NationStates Jolt Archive

Cereal?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427421,00.html

Either way, Gore is nuts. He wants to save the world with deadly lasers instead of deadly slideshows.

And Inconvenient Truth was retarded.

Cereal?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427421,00.html

Either way, Gore is nuts. He wants to save the world with deadly lasers instead of deadly slideshows.

And Inconvenient Truth was retarded.

Al Gore is urging civil disobedience?

Al Gore, the culturejammer. My hero.

Gore '12 (if there's a god).

You know, most of us probably don't consider Fox News to be a reliable source, especially when the topic is Al Goar.

An Inconveiniant Truth was a very good film. If Goar has shown that sense of humor on the campaing trail, we might not have monkey boy sitting in the White House handing out 700 billion to deal with the imminant Depression he's caused.

Bloody corporate welfare state.

But he's right! Manbearbig and global warming are real! Especailly manbearpig. :D

Al Gore is urging civil disobedience?

Al Gore, the culturejammer. My hero.

Gore '12 (if there's a god).

Goar '16. Obama needs his two terms.

Of course, if Al Goar's right it may be two late by then. And to be honest, the guy doesn't seem to want to go back to politics. Can't say I blame him really.

But he's right! Manbearbig and global warming are real! Especailly manbearpig. :D

What is that?! Some kind of pig...bear...man?

Gore urges a good thing... where is the argument against it?

And to be honest, the guy doesn't seem to want to go back to politics.
He gave the speech before Obama's at the DNC.

How isn't that being back into politics?

Gore urges a good thing... where is the argument against it?

Gore is urging a silly thing and trying to pretend he's Gandhi.

He gave the speech before Obama's at the DNC.

How isn't that being back into politics?

I mean he doesn't want to run again.

Gore is urging a silly thing and trying to pretend he's Gandhi.

Civil disobedience is 'a silly thing'?

Gore is urging a silly thing and trying to pretend he's Gandhi.

First of all, anybody pretending to be Gandhi would first shave his head. Second of all, what is not good about using a measure such as civil disobedience to force companies to run cleaner coal plants?

Goar '16. Obama needs his two terms.

Of course, if Al Goar's right it may be two late by then. And to be honest, the guy doesn't seem to want to go back to politics. Can't say I blame him really.

I'm not convinced he'd run again, to be honest. I don't expect him to become apolitical, though

I'm not convinced he'd run again, to be honest. I don't expect him to become apolitical, though

I already adressed that. Everyone has political beleifs, and many of us publicly support those beleifs. I meant that he doesn't seem to want a political carreer.

However, I wonder if he might be persuaded to take Secretary of the Environment or something in an Obama Cabinate.

I mean he doesn't want to run again.As it is, he can remain "the rightful President of the United States" for the rest of his life. If he ran again, he could lose.

Maybe he is looking for another Nobel Peace Prize. Inciting violence means he will be more eligible this time around.

As it is, he can remain "the rightful President of the United States" for the rest of his life. If he ran again, he could lose.

True. Funny enough, he's done more good for, or at least less to damage, the nation than Bush has during the eight years since he earned that tital.

Maybe he is looking for another Nobel Peace Prize. Inciting violence means he will be more eligible this time around.

Calls for civil disobediance do not equal calls for violence. Even the Fox article didn't claim Goar was inciting violence. This is flat out, defamatory bullshit. Goar could probably sue your trolling ass.

Calls for civil disobediance do not equal calls for violence. Even the Fox article didn't claim Goar was inciting violence. This is flat out, defamatory bullshit. Goar could probably sue your trolling ass.
Civil Disobedience is kind of the opposite of inciting violence... kind of exactly....

Civil Disobedience is kind of the opposite of inciting violence... kind of exactly....

Well it can lead to violence, but said violence is usually directed towards those doing the disobeying.

Well it can lead to violence, but said violence is usually directed towards those doing the disobeying.

Well, right but that couldn't be construed as the civilly disobedient inciting violence... unless they ceased being civilly disobedient and became uncivilly disobedient.


Captain Obvious just punched me in the god-damned throat.

Calls for civil disobediance do not equal calls for violence. Even the Fox article didn't claim Goar was inciting violence. This is flat out, defamatory bullshit. Goar could probably sue your trolling ass.

You'll also note that he was decidedly vague on exactly what he expects people to do. So vague that he's not legally liable if someone decides to be violent on his behalf.

You'll also note that he was decidedly vague on exactly what he expects people to do. So vague that he's not legally liable if someone decides to be violent on his behalf.

He used the exact words civil disobedience.

You'll also note that he was decidedly vague on exactly what he expects people to do. So vague that he's not legally liable if someone decides to be violent on his behalf.Rather, FOX was decidedly vague about what he actually said.

