I find we agree on a lot.

Unfortunately spot on.

Thank you
See what's it's like to be a process of a brain? "we're all doomed....."...
" I agree"....
"Excellent, I feel good"..

Worth bearing in mind that in the unimaginable distances of the universe the only place concepts such as "good" "bad", "should" etc exist (so far are as conceptual ideas created by a few pounds of flesh inside our heads.
Doesn't make a rainbow or beethoven feel any less beautiful but might be worth bearing in mind prior to assuming "the answer" exists.
But by the same path, it's OK to be happy

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It appears that the interests who benefit from the status quo have been quite successful at portraying the very real energy/climate/pollution issues we face, as nothing more than some sort of leftie power grab. So I can't completely blame you for buying into it.

None of us here, bobbing about in our expensive water-toys, will live to see the outcome of inaction anyway, so, who gives a f$@k, amirite? Too bad if you have kids and grandkids, of course.

There are of course 1001 reasons besides climate change why it might make long-term sense to maybe set policies to pollute less, and leave just a bit of the oil for future generations, but everyone's doubled down on climate change, so if one can successfully portray "climate change" as just a left-wing plot, then no-one has to change a thing. More drive-thrus! Again, kudos to the masterminds behind that.

Once, the root of conservative was "conserve", but times change, I guess.

IMHO, I think you are mixing up a few things.

You seem to really like the strawman approach. You make a statement that is misleading and inaccurate then condescendingly offer your “understanding” to those who would clearly have to be simpletons to buy into it. Clever.

First, I don’t know anyone who has ever said that climate doesn’t change. Climate has been changing dramatically here since day one. How could anyone say that is not so?

The disagreement comes in as to the cause of why the climate changes. The left wing (your term), as you correctly point out, blames it on man and insists that if enough wealth is redistributed then man can positively affect the climate, i.e. make it change to where the left wants it to be. I haven’t heard what the final sum needs to be. Perhaps you know?

The left also offers the strategy that anyone who doesn’t want to change THEIR lifestyle can simply buy credits or stock in some sort of carbon company and he/she will have done their part and be fine stewards of the earth no matter how much energy they consume.

Obviously, when clearly stated, those two premises do not survive logical scrutiny.

Now, cutting down on pollution is an excellent idea and one that most people support once it is decoupled from the above. Sadly, it is often characterized as both or nothing.

Conservation is also a very good idea unless by conserving you mean driving up the price of oil to $500/barrel as has been suggested here. There appears to be lots of oil and gas available particularly as technology advances. Let’s get it.

Becoming more energy efficient here at home would also be a very good thing except to those who see the world as one village with them in charge. That would be the whole utopia thing I mentioned earlier.

Nostrovia!

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Homework - read up about sarcasm and hyperbole.

Who's evading now? What's a normal carbon footprint for an ex- Vice-President of the United States, and how has Al overstepped it? How stupid can we get with this?

... meaning what, exactly? I wouldn't have endured the sh!tstorm one-tenth as long as he has. And the science isn't crumbling, just the attention-span of the great unwashed. This will play out over decades, not a handful of years.

We won't be around for it. let the kids and grandkids sort it out, amirite?

Politicians are not Royalty. They go back to being private citizens like the rest of us. They are free parlay their insights into the machinations of government into a second career. They are subject to the law just as any private citizen. That is the problem with your argument. You are comfortable with carve-outs and exemptions for the well connected, in effect creating a special class for which the majiority will be denied entry because of prohibitions mandated on them. Amrite?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailpower

The disagreement comes in as to the cause of why the climate changes. The left wing (your term), as you correctly point out, blames it on man and insists that if enough wealth is redistributed then man can positively affect the climate, i.e. make it change to where the left wants it to be. I haven’t heard what the final sum needs to be. Perhaps you know?

Wow. _I_ create strawmen? You really have imbibed every drop of oil-lobby Koolaid. An entire branch of science is colluding with a socialist cabal to redistribute wealth. Wooooo.

I can guess where this "redistribute wealth" crap slipped in from, but you didn't hear it from me.

The left also offers the strategy that anyone who doesn’t want to change THEIR lifestyle can simply buy credits or stock in some sort of carbon company and he/she will have done their part and be fine stewards of the earth no matter how much energy they consume.

This threadbare distortion is much too flimsy to even be a strawman. I thought you might have had better arguments to make, but, no.

Obviously, when clearly stated, those two premises do not survive logical scrutiny.

******** never does.

Now, cutting down on pollution is an excellent idea and one that most people support once it is decoupled from the above. Sadly, it is often characterized as both or nothing.

That coupling is a fiction of the right. Or maybe it's just yours. Anyway, there were always other excuses for not being responsible. But demonizing the whole AGW process has been much more effective.

Conservation is also a very good idea unless by conserving you mean driving up the price of oil to $500/barrel as has been suggested here. There appears to be lots of oil and gas available particularly as technology advances. Let’s get it.

