Posted on 02/08/2007 8:15:30 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Following in John Kerry's footsteps, former Vice President Al Gore was in Madrid, Spain, Wednesday basically blaming the world's problems on the country that made him a very wealthy man.
As reported by the Associated Press (h/t Drudge, emphasis mine throughout): "Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem, former Vice President Al Gore said Wdenesday."
Of course, Al Gore didn't mebntion that one of the fastest growing economies in the world is China's or that it is believed that nation has been buying twice its actual need for oil in the past five years to stockpile it for the future. Such facts are unimportant when you're trying to sell junk science.
Getting back to the recent announcement by China blaming America for global warming:
"They're right in saying that. But we have to act quickly," said Gore, who was nominated last week for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in drawing attention to global warming...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
China is indeed in love with coal fired electric plants.
The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United states and other developed countries without mandating "specific scheduled committments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea - the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing America can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every day China fires up a coal-fueled plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.
Link provided below to this article at MSNBC.
In addition to this, China has the top 7 most polluted cities on the planet, and 10 of the top 17.
What people should know is taking place in this global warming hysteria is that the the ol' tried-and-true tactics to scare people into believing that this global warming effect is man made are being implemented.
Liberals also use the following logical fallacies to try and paint the picture that global warming is man made.
Once is Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is a logical fallacy that seeks to use empirical evidence as being the proof of hypothetical causal relationships.
It goes something like this: Global warming has been rising after the onset of the Industrial Age, and this graph shows this. Therefore, because of the Industrial Age (brought on by man), we can see that the Industrial Age has led to global warming. What about Sun Spots? What about the earth's regular cooling and heating cycles which have been ongoing for thousands of years?. Empirical evidence of these is discounted when trying to pull of the aforementioned Post Hoc, ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Another logical fallacy employed by the left is Appeal to Unqualified Authority. This is when the arguer's evidence hinges upon the testimony of one who is not an expert on the issue at hand.
Were a left-winger to say the following, one could quite possibly see that fallacy at work:
What about Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth"? His documentrary shows that global warming is man made!
But, Al Gore is not an expert on global warming, hence the fallacious Appeal to Unqualified Authority.
The third is the Slippery Slope Fallacy.
When a left-winger says: We must act fast!... We must do something, or we are doomed! you can see the Slippery Slope Fallacy at work.
Theses fallacies end up helping the hysteria along.
Where does the hysteria ultimately point to: The Kyoto Treaty.
The nuts and bolts of the Kyoto Treaty is basically this: Those so-called "developed nations" would have to curb their fuel emissions. In order to keep their economies from being hurt, they can buy credits from undeveloped/developing nations at the tune of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars over a period of time. Where does that money come from? U.S. tax-payers. Where does it go? To so-called undeveloped/poor nations.
Income redistribution.....
George F. Will
Inconvenient Kyoto Truths (through Freerepublic and milwguy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1779610/posts
Al's fat with Chinese contributions. The fact he defends them is hardly suprising.
Global Warming Hysteria == Income Distribution == Socialism/Communism, plain and simple. Same bully tactics, same junk science (Marx claimed that communism was based on a scientific approach to government), same power-hungry [explitive deleted] scumbags trying to use it all to grab power.
People, this power grab disguised as environmentalism is as big of a threat as Islamofacism, if not bigger. These people have to be exposed and stopped.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/20/INGCGKJSB61.DTL&hw=al+gore&sn=001&sc=1000
Gore talks the talk, but ...
Global warming guru hardly lives a carbon-neutral lifestyle
Peter Schweizer
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the Web site for his film, "An Inconvenient Truth." "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."
Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent lightbulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.
For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics Pictures, the film's distributor, pays this.)
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and 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 recently, 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 Web site 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.
Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.
Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas. Living carbon-free apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock-free. Nor does it necessarily mean forgoing a mining royalty, either.
Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore received $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operated a zinc concession on his property at least until late 2003. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork.
The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth, and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.
Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." A version of this piece appeared in USA Today. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
Comrade Alexi Gore-bechev,
We thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
The Communist Party
Red China
"Don't get snippity with me George Jr."
-Al Gore on election night 2000
What I had to say - which came after 'Link provided below to this article at MSNBC' - will help some to see what is taking place.
A corollary to this is the 'circular reference', or 'circle jerk', if you like. One unqualified "expert" references another unqualified "expert", whom in turn references the first unqualified "expert" whom in turn references...well, you get it.
The (intended?) consequence of allowing China to play by different rules will be even more exporting of manufacturing jobs from Europe and the U.S. to China.