Bah. It's Gore being Gore, the self-obsessed hypocritical Environazi he is.

You'll also note that he was decidedly vague on exactly what he expects people to do. So vague that he's not legally liable if someone decides to be violent on his behalf.

If he layed out his intent in greater detail, wouldn't that make it harder to blame him if some random guy used his words as an excuse to commit an act of violence? Unless of course you're insinuating that his actual plan is to encourage violence, in which case I suppose you also believe that Barack Obama is a Secret Muslim who was sworn in on the Koran and is actually an alley of Iran and Hammas.

Civil disobediance is almost by definition non-violent. If someone did act violently, he would in no way be responsible.

Bah. It's Gore being Gore, the self-obsessed hypocritical Environazi he is.

Personal hypocracy does not make his arguments false. Weather or not they are based in fact determines that. So keep the ad hominums to yourself, ok. Do you dismiss the merits of the Declaration of Independence because the man who wrote it owned slaves?

And Environazi! How cute:D. Remember folks, if you can't win an argument with facts, just try to link your opponent to Hitler.:rolleyes:

Calls for civil disobediance do not equal calls for violence. Even the Fox article didn't claim Goar was inciting violence. This is flat out, defamatory bullshit. Goar could probably sue your trolling ass.

Arc up next time dude. Someone's a Gore lover, though not to much considering you can't spell his name. Well let's change it considering he is advocating illegal activities then he will have a greater claim to winning a nobel peace prize.

He used the exact words civil disobedience.

Which means jack shit when someone decides that Gore meant to disobey violently. Gore used those words exactly because of how vague they are, so that no one can blame him if someone does something stupid, even if whatever it is isn't violent. He also used it specifically for its connection to Gandhi. Say what you want about Fox choosing their words carefully for spin, but for goodness sake recognize that Gore is being just as manipulative with his choice of words.

Calls for civil disobediance do not equal calls for violence. Even the Fox article didn't claim Goar was inciting violence. This is flat out, defamatory bullshit. Goar could probably sue your trolling ass.

Trolling? Really? That's all you can come up with to substantiate what you're saying? Calling the other guy a troll? You're all so busy calling people trolls you can't recognize the real trolls when they actually show up.

If he layed out his intent in greater detail, wouldn't that make it harder to blame him if some random guy used his words as an excuse to commit an act of violence? Unless of course you're insinuating that his actual plan is to encourage violence, in which case I suppose you also believe that Barack Obama is a Secret Muslim who was sworn in on the Koran and is actually an alley of Iran and Hammas.

Civil disobediance is almost by definition non-violent. If someone did act violently, he would in no way be responsible.

Communism, by Marx's definition, is a good idea.

In practice... err, not so much.

Arc up next time dude. Someone's a Gore lover, though not to much considering you can't spell his name. Well let's change it considering he is advocating illegal activities then he will have a greater claim to winning a nobel peace prize.

Illegal activities can sometimes be justified. Or should the blacks just have stayed at the back of the bus? And I suppose America should have stayed with Britain too.

Second, I am not a Gore lover after how he screwed over the space program, though I like him a hell of a lot more than you or George Bush. And my spelling has no bearing on the accuracy of my arguments. Drop the ad hominum attacks.

Finally, we all make mistakes, but claiming Gore is advocating violence in this context is more than that. Either you are severly ignorent of a great many things, or you knew damn well you were lying, in which case you are, as I said before, a defamatory troll.

Bah. It's Gore being Gore, the self-obsessed hypocritical Environazi he is.

This confuses me. I assume you don't sympathise with his views on the environment... so where exactly the 'sting' in calling them hypocritical?

I'm also not entirely sure where a message that basically runs "err, if we don't start watching the shit we're putting into our environment, our environment is soon going to be shit" is supposed to be significantly 'nazi-ish'...?

All in all, I think I'm going to have to write this post of as hyperbole.

Communism, by Marx's definition, is a good idea.

In practice... err, not so much.

Please explain how that relates in any way to what I posted.

Please explain how that relates in any way to what I posted.

Don't tell me you've never heard of a peaceful protest becoming not-so-peaceful..

Which means jack shit when someone decides that Gore meant to disobey violently. Gore used those words exactly because of how vague they are, so that no one can blame him if someone does something stupid, even if whatever it is isn't violent. He also used it specifically for its connection to Gandhi. Say what you want about Fox choosing their words carefully for spin, but for goodness sake recognize that Gore is being just as manipulative with his choice of words.

As worthy an argument as suing when you get hit at a "Don't Walk" sign, because.. well, it didn't say "Don't Run", now, did it?

I think you realise you're grasping at straws...

