NationStates Jolt Archive

Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish - Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'An Inconvenient Spoof' (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

First it's Armstrong Williams taking kickbacks for endorsing Shrub's education policy, then Jim "Jeff Gannon" Guckert pitching softball questions to Dear Leader. And now the Republican Noise Machine is even burning money into faking amateur films that take potshots at political opponents.

Will wonders ever cease?

Yet more evidence for the Republican Limbo Theory(tm). No matter how low the bar goes, Republicans will be on the frontlines of lowering it again.

Republicans hate facts.

No, everyone knows it's the Jews that made this film.

No, everyone knows it's the Jews that made this film.

Bullshit. If that was the case how come Mel Gibson wasn't bitching about it then?

Bullshit. If that was the case how come Mel Gibson wasn't bitching about it then?
Mel is currently being reprogrammed. He'll return faster, stronger and smarter than ever before. Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.

Bullshit. If that was the case how come Mel Gibson wasn't bitching about it then?

Because he was too busy trying to uncover their attempts to frame him for a DUI.

Mel is currently being reprogrammed. He'll return faster, stronger and smarter than ever before. Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.

But then he'll come up with some offensive name like "The Nonexistent Six Million Jewish Victims Man" and he'll be even worse.

The real inconvenient truth is that Gore used up more fuel flying around to promote his book and movie than any normal person ever will. He can talk the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

Another inconvenient truth is that the corporate conspiracy theory against this, that, or the other thing is just that, a conspiracy theory. It's all a conspiracy to destroy the world. A conspiracy to pollute. A conspiracy to start wars. It seems like 'the man' is always at fault. The corporations of the world aren't out to destroy the envirnoment anymore than little Billy is framing me for murder. People usually don't believe in conspiracy theories because they're not true.

The real inconvenient truth is that Gore used up more fuel flying around to promote his book and movie than any normal person ever will. He can talk the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

Another inconvenient truth is that the corporate conspiracy theory against this, that, or the other thing is just that, a conspiracy theory. It's all a conspiracy to destroy the world. A conspiracy to pollute. A conspiracy to start wars. It seems like 'the man' is always at fault. The corporations of the world aren't out to destroy the envirnoment anymore than little Billy is framing me for murder. People usually don't believe in conspiracy theories because they're not true.
Most people like Tim Flannery who flies around in planes offset their emissions somehow, whether by planting trees or by some other means. I imagine Al Gore does the same.


Al Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth, has been getting lots of exposure here at TreeHugger. We've mentioned the trailer, a review, crunched the numbers of the science behind it, and even seen it ourselves. The day has finally arrived when the rest of the world gets to check it out (in limited release, at least, with a wider release soon), and with the official release comes more good news. Partnering with NativeEnergy, the carbon emissions associated with the film's production have been offset, helping Gore and An Inconvenient Truth really walk the walk. The partnership includes a new project at Participate.net to raise awareness about and help stop global warming, including the film's website and a pledge from Paramount Classics to commit 5% of the domestic theatrical gross for An Inconvenient Truth to a new bipartisan climate effort, the Alliance for Climate Protection. The film joins other like-minded productions like Syriana and The Day After Tomorrow in efforts to mitigate climate change by offsetting carbon emissions. Though it's been released, it isn't too late to take the pledge to see it opening weekend, and support the work of Al Gore, NativeEnergy, Participate.net, StopGlobalWarming.org and everyone trying to make our planet a little cooler. ::NativeEnergy, ::An Inconvenient Truth and ::Participate.net

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/an_inconvenient_3.php

The only inconvenient truth is that with or without Kyoto, if human activity is responsible for global warming, you might as well throw in the towel and give up trying to stop it. India and China are growing, and as they grow their citizens will grow wealthier and begin to consume, per capita, the same way that Westerners do. No amount of hysteria, crying, whining, or moaning will stop those two from pursuing their current path of growth (with its accompanying strain on natural resources and explosion in emissions of man-made gasses).

So throwing money at a problem makes it magically go poof? I plant trees in my backyard too but I don't crisscross the country in a jet.

Here are two suggestions from "An Incovenient Truth"
* Telecommute from home
* Reduce air travel

He could have promoted his movie by doing those but chose not to. He chose to burn up fuel jumping from coast to coast. The fact is that he more pollution in the air than you or I ever will in our lives and throwing money at the smog won't make it disapear.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. (It was in some other thread, find it if you dare.) America has the knowledge, the will, and the infrastructure to drastically cut down on emissions and help out our economy. Switching to Ethanol based fuels creates a cleaner fuel. This is a viable short-term solution. It also helps out Farmers. Eventually, we should be able to move to hydrogen fuel. Harvested by wind farmers too remote to generate electricity for use by the consumer. It can be stored using flouro-plastics and transported. This can revitalize a near stagnant American economy and de-outsource the jobs that we're losing. For non-Americans, don't worry, at least now we're taking back our jobs and cleaning up the environment.

Apparently some people here are not familiar with the term "in order to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs."

Alcohols don't hold as much energy as alkanes. It may burn cleaner but fuel efficiency drops in even the latest flexfuel vehicles. Give it a few years, it's a different kind of fuel, it needs a different kind of engine.

The problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that they are a net energy drain at present. All the hydrogen in the world is bound in molecules, the most abundant being water. It takes energy to split the water and the hydrogen just doesn't carry a vehicle that far.