This is why no one takes the enviros serious(except pombo), if it is bad for the enviroment then everybody should be curtailing it not just the USA and thats why more and more people get disgusted with there statements
I know Al Gore has brown eyes,because I know what he is full of.
Sounds like those Lippo Group investments are still paying dividends
I wish someone would have the stones to charge Gore with treason----along with Jane Fonda and John Kerry
And that doesn't include the unregisterred and illegal power stations built (and the unregulated and unsafe coal mines to support them)....China has already enough illegal power supplies working that generate enough electricity to ower up most of Europe....article in Wall St Journal last month.
nobody is going to cut back.
nobody
I most regret 'W's lack of verbal agility that makes him such an easy target, but in comparison to his electoral competition, how very lucky the USofA has been to have had him as President.
I can easily construct a scenario of post 9/11 where President Gore continues his predecessor's inclination to treat terrorism as a criminal activity instead of as an 'Act of War' and settled for an attack on Afghanistan and ended up with an arc of evil from Lebanon to Pakistan with ever increasing potential of nuclear armaments.
Meanwhile he follows the Kyoto protocols as an Executive action without reference to the Congress and thus between this and the 'dot com bust' of 2000 leading to the typical Democrat response of higher taxes and more regulation while we suffer increased terrorism. This would have probably lead to a tsunami electoral GOP sweep in 2004, but what would we have had to pay in the meantime?!?!?
What-If scenarios are problematic at best and maybe President Al Gore would have turned out much differently if he was the man on the spot at Ground Zero on September 2001, but I have my doubts - strong ones!
If Kyoto does not reduce global warming, then unless the people who prepared it are idiots (which presumably they are not) it must then serve a different purpose, and that purpose is wealth redistribution. Much like the Law of the Sea Treaty and recently proposed limits on nanotechnology research and production, Kyoto would result in transfers of wealth from the West to "developing" countries without any demonstrable benefit to anyone other than those in control of the developing countries and the NGO's that would mediate the transfer of wealth.
Ain't gonna happen when more than 50% of the voters in this country go out of their way to support and try to elect traitors.
In a word, YES.
Its nice to know that, when Al Gore is bought, he stays bought.
Don't be fooled. The dirty little secret about global warming is this: IT DOESN'T EXIST! We are just experiencing a natural long term global climate cycle (ice ages alternating with tropical periods).
The "Inconvenient Truth" to the hype is that socialists have siezed on the "Global Warming" BIG LIE to push a socialist agenda. The Kyoto treaty would create a condition for the global redistribution of wealth, the socialists ultimate goal.
"Global Warming" is just a rallying point for the masses, the real socialists could care less about the climate. Part of their agenda: All naysayers need to be punished for bringing the truth to light.
Global Warming has become the religion of socialism, the Kyoto Treaty is its holy scripture and Al Gore is its Messiah. You either believe or you are a heretic.
I hadn't paid much attention to post modern philosophy or any philosophy for that matter. The subject just seemed to deep, ever since my first and only course in the philosophy of religion, as a freshman. But an article on the Duke lacrosse case woke me to the fact that post modernism is the philosophy that we, as conservatives are battling in our universities and politics. "Most universities are no longer temples of knowledge, but of power, and true moderns worship there" (Dean Koontz in Brother Odd)
(from the American Standard on the Duke case, discussing the gang of 88 professors) Postmodern theorists pride themselves in discerning what they call "meta-narratives." They argue that such concepts as, say, Christianity or patriotism or the American legal system are no more than socially constructed tall tales that the postmodernists can then "deconstruct" to unmask the real purpose behind them, which is (say the postmodernists) to prop up societal structures of--yes, you guessed it--race, gender, class, and white male privilege.
Oh, and virtually ALL post modernists are socialists.
You have to keep in mind that on a PER CAPITA basis, America and other developed nations consume significantly more energy and thereby emit more carbon dioxide than developing countries like China. China's populations is 4 times that of the US. So, with that fact, China should be allowed 4 times the carbon emissions (but they still emit less than the US). So even by your projection, China's additional 2200 new coal plants by 2030, would unlikely result in China churning out 4 times the carbon dioxide as the US.
The rest of the world is clamouring for the same standard of the living as the US and would want the same quota of carbon emissions (on a per capita basis). So, I agree with Gore, while developing nations are increasing the use of energy (and thereby increasing carbon emissions), the developed nations need to come up with the technology to emit less carbon dioxide with the energy they are already consuming. per capita energy consumption in US: 333 million BTU per capita energy consumption in China: 46 million BTU
That would be to good for him. How about deporting him to China if he likes them so well. Six months later we would probably catch him crossing the border in Mexico.