If he layed out his intent in greater detail, wouldn't that make it harder to blame him if some random guy used his words as an excuse to commit an act of violence? Unless of course you're insinuating that his actual plan is to encourage violence, in which case I suppose you also believe that Barack Obama is a Secret Muslim who was sworn in on the Koran and is actually an alley of Iran and Hammas.

Civil disobediance is almost by definition non-violent. If someone did act violently, he would in no way be responsible.

I wouldn't suggest he means to incite violence. I would suggest that he means to accomplish his goals with the lowest personal cost to himself, and that if violence ensued and accomplished his goals, he would publicly condemn the culprits while privately lauding them for getting things done. In, fact, he would probably publicly laud them with a political disclaimer saying he doesn't agree with their methods.

Trolling? Really? That's all you can come up with to substantiate what you're saying? Calling the other guy a troll? You're all so busy calling people trolls you can't recognize the real trolls when they actually show up.

I'll admit my language may have been a bit over the top, but the other guy is most definately a troll.

I don't need to substantiate what I'm saying. When he makes an outrageous claim that has no basis in the OP, the artical it links to, or anything in this thread, the burden of proof is on him to defend his allegations.

It was an obvious lie. Don't make a fool of yourself trying to defend it.

As worthy an argument as suing when you get hit at a "Don't Walk" sign, because.. well, it didn't say "Don't Run", now, did it?

I think you realise you're grasping at straws...

And yet, people have sued because the coffee wasn't labeled as "hot".

And you don't drink coffee with straws, do you?

Illegal activities can sometimes be justified. Or should the blacks just have stayed at the back of the bus? And I suppose America should have stayed with Britain too.

Which has nothing to do with my attack against the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Second, I am not a Gore lover after how he screwed over the space program, though I like him a hell of a lot more than you or George Bush. And my spelling has no bearing on the accuracy of my arguments. Drop the ad hominum attacks.

Do you really think I give two shits, over whether you like me or not? As for your spelling, while it may have no accuracy on your arguments, I did notice that you corrected it.

Finally, we all make mistakes, but claiming Gore is advocating violence in this context is more than that. Either you are severly ignorent of a great many things, or you knew damn well you were lying, in which case you are, as I said before, a defamatory troll.

Well, I knew I was stretching the truth after all, civil disobedience can be violent in nature, if you deny this then I may suggest that you are severely ignorant on at least one thing.

One more question didn't you have an avatar?

An Inconveiniant Truth was a very good film.

No, no it wasn't. It made the climate change crowd look like complete idiots, when they aren't.

I'll admit my language may have been a bit over the top, but the other guy is most definately a troll.

I don't need to substantiate what I'm saying. When he makes an outrageous claim that has no basis in the OP, the artical it links to, or anything in this thread, the burden of proof is on him to defend his allegations.

It was an obvious lie. Don't make a fool of yourself trying to defend it.

If you are under no obligation to defend your opinions, why should anyone else be? Don't defend yourself by throwing the burden of proof around and claiming everyone is a troll.

And don't make a fool of yourself by presuming to give me unsolicited and unneeded advice. I will defend whomever and whatever I like.

Which means jack shit when someone decides that Gore meant to disobey violently. Gore used those words exactly because of how vague they are, so that no one can blame him if someone does something stupid, even if whatever it is isn't violent. He also used it specifically for its connection to Gandhi. Say what you want about Fox choosing their words carefully for spin, but for goodness sake recognize that Gore is being just as manipulative with his choice of words.

Maybe he used it specifically for its connection to Martin Luther King Jr. or Thoreau or Rosa Parks or the Dalai Lama or Rachel Corrie or one of my friends? Plus, I didn't see anything excessively negative in Fox's little report except that they pointlessly pointed out that Gore didn't lay down a plan on how to be civilly disobedient in a responsible manner. If people act violently to voice their protest, how is that in any way connected to Gore saying that now would be a good time for civil disobedience?

No, no it wasn't. It made the climate change crowd look like complete idiots, when they aren't.

And then there was the 10 minute rant about losing the election in Florida in the middle of it...

I wouldn't suggest he means to incite violence. I would suggest that he means to accomplish his goals with the lowest personal cost to himself, and that if violence ensued and accomplished his goals, he would publicly condemn the culprits while privately lauding them for getting things done. In, fact, he would probably publicly laud them with a political disclaimer saying he doesn't agree with their methods.

And you beleive this based on what?

Really, is this all politics is anymore? Can we not have a debate without labling the otherside criminals and terrorists just to prove a point?

A democracy needs political opposision, a clash between ideas. But when you insist on turning every political opponent into a terrorist, you are creating an environment where political opposision is no longer accepted. Thus, you risk moving the debate from the polls and the news and the courts onto the battlefield.