And wind just doesn't do the trick. Without a major breakthrough somewhen down the line, wind power will remain a pipe dream limited in output and by location. Solar could work out in the long run but the real savior will be nuclear power. We've got a lot of fuel just sitting in the ground decaying and there's no reason not to use it, especially since it is the cleanest reliable energy source.

Look for real solutions to real problems.

So throwing money at a problem makes it magically go poof? I plant trees in my backyard too but I don't crisscross the country in a jet.

Here are two suggestions from "An Incovenient Truth"
* Telecommute from home
* Reduce air travel

He could have promoted his movie by doing those but chose not to. He chose to burn up fuel jumping from coast to coast. The fact is that he more pollution in the air than you or I ever will in our lives and throwing money at the smog won't make it disapear.
You don't really understand what offsetting emissions mean, I gather.

You don't really understand what offsetting emissions mean, I gather.
Planting a few trees will not make all the pollution he spewed in his quest to end pollution vanish. Giving an environmentalist charity organization lots of money will not make everything he emmitted in his campaign to end emmission dispear. The fact is that his movie was a huge waste of energy. You're not the underdog fighting the good fight against the evil empire. You're 'the man' now.

I don't need him or anyone else telling me how to live my life. I recycle, I plant trees every so often, I don't litter. I dojn't like it when a treehugging dirtworshiper tells me to cast away all of my posessions and live in a straw hut of hole in the ground. I'll live my life, you live yours.

Planting a few trees will not make all the pollution he spewed in his quest to end pollution vanish. Giving an environmentalist charity organization lots of money will not make everything he emmitted in his campaign to end emmission dispear. The fact is that his movie was a huge waste of energy. You're not the underdog fighting the good fight against the evil empire. You're 'the man' now.

I don't need him or anyone else telling me how to live my life. I recycle, I plant trees every so often, I don't litter. I dojn't like it when a treehugging dirtworshiper tells me to cast away all of my posessions and live in a straw hut of hole in the ground. I'll live my life, you live yours.
Whatever you want to think is up to you.

Whatever you want to think is up to you.
Offsetting is a slow process. What he did was fast.

Offsetting is a slow process. What he did was fast.
It's unrealistic to expect him not to fly. He did more about it than most people do.

I never said that there weren't problems. But the basic outline is there. All it needs is for some smart people to work out the kinks. America put 12 men on the moon, built the first A-bomb, was the major player in the pacific during WWII while still fighting Germany, and chucked up Bill Gates. It can be done. But yeah, Solar power is also something to invest in. It all is. It just requires funding that could come from the bribes paid by the oil lobbies.

Yet more evidence for the Republican Limbo Theory(tm). No matter how low the bar goes, Republicans will be on the frontlines of lowering it again.
Republican Limbo Theory stated Republicans will always win a who-can-be-the-biggest-douche limbo contests because they are 1 dimensional.

I never said that there weren't problems. But the basic outline is there. All it needs is for some smart people to work out the kinks. America put 12 men on the moon, built the first A-bomb, was the major player in the pacific during WWII while still fighting Germany, and chucked up Bill Gates. It can be done. But yeah, Solar power is also something to invest in. It all is. It just requires funding that could come from the bribes paid by the oil lobbies.
The apollo rockets had a mass ratio of 600. They were exploding totem poles filled with fuel. Everything but the return capsule was scarificed to get 3 guys there and back at a time. Don't bring the 'man on the moon' argument to the table.

The a-bomb is a very simple device. I've designed and built mock models. The reason mine will never work is because I don't have weapons-grade Uranium. But fission is a great source of clean, reliable, and safe power so we should build more and better plants.

Planning battles and wars is just like a game, you even probably have played a few good/accurate strategy games before. Waging war doesn't take as much brain as it does brawn. Though the brain part is still very important so don't think soldiers are stupid, 'cause they're smart.

The alcohol problem cannot be solved, alkanes will always have more energy, it's just chemistry. 30% is the best that we can get with solar but that costs about 100x a 10% right now so solar falls into the 'not yet' category. Wind and wave power are both fantasies that will likely never work out because they either aren't reliable, generate too little, are limited in their deployment because they'll only work in certain areas, or some combination of the listed. There are also a lot of technical problems to be overcome and some doubt they ever will be.

The whole big oil and bribes statement smells a bit like a conspiracy theory. Cue the X-Files music.

And wind just doesn't do the trick. Without a major breakthrough somewhen down the line, wind power will remain a pipe dream limited in output and by location. Solar could work out in the long run but the real savior will be nuclear power. We've got a lot of fuel just sitting in the ground decaying and there's no reason not to use it, especially since it is the cleanest reliable energy source..

Kind of. Wind is pretty viable in many parts of the country, including some of the big energy users like California, Texas, or New England; solar is also viable in these same areas, and in some where the wind isn't as strong but the sun shines. Other resources like geothermal and hydroelectric will also be useful for local applications.

However, nuclear power will be vital as a load stabilizer; the main technical problem with wind/solar is its variability during the day that could wreak havoc if too much power comes from these sources. 15-20 years down the line, things will be different but there is still a lot of need for nuclear power; it generates huge quantities of power for fairly cheap and uses abundant fuel to do so.

A system of 33% nuclear and 67% renewables will likely be in place between 2050-2100 as natural gas peaks in the 2060-2070's and coal in the 2100's.

Partnering with NativeEnergy, the carbon emissions associated with the film's production have been offset, helping Gore and An Inconvenient Truth really walk the walk.

Did you remember to count the methane content from all the bullshit?