There's more than we previously thought. But it will still be pretty much done in about 200 years tops. And the developing world will insist in wallowing in it just as much as we are. This won't have an effect on things? (oops sorry you don't care. Stop the lefties!)

Becoming more energy efficient here at home would also be a very good thing except to those who see the world as one village with them in charge. That would be the whole utopia thing I mentioned earlier.

Clutch your AGW-lefty-utopia myth tightly. Sing to it as you gently rock in your corner.

When you're ready to discuss the real situation, I'm all ears.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Politicians are not Royalty. They go back to being private citizens like the rest of us. They are free parlay their insights into the machinations of government into a second career. They are subject to the law just as any private citizen. That is the problem with your argument. You are comfortable with carve-outs and exemptions for the well connected, in effect creating a special class for which the majiority will be denied entry because of prohibitions mandated on them. Amrite?

You're welcome to play along, too. List out the specific "preaching" that Al Gore has done, and beside it list his action/behaviour that makes him hypocritical. Be specific, let's have some links, cos we both know this is an unexplored claim.

I see you buy into the evil axis of science colluding with the left for world domination. Good for you!

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It doesn't f'ing matter what _I_ do. Who made you referee? I might equally say your argument is worthless cos you can't even spell.

Mike O'R nailed this - the only winner in your game would be a homeless guy eating weeds and sleeping under recycled cardboard.

Or more precisely:

Why do you hate freedom, free speech, and people who are successful in life? And how do you know exactly what Al Gore does to manage his energy usage and carbon footprint? Cos you don't, right?

In fact, you don't even know what he "preaches", do you? What does he preach that he himself isn't living up to? Be specific, quote, show links.

Hang up that childish little rant.There's lots more real stuff to work with.

Who is being childish? LOL !!

And I am getting a big kick out of the ice bound "Global Warming Research" ship that's still stuck.
The Chinese ship that came to save them also got stuck in the ice. You can't make this stuff up !

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/03/sh...niers-rejoice/

Media too embarrassed to mention the ship was on a global warming search.

http://www.examiner.com/article/repo...ship-stuck-ice


More LOLOL.
Now it's the US Coast Guard's turn. Stay tuned.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/0...mawson-fiasco/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Who is being childish? LOL !!

I send you a nice video and you complain. That's gratitude for ya...

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're welcome to play along, too. List out the specific "preaching" that Al Gore has done, and beside it list his action/behaviour that makes him hypocritical. Be specific, let's have some links, cos we both know this is an unexplored claim.

I see you buy into the evil axis of science colluding with the left for world domination. Good for you!

Since my initial post to this thread was deleted by the Moderator for, believe it or not, content not pertaining to 'Cruising'.... I'll leave your assumptions about me unchallenged. The simple fact you continue to defend Al Gore is all the rest of need to know about your contribution to Cruising and Saving the Planet.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tar34

The simple fact you continue to defend Al Gore is all the rest of need to know about your contribution to Cruising and Saving the Planet.

You're on to something there.

The simple fact that our discussion has meandered around Al Gore, and how to gauge conservation holiness, and science colluding with lefties for World Domination... and hardly a breath expended on the real problems we face... underscores how effectively the whole issue has been successfully distorted and recast as a pure left-right ideological tug of war, instead of the discussion of scientific observation and extrapolation... science is losing, and losing bad.

Anyhoo, I gotta go. algore is dying to show off his new mink-lined jet. We're jetting off to dine on dolphin sushi then off to molest some underage Asians... or is it the other way around? Doesn't matter. Then we'll be inspecting the new ocean-heater and coral-bleacher the Scientists have perfected.

Buy more gas. Don't let the scientists win!

LE out.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

When you're ready to discuss the real situation, I'm all ears.

No, I don't think so. All I have seen is you throwing labels towards those with whom you disagree. I never brought up political party. You did and then I commented on it. You haven't stopped talking about it since.

You do pick your spots and avoid most of the minefields that would wreck your argument. That is understandable when the argument is as weak as global cooling, no wait, global warming, no wait, climate change being man made.

You say that my points re carbon credits are flimsy, threadbare distortions but don't say why that is. Seems curious from someone who claims to want to have a "real' discussion.

You claim that there might be a 200 year supply of oil. I have never heard such an optimistic projection but, if true, wouldn't that be a good thing? Apparently not as you go on to characterize its use as "wallowing".

You claim not to understand the wealth redistribution arguments made with regard to carbon, cap and trade, etc so maybe that would be a good lookup for you. You might not agree but at least you would understand what the conversation is about.

You mentioned that as a past VP, algore should justifiably have different energy consumption levels then those of us who are non-past VP's. I'm wondering what that higher usage should properly be? Maybe you could express it as a %. I am also curious how algore would compare to say, the previous 4 past VP's? I assume there is some correlation otherwise you wouldn't have made that point.

Sounds like a discussion of the "real situation" in the making.