On the one hand, its kinda fun to see folks like him get all worked up.
On the other hand, he reacts like he wasn't aware of the tactics and methods until recently. C'mon... He was VP, fer krissake... He didn't expect anyone to use this kinda shit after he left office?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/al-gore-global-warming-rant_n_921721.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/al-gore-global-warming-rant_n_921721.html)
Quote from: Barum on August 11, 2011, 12:33:16 AM
On the one hand, its kinda fun to see folks like him get all worked up.
On the other hand, he reacts like he wasn't aware of the tactics and methods until recently. C'mon... He was VP, fer krissake... He didn't expect anyone to use this kinda shit after he left office?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/al-gore-global-warming-rant_n_921721.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/al-gore-global-warming-rant_n_921721.html)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I think the thing that did it for me was being presented with the famously uptight Al Gore spewing those "naughty" words... You can almost hear the spittle escaping his mouth during the explosive consonants.
My favorite Al Gore joke? One he actually uttered himself:
"How do you find Al Gore in a room full of Secret Service agents? He's the stiff one."
Fuck Al Gore. He was in charge of the environment under Clinton and he authorized a ton of new drilling. Global Warming is real, Al Gore has no interest in solving it, just using it for his own gain.
You make some points there, BabylonHoruv.... I think that....
Nah. Nevermind. I'll leave it at that.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE MIGHTY AL GORE! :argh!:
HE IS A GOD, HE INVENTED THE INTERNET!!!
Had to be said. :kingmeh:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 11, 2011, 01:04:22 AM
Fuck Al Gore. He was in charge of the environment under Clinton and he authorized a ton of new drilling. Global Warming is real, Al Gore has no interest in solving it, just using it for his own gain.
Is your argument that Al Gore's message should be ignored because he's financially invested in climate change?
Quote from: Cramulus on August 11, 2011, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 11, 2011, 01:04:22 AM
Fuck Al Gore. He was in charge of the environment under Clinton and he authorized a ton of new drilling. Global Warming is real, Al Gore has no interest in solving it, just using it for his own gain.
Is your argument that Al Gore's message should be ignored because he's financially invested in climate change?
Well it's likely he IS invested in the sorts of technology that new government regulations will force major companies to purchase in order to stay in compliance.
I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to question his motivation as a conflict of interest.
If he's using his bully pull pit and connections to drive his own net worth though influencing government regulations, regardless of his message, shouldn't he be called out the same way you would if he wasn't Al Gore?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 11, 2011, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on August 11, 2011, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 11, 2011, 01:04:22 AM
Fuck Al Gore. He was in charge of the environment under Clinton and he authorized a ton of new drilling. Global Warming is real, Al Gore has no interest in solving it, just using it for his own gain.
Is your argument that Al Gore's message should be ignored because he's financially invested in climate change?
Well it's likely he IS invested in the sorts of technology that new government regulations will force major companies to purchase in order to stay in compliance.
I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to question his motivation as a conflict of interest.
If he's using his bully pull pit and connections to drive his own net worth though influencing government regulations, regardless of his message, shouldn't he be called out the same way you would if he wasn't Al Gore for a better environment and cleaner technology?
divorce the signal from its political context
is it a good signal?
that's the pragmatic question to ask
If you dismiss the carbon-emission message because the guy championing it is not a pure-hearted messiah who walks barefoot through the crowds,
there's a good chance you are unable to recognize a good signal when you hear it anyway.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 11, 2011, 04:03:31 PM
divorce the signal from its political context
is it a good signal?
that's the pragmatic question to ask
If you dismiss the carbon-emission message because the guy championing it is not a pure-hearted messiah who walks barefoot through the crowds,
there's a good chance you are unable to recognize a good signal when you hear it anyway.
Admittedly, I'm first inclined to ask "who profits most" when someone is championing something.
I get that it's for a better environment and cleaner technology. I tend to question a guy flying around in a private jet harping on "everyone else" being good environmental stewards.
Signal is good. Relay for signal is corrupt.
don't get me wrong, I am not an Al Gore Fanboy. IIRC I didn't vote for him, and I've never even seen An Inconvenient Truth.
I just think it's a shame how easily distracted we get by an opportunity to call bullshit.