Most people like Tim Flannery who flies around in planes offset their emissions somehow, whether by planting trees or by some other means. I imagine Al Gore does the same.
Takes a whole mess of trees to offset a single cross country flight. Not to mention that this is the same movie where he completely blew off the leading hurricane experts advice as to whether global warming was causing the increase in atlantic hurricanes.

That video sucked ass... A PR firm can't do better?

The real inconvenient truth is that Gore used up more fuel flying around to promote his book and movie than any normal person ever will. He can talk the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

Source that. I want dates, airlines, gallons-per-mile, distances for both Al Gore, and your 'normal' person.

Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish - Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'An Inconvenient Spoof' (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

First it's Armstrong Williams taking kickbacks for endorsing Shrub's education policy, then Jim "Jeff Gannon" Guckert pitching softball questions to Dear Leader. And now the Republican Noise Machine is even burning money into faking amateur films that take potshots at political opponents.

Will wonders ever cease?

Nope.:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Takes a whole mess of trees to offset a single cross country flight. Not to mention that this is the same movie where he completely blew off the leading hurricane experts advice as to whether global warming was causing the increase in atlantic hurricanes.
Well, if you're really interested in doing things to offset emissions on a flight; here you go:
http://www.co2trading.com/purchase/offset1.asp

The real inconvenient truth is that Gore used up more fuel flying around to promote his book and movie than any normal person ever will. He can talk the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.
So, do you think before you type or is smoking the three rocks of crack sufficient enough for you? Have you ever heard of logical fallacies? Specifically argumentum ad hominem? Basically you're dismissing the argument by dismissing the one making the argument. What you're doing is just like saying, "I wouldn't drive a Volkswagen because they were originally designed by Nazis." Instead of a valid argument like, "I wouldn't drive a Volkswagen becausse they have poor gas milage, poor design, etc." (Which isn't true, but I'm making a point).

Secondly, have you seen AIT? If so, you have every right to criticize it. If not, you're just a douche who can't form his own arguments and is likely using quotes by Bill O'Reilly or the like.

And you act like it's such a shocker that Al Gore has been living in the same economy that for 100 years has been entirely based on a single, nonrenewable resource that we discovered 150 years ago! Al Gore has to drive a car and ride a plane? Yeah, surprisingly he has to use petroleum-based transport like the rest of the planet earth. How else do you expect him to get around? Rickshaw?

Furthermore, by your logic, anyone who uses petroleum-based products (read: every single living human being in the developed world) can't state the fact that we're polluting our environment because we're polluting the environment! What the hell? I swear, if it's too dark to see what you're typing, try pulling your head out of your ass.

Have you ever heard of logical fallacies? Specifically argumentum ad hominem? Basically you're dismissing the argument by dismissing the one making the argument.

Wanna play a game? I call it "Count the Ad hominem attacks in YOUR post that ironically critiques when others do it" Its FUN for the whole family!

Wanna play a game? I call it "Count the Ad hominem attacks in YOUR post that ironically critiques when others do it" Its FUN for the whole family!
No, an argumentum ad hominem would be if I said that Al Gore is right because Dosuun says he's wrong, and Dosuun says such-and-such. When I point out flaws in logic, that's not a logical fallacy, that's good debating. Especially since I never said anything about Al Gore being right, I was just pointing out that his logic to be frank, didn't exist.

Although, Al Gore is right, of course. The reason he's right is that he has consensus of the scientific community and analysis of data behind him. I'm yet to hear a valid argument from anyone that Al Gore is incorrect. All I ever hear are argumenta ad hominem and secunda quid. "Al Gore isn't a scientist, he shouldn't be making this movie." Sure, but anyone can gather evidence and scientific studies. "I read one paper where a scientist said that global warming isn't happening" That's fine, but that's one paper versus over a hundred papers that refute those arguments over and over again.

The thing is that it boggles the mind that ignorance would ever be so celebrated in a western society. If you pulled out a thousand marbles from a bag, and they were all red, but one you plulled out was more of a crimson, a reasonable person would say that all the marbles are red. It seems that what conservatives do is say, "The marbles are all blue!" because crimson is red with a very little blue. While everyone points out the evidence to the contrary and how they're utterly wrong, they close their ears and their mind.

I wasn't even a good spoof.

The real inconvenient truth is that Gore used up more fuel flying around to promote his book and movie than any normal person ever will. He can talk the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.

Another inconvenient truth is that the corporate conspiracy theory against this, that, or the other thing is just that, a conspiracy theory. It's all a conspiracy to destroy the world. A conspiracy to pollute. A conspiracy to start wars. It seems like 'the man' is always at fault. The corporations of the world aren't out to destroy the envirnoment anymore than little Billy is framing me for murder. People usually don't believe in conspiracy theories because they're not true.

Please come up with some evidence debunking the claims of the environmentalists before you claim that they're completly unfounded. If you just phrase statements so that they sound absurd then anything can be refuted.

"Oh, isn't it just sooo convenient that all the fossil fuels that make millions of dollars for the petro-chemical industry all happen to be completly without cost to the environment. It sure is a nice thing that we have all these petro chemical PR people explaining to us how their product is a complete win/win."

See how easy that is?

The real insane conspiracy theory is the idea that environmentalists are the ones who are in it for nothing more than money and attention, as though not selling petroleum is where the money is.

I wasn't even a good spoof.