And remember during the debates with Pres. Bush how he stood right by him while Pres. Bush was talking and just stared at him, etc. Al's a nut job I tell you!
The Stalker
Remember the Bhuddist Monks (vow of poverty and all) who somehow magically gave Al Gore's 2000 campaign what, a hundred thousand ?
Since when does the Nobel peace prize have anything to do with climate change? Come to think of it, since when does the Nobel peace prize have anything to do with peace?
I find it interesting that you apparently seek to turn the attention away from the big lies that are pushing the global warming hysteria and turn the attention rather onto Noel Sheppard.
Your post is an Appeal to Ignorance.
It depends on your intent and goal. If you're goal is to ensure all energy sources (and thereby carbon emissions quota) to yourself and those around you, then, maybe.
But if you want to be fair to the rest of the world, then it is not.
Here is a sample of US electrical energy source. Notice how 70% is from fossil fuels:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
China recently reported a capacity of 622,000 MW (vs over 1,000,000 MW for the US as reported in the link). Though, China's reported capacity is second largest in the world, it is far from what the average American consumes in electricity. Should not China with it's 1.3 billion people (vs 300 million in the US) not have at least the same generating capcity as the US if not more (4 times more that is)?
So, once again, I agree with Al Gore. And those who don't, have ulterior motives of keeping the global energy source (and any carbon emissions quota), to themselves.
Just because Noel Sheppard is on the right side, doesn't make him any less of a clueless idiot. Anyone can join the bandwagon.
Thanks for the info. Gore has lost any small amount of credibility he may have once had in defending China's environmental atrocities.
[The politics of the environment is the main front in deconstructing capitalism and life as we know it. Post modernism is the philosophy behind it.]
Ugh, sorry, but I don't think your argument really makes any sense in this particular context. Blanket judgements and statements, imho, are never accurate. That being said, the evidence (not just opinion) is that the natural environment actually is in very bad shape, now the causation and solutions are certainly up for debate. It's not really if we have a problem at this point, but how are we going to fix it.
Please read #41.
Thanks.
I don't believe that is what I was promoting; UN or any dictations to US emissions. However, I'm glad you said what you said. So, with that in mind, do you also believe the US also shouldn't dictate to China how much carbon THEY (China) should be emitting?
One must look at the amount (x amount) of Co2 that China is pumping into the atmosphere, not the amount per capita.
China will pass the United States very soon in the amount (x) of Co2 that they are pumping into the atmosphere. If China pumps an equal amount, then they should be held to the same standard that the U.S. is being held to. Oh, but some might say that this nation is 4 times as large as the U.S., so they get to pump more Co2 into the atmosphere. No, we go by the amount (x), so that we do not go down the road of other nations and entities deciding what we can do and what we can't regarding our economy.
Well, in that case, should we compare the US to carbon emissions of Canada, Finland, or Australia? The US pumps many many times more carbon into the atmosphere than these countries. On a per capita basis, it may be in similar amounts, but since the US is much larger than any of these countries, should the US not be allowed it's already large volume of carbon or should the US also be held to the same volumes as Finland? Lets make that "x-amount" to what Finland or Australia is emitting. BTW, Finland is about 2% the size of US population and Australia about 7%.
The informal fallacies and junk science that is being touted by the media, Gore, and other socialists (the UN) are being implemented to try and lead the U.S. to the Kyoto Treaty.
There the United Nations can dictate to us how much Co2 that we can pump into the atmosphere. If we wish to keep our economy chugging along, then we must buy "credits" from other nations (most of them poor ones). Income redistribution.
I don't believe I was promiting Gore's agenda nor stating whether I agreed or disagreed with the affects of greenhouse gases (I do have my opinion, but was not stating it here). My point was, given the overall acceptance of the effects of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2), China, overall, should be allowed more for the reasons I stated (i.e., based on per capita).
As far as buying credits, I never said I agreed with the process.
Based upon what I have read from you, and your comments concerning Gore, you do not belong here at FR. Socialism not allowed.
Perhaps not. However, I never expoused socialism on this post nor anywhere else on FR. I believe in free market and limited government as you do. I believe success comes from it. It just boggles me that as China moves down that road (greater free market and less government) China gets singled out more and more for every hot button issue. And many postings on FR is very visceral about anything to do with China's growing influence.
Despite your defensiveness about the US being dictated to about carbon emissions by the UN, it will be, in the long run, China being dictated to by the US about China's carbon emissions. And when that happens, this FR board will be filled with hawkish opinions about China's environmental handlings. And ironically, by those who were most appalled by any suggestions that the US sign the Kyoto protocol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.