|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 1. I never made any such claim about Gore and global warming. That was a side point and only intended to show the hypocrisy of some on the evironomentalist side. I never said that climate change was B.S. What I DID say is that those who claim climate change is occuring and it is the sole or very nearly the sole fault of mankind should practise what they preach. This would give them greater credibility and advance their cause more. |
Actually, only the small-minded need worry about whether or not he's being hypocritical. Now, since he is not, it is even less imperative they do so. The issues of GW stand whether he is a hypocrite or not. Only the intellectually inferior, unintelligent or uninformed would think that any given person's hypocrisy is relevant to the issue.
(1) Given that he is not being hypocritical - one must act opposite of what they believe to be a hypocrite, which Gore is not doing - your post was both wrong and irrelevant.
| Quote: |
| 2. I described the Green switch using the words of their own spokesman. Go tell him that he is wrong. |
(2)You failed to use the full description. The green switch enables people to pay for power production with green energy that equals their own footprint, thus balancing their energy use.
What you fail to point out about credits - and, again, I am not yet sold on the idea - is that they may be the only way to allow some companies to not be obliterated by the costs of adaption. They also may give people such as Gore the time flexibility they need to become fully green.
You, however, posted solely on Gore's hypocrisy, which doesn't exist, as a purely politicized slander. You are not an honest actor. |
1. Utter nonsense. It has already been established that Gore is a hypocrite. Three houses and a private jet and car. The buying of credits is not relevant as the reliability of them has not been established. Gore uses 20 times what the average household uses in energy..but it's okay because he buys credits which are sold to him by a company he owns? In fact we only have Gore's word that he actually buys these credits in the first place...and we don't even know who is offsetting this. And that's only ONE house. What about the other ones?
2. Green energy is not sold to houses. It is included in the mix (together with "dirty" energy (to distinguish from green). Neither Gore nor anybody else has any way of telling whether the PARTICULAR amount of energy that his house consumes comes from green sources or dirty ones. |
Good points Myth. I must though take exception to your claim that mankind is a small contributer to gobal warming. As GAJ pointed out, what else has changed so much as mankind's pumping pollutants into the air?
But yes I agree that Gore is a hypocrite. This whole credit business reminds me of nothing so much as the selling of indulgences way back when. The rich got to sin with impunity(or so they thought) while the poor had to live a moral life. Same applies here. The rich can afford to buy credits while polluting away, while the poor (the working and middle class) are just trying to make ends meet. It is sicking to hear Gore bleating on about how they must reduce global warming (and thereby bringing down their standard of living) while he enjoys polluting with impunity since he bought credits.
Now if it were established fact that these credits DID in fact reduce levels or kept them stable, then hey Gore pollute away.
But as several mainstream publications (the Economist and TIME are two) have pointed out, the current arrangement is not much more than a "shell game". In fact it is pretty much a green light for the rich to pollute to their hearts' content.
Disgusting. It needs to be MUCH more tightly regulated and overseen. Until then Gore should walk the walk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
But yes I agree that Gore is a hypocrite. This whole credit business reminds me of nothing so much as the selling of indulgences way back when. The rich got to sin with impunity(or so they thought) while the poor had to live a moral life. Same applies here. The rich can afford to buy credits while polluting away, while the poor (the working and middle class) are just trying to make ends meet. It is sicking to hear Gore bleating on about how they must reduce global warming (and thereby bringing down their standard of living) while he enjoys polluting with impunity since he bought credits.
Now if it were established fact that these credits DID in fact reduce levels or kept them stable, then hey Gore pollute away.
But as several mainstream publications (the Economist and TIME are two) have pointed out, the current arrangement is not much more than a "shell game". In fact it is pretty much a green light for the rich to pollute to their hearts' content.
Disgusting. It needs to be MUCH more tightly regulated and overseen. Until then Gore should walk the walk. |
You know, I think this whole Gore "scandal" is great! My understanding about emission credits was that they were essentially most beneficial to wealthy corporate interests but were quite ineffectual for their supposed purpose. What I think I'm seeing now is the right ripping into a system that it would otherwise support in the context of attacking Gore - hopefully, if there's any honesty amongst these critics, they will continue to voice their criticisms of the system even after the personal attack machine winds down again.
Emission credits suck! Help us find a better way Gore, you polluting bastard! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In a discussion about the solutions to GW/CC, this might be an appropriate topic. However, whether he is a hypocrite or not is irrelevant to the discussion and is also false. Again, one must act opposite of their beliefs to be a hypocrite. He isn't. There is no set standard about credits. Some think it a good idea, some don't. So, the same argument most hacks use against global warming, "The science is 100%, so it's probably bullshit," also applies here, does it not? Or are you all just, um... hypocrites?
Gore is not the topic, nor are credits.
Hijack and obfuscation ended. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I am currently married, scumbag. |
Lucky her. |
Indeed. We laugh constantly. It's quite beautiful, really. |
With, or at? Never mind.
I need to know. Did you grow up in a deeply religious home?