Republicans can't make good spoofs in general. Central to the idea of a spoof is that you find something rediculous and then exagerate that to the point that the flaw in the original becomes apparent. When Republicans are threatened enough by something to create a spoof of it, it is invariably in the right. Therefore it can not be spoofed, it can only be slandered.

Take for example their parody of Star Wars in which the Democrats were the Evil Empire and Nancy Pelosi was Darth Vader. WTF!?

I'd crack a joke about it, but Jon Stewart already said it better. "If Washington is Star Wars the Democrats are not the Empire. You'd be puffing up their egos to call them Ewoks."

But to be fair it's really hard to spoof Republicans too, but from the other direction. To be effective a spoof must exaggerate reality, but still resemble it. But the reality of the Republican Party today already defies reality. To exaggerate what's wrong with them to the point that it's really worse than they are likely to be, it becomes too absurd to be appreciated. Like calling litterbugs "Nazis." But if you tone it down enough that it's not so absurd, it will turn out to be literally true. Like calling conservative journalists whores (which liberal radio was doing for a while). It turns out that one of them really is a whore (Jeff Ganon/Jason Guckert). So it's not really a joke at their expense, it's just a prescient documentary.

Republicans can't make good spoofs in general. Central to the idea of a spoof is that you find something rediculous and then exagerate that to the point that the flaw in the original becomes apparent. When Republicans are threatened enough by something to create a spoof of it, it is invariably in the right. Therefore it can not be spoofed, it can only be slandered.

Take for example their parody of Star Wars in which the Democrats were the Evil Empire and Nancy Pelosi was Darth Vader. WTF!?

I'd crack a joke about it, but Jon Stewart already said it better. "If Washington is Star Wars the Democrats are not the Empire. You'd be puffing up their egos to call them Ewoks."

But to be fair it's really hard to spoof Republicans too, but from the other direction. To be effective a spoof must exaggerate reality, but still resemble it. But the reality of the Republican Party today already defies reality. To exaggerate what's wrong with them to the point that it's really worse than they are likely to be, it becomes too absurd to be appreciated. Like calling litterbugs "Nazis." But if you tone it down enough that it's not so absurd, it will turn out to be literally true. Like calling conservative journalists whores (which liberal radio was doing for a while). It turns out that one of them really is a whore (Jeff Ganon/Jason Guckert). So it's not really a joke at their expense, it's just a prescient documentary.


One of the best posts I've read in a while.

No, an argumentum ad hominem would be if I said that Al Gore is right because Dosuun says he's wrong, and Dosuun says such-and-such. When I point out flaws in logic, that's not a logical fallacy, that's good debating. Especially since I never said anything about Al Gore being right, I was just pointing out that his logic to be frank, didn't exist.

Ad Hominum has come to mean two things.

1) Arguing that a position is wrong because the person supporting it is flawed, especially in an irrelavent capacity. e.g. "I don't believe in Global Warming as described by Al Gore, because Al Gore claimed to be the inspiration for the male lead in Love Story, which is rediculous." Setting aside for now the fact that it's actually true (the character was actually based on him and Tommy Lee Jones) the fallacy is that if you can mock the man you can ignore his arguments.

2) The other meaning is arguing by appealing to the audiences feelings. "So what are you saying? Because of global warming we have to give up our spacious SUV's? How are we supposed to take kids to soccer practice? Sporting equipment takes up a lot of space. And isn't it convinient that urban lifestyles are already well equipped to give up big fuel consumptive cars? You urban elites woulnd't be quick to criticize our Suburban and Rural lifestyles if you had to live here."

I suppose that combines the two varieties at the end there. But the second variety is evident in the tactic of getting the listener to want global warming to be untrue. If he wants to believe it badly enough, then you don't have to convince him. He'll convince himself. All you have to do is give him the lies that let him do it.

Ad Hominum has come to mean two things.

1) Arguing that a position is wrong because the person supporting it is flawed, especially in an irrelavent capacity. e.g. "I don't believe in Global Warming as described by Al Gore, because Al Gore claimed to be the inspiration for the male lead in Love Story, which is rediculous." Setting aside for now the fact that it's actually true (the character was actually based on him and Tommy Lee Jones) the fallacy is that if you can mock the man you can ignore his arguments.

2) The other meaning is arguing by appealing to the audiences feelings. "So what are you saying? Because of global warming we have to give up our spacious SUV's? How are we supposed to take kids to soccer practice? Sporting equipment takes up a lot of space. And isn't it convinient that urban lifestyles are already well equipped to give up big fuel consumptive cars? You urban elites woulnd't be quick to criticize our Suburban and Rural lifestyles if you had to live here."

I suppose that combines the two varieties at the end there. But the second variety is evident in the tactic of getting the listener to want global warming to be untrue. If he wants to believe it badly enough, then you don't have to convince him. He'll convince himself. All you have to do is give him the lies that let him do it.

I've always heard the second variety refered to as argumentum ad metam, the appeal to fear. But a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.

The real insane conspiracy theory is the idea that environmentalists are the ones who are in it for nothing more than money and attention, as though not selling petroleum is where the money is.

Quoted for mother-fucking truth.

Kind of. Wind is pretty viable in many parts of the country, including some of the big energy users like California, Texas, or New England; solar is also viable in these same areas, and in some where the wind isn't as strong but the sun shines. Other resources like geothermal and hydroelectric will also be useful for local applications.