If we want to live in a better world, we have to pick out which signals are actually improving it and jump on board. We have to re-transmit and amplify those signals, make them ubiquitous. If we are lucky, people will change their behaviors or act on those signals.
People who transmit signals -- especially the powerful and wealthy people capable of communicating a signal to the large masses -- are in a cloudy aether. They sit in a muddy position. Not one single leader, be they entrepreneur, politician, religious, or academic, is so pure that they don't get mud on them. Not one single human being is 100% virtuous, 100% trustworthy, 100% uncompromised. So let's put away that measurement stick, it has nothing to do with the signal.
Sturgeons Law:
90% of everything is crap
the forces which are going to save the world -- do you think they're going to come from the remaining 10%? No way man, they're going to be crap too.
That sounds like it could be a very grim statement, but I think there is something positive to take away from it.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 11, 2011, 04:03:31 PM
divorce the signal from its political context
is it a good signal?
that's the pragmatic question to ask
If you dismiss the carbon-emission message because the guy championing it is not a pure-hearted messiah who walks barefoot through the crowds,
there's a good chance you are unable to recognize a good signal when you hear it anyway.
Hear hear! Well said.
I'm in Crams camp on this one, I think. It would be assinine (hell, maybe even Assi-ten or eleven) to think someone is doing ANYTHING without, at least, the thought of some form of personal gain.
the difference is this: I could promote harmful methods for personal gain, or I could promote helpful methods for personal gain. The personal gain part is the same in both instances, but the message that is put out is very different.
Think of it this way: If he has invested in the development of greener tech, then he has literally put his money where his mouth is. He has given his own money to these companies. Which means he's involved and interested in seeing it continue and develop. Which, I think, has more integrity than a person who goes around talking about the environment but isn't willing to invest in the necessary research and development.
Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification gents.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 11, 2011, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 11, 2011, 01:04:22 AM
Fuck Al Gore. He was in charge of the environment under Clinton and he authorized a ton of new drilling. Global Warming is real, Al Gore has no interest in solving it, just using it for his own gain.
Is your argument that Al Gore's message should be ignored because he's financially invested in climate change?
My arguement is that solutions he proposes should be examined carefully because when he was in a position to make a huge difference he did not do so. Cap and Trade, for example, does not strike me as a very good solution to anything. So basically yes, he's invested both financially and from a reputation standpoint in climate change and has no real interest in making it better.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 11, 2011, 06:18:31 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on August 11, 2011, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 11, 2011, 01:04:22 AM
Fuck Al Gore. He was in charge of the environment under Clinton and he authorized a ton of new drilling. Global Warming is real, Al Gore has no interest in solving it, just using it for his own gain.
Is your argument that Al Gore's message should be ignored because he's financially invested in climate change?
My arguement is that solutions he proposes should be examined carefully because when he was in a position to make a huge difference he did not do so. Cap and Trade, for example, does not strike me as a very good solution to anything. So basically yes, he's invested both financially and from a reputation standpoint in climate change and has no real interest in making it better.
Kinda this.
Gore's message of 'we need to stop fucking up the environment' is a good message.
It's his solutions that need to be looked as to ensure he isn't just touting them for financial gain. I'm all for improved nuclear capacity, electric or hybrid cars, supplementing electrical base load with solar, wind, or other forms of clean energy.
Paying for carbon offsets though? I'm not sure about that. I've seen it compared to the Vatican selling indulgences and I currently agree.
You're all idiots.
The only thing that matters if is his arguments are factually correct. I don't give shit if he's pushing a puppy-raping gold dispenser, so long as he's right.
Quote from: Cain on August 11, 2011, 06:41:01 PM
You're all idiots.
The only thing that matters if is his arguments are factually correct. I don't give shit if he's pushing a puppy-raping gold dispenser, so long as he's right.
and if puppy-raping gold dispensers are wrong..
I don't want to be right
hey, at least it's not cats
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 11, 2011, 06:18:31 PM
when he was in a position to make a huge difference he did not do so.
In politics, the thing that can get done is usually not the thing that will work the best.
It's not like the VP has a "make it so" button on his desk.
I think Richard Cheney had one.
Quote from: Cain on August 11, 2011, 06:41:01 PM
You're all idiots.
The only thing that matters if is his arguments are factually correct. I don't give shit if he's pushing a puppy-raping gold dispenser, so long as he's right.
This.