I love democracy. And it horrifies me to see it going down this path where their are no mere disagreements, no honorable opponents, no compromises, but only enemies.

This confuses me. I assume you don't sympathise with his views on the environment... so where exactly the 'sting' in calling them hypocritical?

I'm also not entirely sure where a message that basically runs "err, if we don't start watching the shit we're putting into our environment, our environment is soon going to be shit" is supposed to be significantly 'nazi-ish'...?

All in all, I think I'm going to have to write this post of as hyperbole.

1. I don't like hypocrites.

2. I understand that. It's that he takes it too far, and scares everyone for attention. Did you see "An inconvenient truth"? Big chunks of BS. In retrospect, perhaps "Scaremongerer" would've been a better choice of words.

No, no it wasn't. It made the climate change crowd look like complete idiots, when they aren't.
How so? I thought it was very well made, even if it has factual errors.

How so? I thought it was very well made, even if it has factual errors.

Very serious factual errors, plus it was too emotive and not objective enough.

And you beleive this based on what?

Really, is this all politics is anymore? Can we not have a debate without labling the otherside criminals and terrorists just to prove a point?

A democracy needs political opposision, a clash between ideas. But when you insist on turning every political opponent into a terrorist, you are creating an environment where political opposision is no longer accepted. Thus, you risk moving the debate from the polls and the news and the courts onto the battlefield.

I love democracy. And it horrifies me to see it going down this path where their are no mere disagreements, no honorable opponents, no compromises, but only enemies.

You misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing Gore for being politically manipulative. I think that's the point of democracy: it's like political capitalism. Yeah, everyone might be assholes but if the shyte gets done then the shyte gets done. I'm criticizing what may possibly be hypocrisy, as well as the fact that Gore keeps getting more annoying and won't go away because he can't seem to get over the fact that he lost the US election.

If you are under no obligation to defend your opinions, why should anyone else be? Don't defend yourself by throwing the burden of proof around and claiming everyone is a troll.

And don't make a fool of yourself by presuming to give me unsolicited and unneeded advice. I will defend whomever and whatever I like.

He made a wild claim that was completely unsubstantiated by anything in this thread, or anything that Al Gore has ever said or done to my knowledge. When you make a claim that goes against all known facts and evidence, the burden of proof is on you.

Nor do I claim everyone else is a troll. I may sometimes use the lable to freely, and perhaps calling you a troll is not accurate.

However, you are most definately a lier, or else incapable of understanding concepts like "burden of proof".

You misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing Gore for being politically manipulative. I think that's the point of democracy: it's like political capitalism. Yeah, everyone might be assholes but if the shyte gets done then the shyte gets done. I'm criticizing what may possibly be hypocrisy, as well as the fact that Gore keeps getting more annoying and won't go away because he can't seem to get over the fact that he lost the US election.

More ad hominum attacks from a poor debater with no argument.:rolleyes: Yawn.

How so? I thought it was very well made, even if it has factual errors.

Considering that it was a documentary and not fiction, the validity of the facts in the film are somewhat relevant to whether or not it should be considered "good".

Don't tell me you've never heard of a peaceful protest becoming not-so-peaceful..

I see. However, its still a bad example. Marxist communism is founded specifically with the beleif that violent revolt is nessissary. Civil disobediance is not.

More ad hominum attacks from a poor debater with no argument.:rolleyes: Yawn.

Wait, what? How is that ad hominem? I mean sure, that last bit is a jib against Gore, but that's what it is...a jib against Gore. I'm criticizing him for being annoying: that's not ad hominem, that's criticizing someone for being annoying. If I had said something along the lines of "Gore is wrong about Global Warming because he's annoying" that would be ad hominem. But saying "Gore is annoying because he's annoying" it's ad hominem in the sense that I'm personally attacking Gore but my argument itself is a personally attack against Gore so it's still valid in the context of my own opinion.

Ah, but you're using argumentum ad latin, whereby the argument is proved by using irrelevant latin phrases.


Which is a bad idea because I'm better at it. See? I even made up my own latin phrase. I doubt you can top that.

I see. However, its still a bad example. Marxist communism is founded specifically with the beleif that violent revolt is nessissary. Civil disobediance is not.

*sigh*

I'm NOT linking civil disobedience directly to Marxism. I'm saying that saying civil disobedience is only peaceful and stays that way is like saying that Communism is only for the masses and stays that way.

Considering that it was a documentary and not fiction, the validity of the facts in the film are somewhat relevant to whether or not it should be considered "good".
I thought of it more as propaganda*, but you have a point.