However, nuclear power will be vital as a load stabilizer; the main technical problem with wind/solar is its variability during the day that could wreak havoc if too much power comes from these sources. 15-20 years down the line, things will be different but there is still a lot of need for nuclear power; it generates huge quantities of power for fairly cheap and uses abundant fuel to do so.

A system of 33% nuclear and 67% renewables will likely be in place between 2050-2100 as natural gas peaks in the 2060-2070's and coal in the 2100's.
That last paragraph really made my day. First try switching the 33% and 67% and you'll be a lot closer. 20-30 years ago we were expecting that by today we'd get a quarter of our power from renewable sources but the reality is less than 10% and most of that comes from hydroelectric and solar, not wind. You might also want to extend the dates out a little farther. People only move mountains when they feel the need. As you said, the main problem with solar and wind is their variability, or rather, their unreliability. Fission is constant, reliable, unstoppable. Use it or lose it and let it poison the land it is buried in. Wind is only viable in the south-western region of my state. They've tried putting up farms to the east but they don't produce as much and it's hopeless to the north. We're also too far north for solar. We try processing corn and soy for fuel but biodiesel turns to sludge in cold faster than the norm and ethanol doesn't hold as much energy as a long hydrocarbon chain so they cut mpg.

Second, 'experts' have been saying that peak oil is just a few years away for over a hundred years. It will likely happen, but we were suposed to run dry by the mid 90's and we have more today than ever, so it will be a while. When someone cries wolf long enough you stop believing them. The world has been hearing this cry for a century now and many of us have stopped listening.

The big problem with nuclear power is not technical. It is not biological. Not ecological. It is political. You see, there are people who have gone to great lengths to stop nuclear power. They use scare tactics and false information to further their claims of dangers that do not exist and to overstate those that do. It is not the oil industry. It is organizations like Greenpeace. Organizations that vastly overestimated the afflicted at Chernobyl in an effort to scare people into siding with them and against the competition. Their competition. You see, many of the 'renewable' energy sources need subsidies to stay alive, not because they're being crowded out by an evil empire, but because they're weak right now and not yet ready. Some likely never will be. Others just need time. But some people don't want to wait. They want to profit now and are willing to do whatever it takes, be it manipulate an otherwise noble cause or spread lies and exagerations or omit inconvenient truths or all of the above and more. They will do it for money, for position, for power.

Never trust a politician. No matter what they say. No matter what they do. Remember they did it for power, for wealth, for title, and for a number of other selfish reasons. But the one thing they all hold in common is that they never do anything for the people. Not anymore anyway.

Second, 'experts' have been saying that peak oil is just a few years away for over a hundred years. It will likely happen, but we were suposed to run dry by the mid 90's and we have more today than ever, so it will be a while. When someone cries wolf long enough you stop believing them. The world has been hearing this cry for a century now and many of us have stopped listening.
No, no they have not. Hubbert first theorized "Peak" in 1956. And he said peak oil would occur within 100 years. If he's correct, it'll happen by 2056. I've heard reports saying the 2020's, but probably the 30's or 40's is more likely. He also theorized peak coal by 2110 and peak uranium by 2500. Do try to not make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. A century ago, no one had even realized that oil was a non-renewable resource.

That last paragraph really made my day. First try switching the 33% and 67% and you'll be a lot closer. 20-30 years ago we were expecting that by today we'd get a quarter of our power from renewable sources but the reality is less than 10% and most of that comes from hydroelectric and solar, not wind. You might also want to extend the dates out a little farther. People only move mountains when they feel the need. As you said, the main problem with solar and wind is their variability, or rather, their unreliability. Fission is constant, reliable, unstoppable. Use it or lose itand let it poison the land it is buried in. Wind is only viable in the south-western region of my state. They've tried putting up farms to the east but they don't produce as much and it's hopeless to the north. We're also too far north for solar. We try processing corn and soy for fuel but biodiesel turns to sludge in cold faster than the norm and ethanol doesn't hold as much energy as a long hydrocarbon chain so they cut mpg.

I agree. I support nuclear power 100%, but I'm making a few assumptions about alternative energy:

1. Renewable energy resources will continue their current growth rates for extended periods and new technology will further improve their ability to compete with conventional fuels. Also, the renewable resources will expand in terms of maximium like capacity (i.e. like how oil reserves have grown as tech/exploration techniques improve) I'm assuming that renewable energy will become and remain the most economical source of energy over the next century.

2. Oil will peak around 2020 and natural gas by 2050-2070.

3. There will still be some significant opposition to nuclear power at least in the next two decades that will halt expansion intermittently.

Second, 'experts' have been saying that peak oil is just a few years away for over a hundred years. It will likely happen, but we were suposed to run dry by the mid 90's and we have more today than ever, so it will be a while. When someone cries wolf long enough you stop believing them. The world has been hearing this cry for a century now and many of us have stopped listening.

That's true. Unfortunately, no one has any real idea how much oil is out there; proven reserves are only the oil we've found, and many places have simply not been explored for oil. I personally feel that oil will peak around 2020 given the rate of consumption and estimates of URR. However, the Peak Oil movement has been contaminated by a lot of apocalyptic/survivalist types and are doing it a disservice by promoting the event as a disaster or even a major economic problem.