Global warming will blow over. We will move on to something else to limit freedom soon enough. But before then, lets look at what the future holds..
| Quote: |
Planes, kiwis now forbidden fruit
Financial Post
Published: Thursday, March 22, 2007
Travel once broadened the mind. Now it is claimed to threaten the planet. Climate change moralists, anti-global localists, and the enviro-left more generally, all want to keep us at home. The sole exception to this new dogma are the thousands upon thousands of policy wonks and NGO reps who seem constantly to be criss-crossing the skies to attend meetings in exotic locations to promote the new feudalism.
If it is wrong for people to travel, it is even more pernicious that agricultural products should go on long journeys. Kiwi is now the forbidden fruit, since it comes from a remote part of the globe to markets in Europe and North America. Thus is a small green delicacy linked to allegedly "robbing our children's future." In reality, such restrictions amount to an attempt to rob our children's present. The perspective, experiences and even diets of our progeny must be narrowed for the sake of indeterminate threats to our great-grandchildren, about whom we -- the fecklessly short-sighted -- are declared not to care sufficiently. So government -- guided by eco-fascists --must do it for us. Well, screw that nonsense.
We stayed in London for a few days, then drove to Manchester, Edinburgh, the Lake District, Cambridge and back to London. I dragged her through museums and to sites of the Industrial Revolution. She forced me into the Disney Store in Cambridge. I took her to Adam Smith's birthplace and tomb. She wanted to know where the souvenir shop was. We had a great time.
I hope one day she will be able to inflict similar journeys on her own children. However, there are alarming signs that she may not be permitted to do so. We may be entering a new Dark Age, enforced by those who regard air travel as wicked and long-distance trade as a pernicious waste of resources. The really frightening thing is that the promoters of such views are not merely the looney left.
While we were in the U.K., one of the most remarkable developments was the release of proposals by Conservative opposition leader David Cameron to restrict air travel. These appeared in a policy document titled, scarily, "Greener Skies." Individuals would be allowed one "free" flight before being progressively taxed. Mr. Cameron conspicuously rides a bicycle and has a wind turbine on his roof. The Conservatives also last week -- in their desperation to seek the high green ground--had globe-trotting Mansion Marxist Al Gore address their shadow cabinet.
Flying is now becoming increasingly wrapped in moralizing. This at least serves to hoist environmental hypocrites on their own petard. When Prince Charles recently flew across the Atlantic to accept an environmental award from Mr. Gore, the enormous size of his Highness's retinue immediately became an object of public censure.
Mr. Cameron too was embarrassed after his air-rationing proposals when it was revealed that he had taken a short flight on a private jet. All in a good cause, he claimed, and besides, he had bought "carbon offsets" -- the latest badge of global citizenship -- to compensate for the damage done to Gaia.
Twelve days in the U.K. reminded me that it really is Orwell's kingdom: an insular place that seems frighteningly prone to Groupthink. There is hardly a shop that does not display its commitment to fair-trade this or organic that. One cannot walk five meters without having somebody's bid for conspicuous virtue thrust upon you. Buy a glass of rose wine and five pence will be sent off to aid breast-cancer research. Buy pork products from Marks & Spencer and -- according to leaflet-wielding biddies -- you are guilty of egregious cruelty to pigs. Self-righteous shopping bags storm supermarkets for "excessive" packaging and are given a more than respectful hearing by the BBC.
The attempted moralization of most forms of commercial activity is a trend of our times. Transport is an obvious target for the carbon constrainers. Canada is subject to its own versions of environmental correctness and green insanity, but it somehow seems nowhere near as oppressive as in the U.K. At least as yet.
I returned this week to a federal budget that contained a number of measures designed to give the appearance of punishing vehicular sin and rewarding travel virtue: subsidies for allegedly "fuel-efficient" cars (that is, either simply small cars, or costly hybrids) and penalties for "gas guzzlers." Plus more ethanol boondoggles. However, although there was much to be concerned about in this profligate budget, excessive greenery wasn't really one of them, at least by European standards. Mr. Harper's Tories may have made their own bid for the environmental high ground, but they aren't about to suggest graduated taxation on flying. Meanwhile, it seems, the only way to reduce your "carbon footprint" to the satisfaction of environmental radicals is ? to walk. |
Maybe, finally, after decades of trying, the totalitarians will fully make true "the personal is political".
All aboard the Freeway to Serfdom! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| All aboard the Freeway to Serfdom! |
Got any science to add? Or are you out of everything except alarmist rants about "eco-fascists"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Science? All I need:
The earth has been warmer, the earth has been cooler. Both, in relatively recent history. The sky isn't falling, and GW isn't the "end of times". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Science? All I need:
The earth has been warmer, the earth has been cooler. Both, in relatively recent history. The sky isn't falling, and GW isn't the "end of times". |
Were you raised in a religious home, BJWD?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, I wasn't. Mildly Catholic mother, aggressively agnostic father.
This is alarmist, sensationalist and the birth of a modern religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The video I posted in the op, well, GAJ very strongly exaggerated the probelms with it.
You acted as if the one dude who was wrongly cited then negates the whole argument. Of course, it doesn't.