*...which I didn't consider to be a bad thing. I watched it knowing full well Mr. Gore was not a neutral party, and found his argument interesting and entertaining.

he can't seem to get over the fact that he won the US election.
Fixed.

Which has nothing to do with my attack against the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Well you're criticizing Gore for advocating illegal actions, and the Nobel commitee for rewarding them, right? In which case its perfectly valid to point out how simply saying the actions are illegal does not demonstrate they are wrong.

Do you really think I give two shits, over whether you like me or not? As for your spelling, while it may have no accuracy on your arguments, I did notice that you corrected it.

Yes, I corrected my spelling. Is that a problem? Its not like I went back to edit my earlier posts and hide my mistake. But I suppose not correcting it would have helped you make further ad hominum attacks against me based on my spelling, so I can see why you'd be upset.

And I don't expect you care weather I like you. It was kind of a cheap shot, but so was attacking me for being a "Gore lover." One does not have to love someone to deffend them against dishonesty.


Well, I knew I was stretching the truth after all, civil disobedience can be violent in nature, if you deny this then I may suggest that you are severely ignorant on at least one thing.

I suppose it can be, but it is gennerally associated with non-violent actions. Its more about passive, as opposed to active resistance.

And at least you've admitted you were "stretching the truth." Meaning that you knew in advance that what you were saying was innacurate, but you went ahead and said it anyway. So it was dishonesty, as opposed to simple ignorence or stupidity.

One more question didn't you have an avatar?

Nope.

I thought of it more as propaganda*, but you have a point.

*...which I didn't consider to be a bad thing. I watched it knowing full well Mr. Gore was not a neutral party, and found his argument interesting and entertaining.

I agree, for the most part.

I thought of it more as propaganda*, but you have a point.

*...which I didn't consider to be a bad thing. I watched it knowing full well Mr. Gore was not a neutral party, and found his argument interesting and entertaining.

Now that, I'll grant you. As far as being propaganda, it worked spectacularly well. However, I have a lot of respect for people who can be more subtle, and more importantly, entertaining with their propaganda. For example, "The Happening," while being incredibly obvious, was still entertaining, interesting, well acted, and at least attempted to engage the viewers' minds rather than assault them with graphs and charts.

The point being that I call "The Happening" a good film based on the film itself and and "Inconvenient Truth" good propaganda based on how much people actually cared about it.

*sigh*

I'm NOT linking civil disobedience directly to Marxism. I'm saying that saying civil disobedience is only peaceful and stays that way is like saying that Communism is only for the masses and stays that way.

Ok, I get it. Its just not the best comparison.

Ok, I get it. Its just not the best comparison.

Civil disobedience is like Hitler...

Wait, what? How is that ad hominem? I mean sure, that last bit is a jib against Gore, but that's what it is...a jib against Gore. I'm criticizing him for being annoying: that's not ad hominem, that's criticizing someone for being annoying. If I had said something along the lines of "Gore is wrong about Global Warming because he's annoying" that would be ad hominem. But saying "Gore is annoying because he's annoying" it's ad hominem in the sense that I'm personally attacking Gore but my argument itself is a personally attack against Gore so it's still valid in the context of my own opinion.

Ah, but you're using argumentum ad latin, whereby the argument is proved by using irrelevant latin phrases.


Which is a bad idea because I'm better at it. See? I even made up my own latin phrase. I doubt you can top that.

Well, I see it as attacking Gore's character rather than the evidence for his arguments. You're going after him for hipochrisy and supposed (unproven) biterness over his ellection defeat, as if that some how invalidates his arguments on global warming.

As for the last two paragraphs, they're just silly. I'm using a legitimate peice of debating terminology. You're making up terms on the spur of them moment to make fun of me. And I'm not depending soley on pointing out ad hominums to prove my point. I'm also relying on your failiure to understand burden of proof and the fact that the claim about Gore you seem intent on deffending is not based in any factual evidence whatsoever.

Civil disobedience is like Hitler...

That makes no sense.

Well you're criticizing Gore for advocating illegal actions, and the Nobel commitee for rewarding them, right? In which case its perfectly valid to point out how simply saying the actions are illegal does not demonstrate they are wrong.

I am criticising the Nobel Committee for rewarding illegal actions, like how Henry Kissinger won it for bombing the shit out of Cambodia, and criticising them for giving Gore the prize for making a movie. So you see how it is linked?

Yes, I corrected my spelling. Is that a problem? Its not like I went back to edit my earlier posts and hide my mistake. But I suppose not correcting it would have helped you make further ad hominum attacks against me based on my spelling, so I can see why you'd be upset.

And I don't expect you care weather I like you. It was kind of a cheap shot, but so was attacking me for being a "Gore lover." One does not have to love someone to deffend them against dishonesty.