They forget that M. King Hubbert himself felt that PO was not going to be a disaster. In fact, he felt that nuclear power was going to be the mainstay replacement for oil and other fuels:

From Hubbert's 1956 Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4189/1379/1600/HubOilNuke.jpg)


The big problem with nuclear power is not technical. It is not biological. Not ecological. It is political. You see, there are people who have gone to great lengths to stop nuclear power. They use scare tactics and false information to further their claims of dangers that do not exist and to overstate those that do. It is not the oil industry. It is organizations like Greenpeace. Organizations that vastly overestimated the afflicted at Chernobyl in an effort to scare people into siding with them and against the competition. Their competition. You see, many of the 'renewable' energy sources need subsidies to stay alive, not because they're being crowded out by an evil empire, but because they're weak right now and not yet ready. Some likely never will be. Others just need time. But some people don't want to wait. They want to profit now and are willing to do whatever it takes, be it manipulate an otherwise noble cause or spread lies and exagerations or omit inconvenient truths or all of the above and more. They will do it for money, for position, for power.

All sources of power recieve subsidies; coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and virtually all the sources imaginable recieve money from the government at some or all steps of the production process. However, if we look at the sources from a perspective as free from subsidies as possible it is clear that renewables, coal and renewables are economically viable fuels.

Natural gas would also be viable if the US were to build the LNG infrastructure to accomodate the additional demand, but we're lagging in that department so prices will remain elevated for a while. Maybe in a decade we'll have the infrastructure but right now natural gas isn't good as a source of new US generation.

No, no they have not. Hubbert first theorized "Peak" in 1956. And he said peak oil would occur within 100 years. If he's correct, it'll happen by 2056. I've heard reports saying the 2020's, but probably the 30's or 40's is more likely. He also theorized peak coal by 2110 and peak uranium by 2500. Do try to not make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. A century ago, no one had even realized that oil was a non-renewable resource.

Actually, Hubbert originally projected a 2000 peak; however, there was a huge variable that he couldn't include in his calculations: the 1973 and 1979 oil crises. That had never happened before and no one could forsee it so it wasn't included in the calculations. Those two events broke the steady rise in oil demand that had continued since the end of WWII and kept world demand flat for nearly 15 years from (1979-1994) despite strong economic growth. They also put major innovations in efficiency and fuel economy in to place and led to the dismantling of price controls that had pushed demand up in the developed world. So, that 15 years of flat demand probably pushed the peak out at least 15-20 years, if not 30 or more.

I tend to think it will occur in the 2020's, but that's only because there haven't been the kinds of economic changes necessary to discover or produce some of the reserves needed to push it out farther. If the OPEC nations were to open their oil industry to full-scale foreign investment and places like Russia or the former USSR were to do the same, the peak might be pushed back by another decade or two.

Republicans hate facts.

I wonder how the Wall Street Journal reporter got the information that this 29 year old You Tube guy was actually the covert arm of the Republican political machine?

Has anyone seen any of this in the WSJ?

I wonder how the Wall Street Journal reporter got the information that this 29 year old You Tube guy was actually the covert arm of the Republican political machine?

Has anyone seen any of this in the WSJ?

No I haven't, and the WSJ is my personal bible.

I wonder how the Wall Street Journal reporter got the information that this 29 year old You Tube guy was actually the covert arm of the Republican political machine?

if this were a different country (or maybe if we were living a few decades back), i'd make some snappy retort about investigative reporting. but since we are living here and now, and have the press corps we do, i'm fairly mystified by it all too. perhaps some blogger did the original research and forwarded it to said reporter?

ya know the Earth getting hotter is going to happen anyway regardless of human intervention, we're just speeding it up a little. Honestly, I'm ok with that if it means a better economoy. I'm all for alternative energy source, and I think nuclear energy is the only logical choice right now for a replacement of fossil fuels, but we'll only be slowing down the process the planet heating up. Alternative fuels are more of an economical solution than an environmental solution in the big scheme of things.

ya know the Earth getting hotter is going to happen anyway regardless of human intervention, we're just speeding it up a little. Honestly, I'm ok with that if it means a better economoy. I'm all for alternative energy source, and I think nuclear energy is the only logical choice right now for a replacement of fossil fuels, but we'll only be slowing down the process the planet heating up. Alternative fuels are more of an economical solution than an environmental solution in the big scheme of things.
Well, currently the Earth should be cooling. It's warming.

That video sucked ass... A PR firm can't do better?
Remember - they delibrately tried to make it look amatuerish and sucky, so as to pretend that it was done by an amateur.

Remember - they delibrately tried to make it look amatuerish and sucky, so as to pretend that it was done by an amateur.


Either way, may I please insult the GOP now?

*can't wait* ;)

Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish - Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'An Inconvenient Spoof' (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/al-gore-youtube-spoof-not-so-amateurish/20060805132409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

First it's Armstrong Williams taking kickbacks for endorsing Shrub's education policy, then Jim "Jeff Gannon" Guckert pitching softball questions to Dear Leader. And now the Republican Noise Machine is even burning money into faking amateur films that take potshots at political opponents.

Will wonders ever cease?


I guess we'll overlook the funding for Gore's movie?

I guess we'll overlook the funding for Gore's movie?
No but it is a wide marketed thing … I think most of the incredulity is them invading the online creative spaces with commercial BS

Those services like youtube are designed for users to do all kinds of personal and creative stuff and share it with the world (or share small clips of strong or funny parts of movies) it makes people upset on both sides of the lines when they use those free services as another mouthpiece for political BS.

Its less about the particular BS more about disguising it as something a cool user did and wasting the resources of some of these cool sites. If they wanted to web publish they should have acquired their own server.