Wikipedia has a surprisingly fair assessment of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
This is all hype. Hype. We have bigger problems, but people have bought into an absolutest enviro-religion that is nurtured from birth. I remember countless seminars that we had to attend from elementary school to the end of high school. Each one more alarmist than the next, and each decidedly exaggerated and ideologically driven in hindsight. The current generation of uni students, profs and "journalists" grew up in a system designed to create this kind of religious response on demand.
It is like when "mom" from Futurama implanted a chip in all the robots that would make them turn on their peers at her mere suggestion. We have be programmed from kindergarten on to have a certain set of assumptions that lead to a clearly defined set of unquestioning reactions.
This is the way it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| [." Individuals would be allowed one "free" flight before being progressively taxed. ! |
I wish Korea would adopt this. You'd see every single last one of these ESL teachers who complain about GW suddenly do a 180 in their stance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
The video I posted in the op, well, GAJ very strongly exaggerated the probelms with it.
You acted as if the one dude who was wrongly cited then negates the whole argument. Of course, it doesn't.
Wikipedia has a surprisingly fair assessment of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle |
No, sorry. Misrepresenting Wunsch actually wasn't the worst of the problems. I'll repost this again for you, maybe this time you'll read it: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
And as for wikipedia being fair to GGWS? That page is currently a battleground and pretty much useless for anything except for links elsewhere.
Look, BJWD, you like to throw the 'religion' accusation around, but I'm not sure you've really thought it through - unless you think that accepting the consensus of the absolute most qualified people on the planet to judge the situation is somehow characteristic of religious behaviour. Instead you need to look at closely at your own beliefs. If you're able to simultaneously hold the positions that a)global warming doesn't exist; b)even if it does exist it isn't our fault; and c)even if it is our fault it's not dangerous, then you clearly have some difficulty thinking through the issue clearly. Ask yourself this honestly: what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that AGW is a real threat to us? If every single major relevant scientific organisation on the planet as well as Shell and BP are not good enough, then what is? Are you waiting for the ghost of Milton Friedman (May His Name Be Praised) to appear to you in a vision?
Seriously, you really should do some self-reflection. You may find you're caught up in a certain faith-based dogma yourself.
Last edited by gang ah jee on Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And, it is only for "short" flights. Would it (when Canada adpots this) be applied to our "newly vibrant" Canadians who fly half-way around the world to see their family... Or, half-way around the world to move to Canada to begin with? Or, would only the "rich", meaning, ethnic Europeans, be taxed?
I can imagine them trying to figure out how to tax a flight to Rome more than a flight to Tunisia, for fear of not sufficiently placating the PC gods but trying not to offend the GW gods. Ahhh, the madness of central planning, here we come!
In a country where it takes 40 hours to cross a third of it by driving, I'm quite interested to see what the left dreams up for this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
[You know, I think this whole Gore "scandal" is great! (1) My understanding about emission credits was that they were essentially most beneficial to wealthy corporate interests but were quite ineffectual for their supposed purpose. (2) What I think I'm seeing now is the right ripping into a system that it would otherwise support in the context of attacking Gore - hopefully, if there's any honesty amongst these critics, they will continue to voice their criticisms of the system even after the personal attack machine winds down again.
Emission credits suck! Help us find a better way Gore, you polluting bastard! |
(1) You understand correctly. But Gore is not a hypocrite for using emission credits. Even assuming that they work (in the face of all available science) the average American can NOT afford to buy enough emission credits to offset his carbon footprint. So the only way to reduce it would be downgrade his standard of living and make some painful sacrifices. Why should Gore or any other rich person be exempt from making sacrifices and continue enjoying their high standards of living while the rest of us have to make do with lowered living standards?
(2) And you assume wrong. I am critical of emission credits because they do not work (at least that is what the assembled facts so far tell us). I'm also critical of anybody who buys into that hype. Gore though should know better since he seems to be such an expert on this. I'm convinced he knows very well that emission credits (as they stand) are a "shell game." And if he doesn't then he hasn't even bothered to find out...which should disqualify him from giving out advice on that subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And you assume wrong. I am critical of emission credits because they do not work (at least that is what the assembled facts so far tell us). I'm also critical of anybody who buys into that hype Gore though should know better since he seems to be such an expert on this. I'm convinced he knows very well that emission credits (as they stand) are a "shell game." |
What would you say to the proposition that emission credits, though flawed, were the best available solution available under the current system to the Gores as a family running more than one business from home?
Although, of course, it's not like I care about Gore's energy use. I'm just happy to see that the Tu Quoque fallacy has been avoided thus far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And you assume wrong. I am critical of emission credits because they do not work (at least that is what the assembled facts so far tell us). I'm also critical of anybody who buys into that hype Gore though should know better since he seems to be such an expert on this. I'm convinced he knows very well that emission credits (as they stand) are a "shell game." |
What would you say to the proposition that emission credits, though flawed, were the best available solution available under the current system to the Gores as a family running more than one business from home?
Although, of course, it's not like I care about Gore's energy use. I'm just happy to see that the Tu Quoque fallacy has been avoided thus far. |
I would say that carbon taxes would be a superior solution... much like this article suggests.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17435875/site/newsweek
Pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs of page 1 and the first paragraph of page 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