Yes I did take a cheap shot at you, I knew that I had after I posted it, which is why I didn't post a few other things, in relation to some of your other posts.

I suppose it can be, but it is gennerally associated with non-violent actions. Its more about passive, as opposed to active resistance.

And at least you've admitted you were "stretching the truth." Meaning that you knew in advance that what you were saying was innacurate, but you went ahead and said it anyway. So it was dishonesty, as opposed to simple ignorence or stupidity.

No, I knew in advance that it wasn't the entire truth, but just because your idea of acting disobedient is passive, does not mean that other people's including Gore's isn't passive. You mentioned the American revolution, hardly passive yet an example of civil disobedience.

Nope.

Ok, it must be someone else with a similar name to yours that I was thinking of.

Ok, I get it. Its just not the best comparison.

No, it's not, but it's pretty easy to understand.

I could've just come out and said "Non-violent protests often end violently" but that isn't as fun. :p

1. I don't like hypocrites.


Then 'hypocrisy' was a fair comment, but - if your problem is not liking hypocrites.... 'environazi' is a tad hysterical.


2. I understand that. It's that he takes it too far, and scares everyone for attention. Did you see "An inconvenient truth"? Big chunks of BS. In retrospect, perhaps "Scaremongerer" would've been a better choice of words.

Here's the problem. I first became informed about the Climate Change (still called 'Global Warming' at that point) debate when I was in my first year at university (which would make it... 1993).

In 15 years, the weight of scientific evidence has got progressively more extensive, and our understanding of what climate change is, and how we're contributing to it, has evolved too.

On the other hand - what's changed? In the rest of the world, quite a lot. In the US - nothing.

You might decry Gore's approach, but just presenting data doesn't work. And there's 15 years of evidence to back that claim.

Considering that it was a documentary and not fiction, the validity of the facts in the film are somewhat relevant to whether or not it should be considered "good".

Not entirely. It could be a really good documentary, and every 'fact' could turn out to be false. Any documentary on religion, for example.

On the other hand - what's changed? In the rest of the world, quite a lot. In the US - nothing.


Well, the US have actually been cutting their carbon emissions.

I'm criticizing... the fact that Gore keeps getting more annoying and won't go away because he can't seem to get over the fact that he lost the US election.

He's not annoying me... I'm quite enjoying him, over the last few years.

No, I knew in advance that it wasn't the entire truth, but just because your idea of acting disobedient is passive, does not mean that other people's including Gore's isn't passive. You mentioned the American revolution, hardly passive yet an example of civil disobedience.

So your back to suggesting that while most people's understanding of civil disobediance is more about non-violent ressisstance, Gore may in fact intend it to mean violence? On what evidence do you draw that conclusion about a respected politician who has spent his life working primarilly within the democratic process and legitimate media to spread his message?

And the revolution involved civil disobediance, but it quickly escallated beyond mere civil disobediance into military disobediance and armed insurection.

Not entirely. It could be a really good documentary, and every 'fact' could turn out to be false. Any documentary on religion, for example.

"The head of the Roman Catholic Church is the pope, and resides in Vatican City which is located inside of Rome, Italy"

FALSE!!!

So your back to suggesting that while most people's understanding of civil disobediance is more about non-violent ressisstance, Gore may in fact intend it to mean violence? On what evidence do you draw that conclusion about a respected politician who has spent his life working primarilly within the democratic process and legitimate media to spread his message?

And the revolution involved civil disobediance, but it quickly escallated beyond mere civil disobediance into military disobediance and armed insurection.

Most people, do you intend that to mean your understanding? Perhaps you can provide us with a legal definition with Civil disobedience and prove me wrong that civil disobedience has nothing to do with violence.

Well, the US have actually been cutting their carbon emissions.

One looks to the westward neighbor of Japan for carbon emi... Oh, right. :p

Civil disobedience is like Hitler...

Sort of like your necktie (http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-01-22/).

Then 'hypocrisy' was a fair comment, but - if your problem is not liking hypocrites.... 'environazi' is a tad hysterical.

Yeah, I think I might've went overboard there. Forgive me for that.


Here's the problem. I first became informed about the Climate Change (still called 'Global Warming' at that point) debate when I was in my first year at university (which would make it... 1993).

In 15 years, the weight of scientific evidence has got progressively more extensive, and our understanding of what climate change is, and how we're contributing to it, has evolved too.

On the other hand - what's changed? In the rest of the world, quite a lot. In the US - nothing.