No but it is a wide marketed thing … I think most of the incredulity is them invading the online creative spaces with commercial BS

Those services like youtube are designed for users to do all kinds of personal and creative stuff and share it with the world (or share small clips of strong or funny parts of movies) it makes people upset on both sides of the lines when they use those free services as another mouthpiece for political BS.

Its less about the particular BS more about disguising it as something a cool user did and wasting the resources of some of these cool sites. If they wanted to web publish they should have acquired their own server.


Maybe we should read the Terms Of Service for Youtube.

If it isn't against the rules for Youtube, then I see no reason for anyone to get upset. It's like posting anything on the Internet.

Remember that in the US, corporations officially have the same free speech standing as individuals (go figure).

Maybe we should read the Terms Of Service for Youtube.

If it isn't against the rules for Youtube, then I see no reason for anyone to get upset. It's like posting anything on the Internet.

Remember that in the US, corporations officially have the same free speech standing as individuals (go figure).
Eeek sorry DK I must be tired thought you were digging on me … you said we


Either way it is like pedophile posts on the forums … technically they are as of now not against the rules. But anyone that creates a thread about them better expect the backlash of users that don’t like where the forum is going when they takeover

Weather against the rules or not it was sneaky and people feel like resources they use are being misused …

I know they will just find another way to be sneaky like this again but it does not mean we have to be happy when we find political parties being this frigging underhanded

I've always heard the second variety refered to as argumentum ad metam, the appeal to fear. But a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.

Well appeal to fear can be a subset of appeal to feelings, which is one of the meanings of ad hominim.

ya know the Earth getting hotter is going to happen anyway regardless of human intervention, we're just speeding it up a little. Honestly, I'm ok with that if it means a better economoy. I'm all for alternative energy source, and I think nuclear energy is the only logical choice right now for a replacement of fossil fuels, but we'll only be slowing down the process the planet heating up. Alternative fuels are more of an economical solution than an environmental solution in the big scheme of things.

I've bolded the real crux of the issue (not that there aren't flaws with your facts, but I'm taking issue with your reasoning).

You've been taken in by what's becoming an increasingly common Republican trick.

"Are you OK with less civil liberties if it means more security?"
Then you end up with a situation where they don't use their new powers to increase our security, just to take away our civil rights.

"Are you OK with environmental damage if it improves our economy?"
Answer yes, and they let corporations engage in economic as well as environmental plundering. e.g. Logging practices that decrease tourism to national parks. Mountaintop removal mining that lowers property rates in the neighboring area (no one wants to live next to an ugly blown up mountain) and sucks all the money out of the area by paying miners only slightly above subsistance wages and breaking their unions.

"Are you in favor of keeping the minimum wage down if it promotes job creation and healthy economic activity?"
Answer yes, and the lower minimum wage means decreased demand for consumer goods and economic stagnation and decreased demand for labor (and evel lower wages).

Whenever a Republican says "if" run like hell from both their presence and their position.

I guess we'll overlook the funding for Gore's movie?

Why? Is it funded by the icebox industry? The buggywhip industry? The cold fusion industry?

Is it funded by any industry at all that would have an ulterior motive in opposing the petrochemical industry and the overconsumption of fossil fuels?

To say that an environmentalist movie is suspect because it's funded by environmentalists is not the same thing as saying that pro-tobacco research is suspect when funded by tobacco companies or pro-oil burning funded by oil companies.

Environmentalists aren't trying to sell the environment. They don't have big warehouses full of ecology that they're trying to unload at peak price.

Remember - they delibrately tried to make it look amatuerish and sucky, so as to pretend that it was done by an amateur.

Republicans have been doing this a lot since the Gore/Bush race. Remember the mob of people demanding a stop to the recount? Republican Congressional staff members pretending to be angry voters.

It's called Astro-Turfing. Fake grass roots movements.

Republicans have been doing this a lot since the Gore/Bush race. Remember the mob of people demanding a stop to the recount? Republican Congressional staff members pretending to be angry voters.

It's called Astro-Turfing. Fake grass roots movements.
I will SO use that in the future.

FYI, I'm writing an article for the Oregon Daily Emerald (U of O's paper) about this! Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Gauthier!

New Domici, I shall quote you in this (for astro-turfing).

There seems to be a little confusion about logical fallicies in this thread so I will give you some definitions.

Ad Hominem: attacking the person of an authority rather than his or her qualifications.

Exposing someones hypocrisy is not ad hominem, though it is darn close.

Ad ignorantium: arguing that a claim is true simply because it has not been shown to be false.

Ad misericordium: appealing to pity as as argument for special treatment.

Think PETA. This is a favorite tactic; hold a cute and fuzzy animal in front of the camera and say anything. "Think of the children" would also fall under this.

Ad populum: appealing to the emotions of a crowd; also appealing to a person to go along with the crowd.

"Everyone's doing it!"

Begging the question (petitio principii): implicitly using your conclusion as a premise. Circular arguments are the same thing.

Complex question: posing a question or issue in such a way that people cannot agree or disagree with you without committing themselves to some other claim you wish to promote.

This is like saying, "Hey, Bill, have you stopped beating your wife?"

Equivocation: changing the meaning of a term throughout the course of an argument

False cause: generic term for a questionable conclusion about cause and effet.

False dilema: reducing the options you consider to just two, often sharply opposed and unfair to the people the dilema is posed against.

"America: Love it or Leave it," is an example of a false dilema.

Loaded language: use of emotionally charged words to persuade, in the absence of rational support.