You might decry Gore's approach, but just presenting data doesn't work. And there's 15 years of evidence to back that claim.
To back what claim? That Climate change is happening? We all already knew that. BUT! The cause of it is still being debated! This is a phenomenon we've never been able to record before, at the same time of an increase in industrialization. Therefore, many people have made the conclusion that Global warming is caused by us. But in reality, we really don't know. There isn't enough evidence on either side to say for certain, just a whole lot of guesswork. We can say "Well, as you can see, CO2 has been rising along with the temperature...", but if you do, I can say "Well, the birth rate in the US has been going down along with the stork population..." But that doesn't mean that storks bring babies! We really can't be certain. For the first time ever, we're recording this, and since we got the capabilities to do so at the end of the little ice age, everyone's in a tizzy about it. Now, I agree that we should move away from coal and the sort, it doesn't produce a whole lot of energy, it pollutes the local environment, and since it's non-renewable, sooner or later prices will skyrocket and crash most economies that are dependent on such substances. But, pushing it all forward so quickly, and for such reasons just don't line up with me.

/rant over.

And the revolution involved civil disobediance, but it quickly escallated beyond mere civil disobediance into military disobediance and armed insurection.

Congratulations! You made his/her point for him/her.

Calls for civil disobediance do not equal calls for violence. Even the Fox article didn't claim Goar was inciting violence. This is flat out, defamatory bullshit. Goar could probably sue your trolling ass.

Who/What the hell is Goar?

Who/What the hell is Goar?

We have already covered that, but be careful he will accuse you of an ad hominem.

That makes no sense.

Explaining the joke makes it not funny.

Well, I see it as attacking Gore's character rather than the evidence for his arguments. You're going after him for hipochrisy and supposed (unproven) biterness over his ellection defeat, as if that some how invalidates his arguments on global warming.

Have I said anything about Gore's arguments on global warming? All I recall commenting on was his call for civil disobedience and my personal opinion of Gore's motives which I fully admit are my own personal opinions.

As for the last two paragraphs, they're just silly. I'm using a legitimate peice of debating terminology.

You're using legitimate terminology poorly.

You're making up terms on the spur of them moment to make fun of me.

I won't deny it. I won't accept it, but I won't deny it.

And I'm not depending soley on pointing out ad hominums to prove my point.

You're also throwing the burden of proof around.

I'm also relying on your failiure to understand burden of proof and the fact that the claim about Gore you seem intent on deffending is not based in any factual evidence whatsoever.

What claim about Gore am I defending?

Other than that I think he's silly and annoying. Which, for the record, I don't need to defend because I don't find it necessary to prove that my opinions are, in fact, my opinions.

Also: hypocrisy, bitterness, election, piece, failure, and defending. Use spellcheck. And you can't blame laziness or not knowing English on getting "hypocrisy because I just used the word two quotes ago. Or might that suggest that you're not actually paying attention to what I'm posting?

Most people, do you intend that to mean your understanding? Perhaps you can provide us with a legal definition with Civil disobedience and prove me wrong that civil disobedience has nothing to do with violence.

It certainly does not inherrently mean violence. Nothing Gore said indicated that he meant anything violent, and the term is typically associated with non-violent resistance. Thus, I was right to demand some evidence that Gore was inciting violence beyond the fact that he was inciting civil disobediance.

I don't have a dictionary with me now, but I'll try to give you a deffinition tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. In fact, I'll go start a new thread on the definition of civil disobediance, in which we can all post any deffinition we wish and argue over which is the correct one.:)

Well, the US have actually been cutting their carbon emissions.

Kind of. Last year, emissions actually rose. (The US has a weird way of calculating it's national carbon footprint, anyway - by comparing it to GDP). A lot of what has happened in the US, has been from individual states (like California) or groups of states employing Kyoto-alike protocols. But the nation itself, in toto, has remained pretty much inert.

Not entirely. It could be a really good documentary, and every 'fact' could turn out to be false. Any documentary on religion, for example.

I would not call those documentaries "good". I would call them well-produced, but not good. But that's semantics.

Kind of. Last year, emissions actually rose. (The US has a weird way of calculating it's national carbon footprint, anyway - by comparing it to GDP). A lot of what has happened in the US, has been from individual states (like California) or groups of states employing Kyoto-alike protocols. But the nation itself, in toto, has remained pretty much inert.

Well, had they done nothing, I think there would have been a more significant increase. Also, I don't think Europe are doing any better, though I'm not entirely sure right now.

We have already covered that, but be careful he will accuse you of an ad hominem.

Which post was that? I missed that one. I was curious about that. I figured he was trying to be clever and couldn't stop trying.

It certainly does not inherrently mean violence. Nothing Gore said indicated that he meant anything violent, and the term is typically associated with non-violent resistance. Thus, I was right to demand some evidence that Gore was inciting violence beyond the fact that he was inciting civil disobediance.