Persuasive definition: defining a term in a way that appears to be straightforward but that in fact is loaded.

Posioning the well: using loaded language to disparage an argument before even mentioning it.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: assuming causation too readily on the basis of mere succession in time.

Red herring: introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject.

Straw man: caricaturing an opposing view so that it is easy to refute.

Hope those help.


Environmentalists aren't trying to sell the environment. They don't have big warehouses full of ecology that they're trying to unload at peak price.
Their merchandise is 'alternative/renewable energy' equipment. Wind towers are what they're really pushing right now. The goal is to restrict or ban competition.

Everyone has a stake in something. Someone will always profit. Everyone has an agenda. Except me.:p

The only people making fun of global warming are people who are being paid by Exxon/Mobil to do so.

The only people making fun of global warming are people who are being paid by Exxon/Mobil to do so.
-Ad Hominem
-No premise to support your conclusion
Yep, this is a bad argument.

Either way, may I please insult the GOP now?

*can't wait* ;)
Ohhh...ok, then.
I've kept you waiting long enough.

Have Fun!

Ad Hominem: attacking the person of an authority rather than his or her qualifications.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger (or shooting the messenger), involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.Not the best source, but the best I could find without digging up old guides to rhetoric from High School. So saying that Al Gore is a hypocrite, therefore AIT is invalid would be an Argumentum ad hominem. Unless I'm inferring the wrong thing from your previous statements.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: assuming causation too readily on the basis of mere succession in time.
This is my favorite logical fallacy. The way it was explained to my sophomore english class was "Ice cream sales rise in the summertime. Murder rates rise in the summertime. Ice cream causes people to kill each other." That still makes me laugh every time!

Like I said, it is darn close, but I wouldn't call it ad hominem because it shows that an authority doesn't practice what they preach. If someone doesn't follow their own rules, you have to wonder if they think the rules they have made are worth following.

-Ad Hominem
-No premise to support your conclusion
Yep, this is a bad argument.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI&search=gore%20and%20penguin

The video's maker is listed as "Toutsmith," a 29-year-old who identifies himself as being from Beverly Hills in an Internet profile.

In an email exchange with The Wall Street Journal, Toutsmith didn't answer when asked who he was or why he made the video, which has just over 59,000 views on YouTube. However, computer routing information contained in an email sent from Toutsmith's Yahoo account indicate it didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.

Instead, the email originated from a computer registered to DCI Group, a Washington, D.C., public relations and lobbying firm whose clients include oil company Exxon Mobil Corp.

OH SNAP.

This is my favorite logical fallacy. The way it was explained to my sophomore english class was "Ice cream sales rise in the summertime. Murder rates rise in the summertime. Ice cream causes people to kill each other." That still makes me laugh every time!

that's more cum hoc than post hoc. the two facts are not claimed to be causally linked by one hapening before the other, but are just generally correlated.

Kazus, your argument is a good example of a generalization fallacy. You have made the argument that the only people who don't believe the hype are being paid by oil companies. You have given one and only one example for this and have made the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you has been bribed. I have not, but I still disagree with you. I don't think the sky is falling. I don't think the world is ending.

We don't know exactly how long someone will live but I've heard people say that every cigarette takes so many minutes off your life. While smoking will increase your chances for cancer and cause other problems that will likely kill you, we can't say exactly how long someone will live. How do you know it'll be the cigars that bury a man and not a car running him over? I've heard people say that every day we lose another species or two and yet we haven't cataloged every species on this planet. How then, can we know just how many we lose every day?

Will smoking kill you? If nothing else does first, yes, eventually. Will pollution damage the envirnoment it is released into? Yes, eventually. The problem is that we can't predict the future, all we can do is project the present into the future. 200 years ago some people were worrying about how they'd manage all the horse shit they'd have by today because everyone was riding on a horse or in a carriage pulled by a horse. Then the car came along. Now everyone rides in a car and everyone worries about how they'll handle the gases those engines emit. How do you know someone won't have invented a replacement in a 100 years?

Kazus, your argument is a good example of a generalization fallacy. You have made the argument that the only people who don't believe the hype are being paid by oil companies. You have given one and only one example for this and have made the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you has been bribed. I have not, but I still disagree with you. I don't think the sky is falling. I don't think the world is ending.

We don't know exactly how long someone will live but I've heard people say that every cigarette takes so many minutes off your life. While smoking will increase your chances for cancer and cause other problems that will likely kill you, we can't say exactly how long someone will live. How do you know it'll be the cigars that bury a man and not a car running him over? I've heard people say that every day we lose another species or two and yet we haven't cataloged every species on this planet. How then, can we know just how many we lose every day?

Will smoking kill you? If nothing else does first, yes, eventually. Will pollution damage the envirnoment it is released into? Yes, eventually. The problem is that we can't predict the future, all we can do is project the present into the future. 200 years ago some people were worrying about how they'd manage all the horse shit they'd have by today because everyone was riding on a horse or in a carriage pulled by a horse. Then the car came along. Now everyone rides in a car and everyone worries about how they'll handle the gases those engines emit. How do you know someone won't have invented a replacement in a 100 years?
Replacements already exist. Guess who's holding them back. It's not the car companies, they'll make and sell anything we're willing to pay for.

Replacements already exist. Guess who's holding them back. It's not the car companies, they'll make and sell anything we're willing to pay for.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/loremo_ag_157_m.php

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/loremo_ag_157_m.php
Cool. Europe is setting a great example.