But you do acknowledge that it may mean committing acts violent in nature? Gore didn't say anything he just said people should perform civil disobedience nothing about being passive nothing about being aggressive. Now you typically associate it with non-violent resistance, does not mean everybody does.

I don't have a dictionary with me now, but I'll try to give you a deffinition tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. In fact, I'll go start a new thread on the definition of civil disobediance, in which we can all post any deffinition we wish and argue over which is the correct one.:)

Well I await it.

RhynoD, English may not be his mother tongue.

To back what claim? That Climate change is happening? We all already knew that. BUT! The cause of it is still being debated! This is a phenomenon we've never been able to record before, at the same time of an increase in industrialization. Therefore, many people have made the conclusion that Global warming is caused by us.

This is wrong, anyone with two brain cells knows (and any scientist without a political agenda will acknowledge) that global warming is indeed partially caused by us. The question is how responsible we are. Pretending that we are not responsible at all is stupid and ill informed. Its a matter of how much we are to blame.

Fixed.

Really? He had more electoral votes than Bush? Because my sources tell me he only won 266 electoral votes, and he would have needed 270 to win the presidency (Bush had 271).

Look, I don't like Bush either (and I didn't vote for him), but he did win the vote that counts, which is the electoral vote.

Really? He had more electoral votes than Bush? Because my sources tell me he only won 266 electoral votes, and he would have needed 270 to win the presidency (Bush had 271).

Look, I don't like Bush either (and I didn't vote for him), but he did win the vote that counts, which is the electoral vote.

Well, he only won Florida because 8 old men and 1 old woman got to vote twice, and the second time counted more.

Which post was that? I missed that one. I was curious about that. I figured he was trying to be clever and couldn't stop trying.

You missed our little two way?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14036695&postcount=28

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14036707&postcount=32

There are a couple more posts on his spelling of Gore but it isn't worth reading that much.

Explaining the joke makes it not funny.

It didn't seem very funny.

Have I said anything about Gore's arguments on global warming? All I recall commenting on was his call for civil disobedience and my personal opinion of Gore's motives which I fully admit are my own personal opinions.

Maybe, maybe not. But you've attacked his call for civil disobediance, which is based in his views about just how serious this problem is. At the very least, you're attacking his argument in support of civil disobediance by attacking his personal character. Its still an ad hominum as far as I can see.

You're using legitimate terminology poorly.

Perhaps not as well as some, but I don't think quite as badly as you have.

I won't deny it. I won't accept it, but I won't deny it.

A non-answer.

You're also throwing the burden of proof around.

I'm pointing out your apparent inabillity to grasp the concept, yes.

What claim about Gore am I defending?

Other than that I think he's silly and annoying. Which, for the record, I don't need to defend because I don't find it necessary to prove that my opinions are, in fact, my opinions.

You claimed that Gore would find violent actions to support his goals "laudable".

Also: hypocrisy, bitterness, election, piece, failure, and defending. Use spellcheck. And you can't blame laziness or not knowing English on getting "hypocrisy because I just used the word two quotes ago. Or might that suggest that you're not actually paying attention to what I'm posting?

Repeat after me: quality of spelling does not equal quality of argument. Its hard to keep up with 50 posts at once. I type quickly, I type messily. And when I do fix an error, I apparently get criticized for it.

Well, he only won Florida because 8 old men and 1 old woman got to vote twice, and the second time counted more.

There were two old women, actually. Unless you know something about Ginsberg the rest of us don't.

We have already covered that, but be careful he will accuse you of an ad hominem.

No I won't, unless he uses my spelling as a way of attacking my argument like you did.

There were two old women, actually. Unless you know something about Ginsberg the rest of us don't.

Fair enough.

Yeah, I think I might've went overboard there. Forgive me for that.

To back what claim? That Climate change is happening? We all already knew that. BUT! The cause of it is still being debated! This is a phenomenon we've never been able to record before, at the same time of an increase in industrialization. Therefore, many people have made the conclusion that Global warming is caused by us. But in reality, we really don't know. There isn't enough evidence on either side to say for certain, just a whole lot of guesswork. We can say "Well, as you can see, CO2 has been rising along with the temperature...", but if you do, I can say "Well, the birth rate in the US has been going down along with the stork population..." But that doesn't mean that storks bring babies! We really can't be certain. For the first time ever, we're recording this, and since we got the capabilities to do so at the end of the little ice age, everyone's in a tizzy about it. Now, I agree that we should move away from coal and the sort, it doesn't produce a whole lot of energy, it pollutes the local environment, and since it's non-renewable, sooner or later prices will skyrocket and crash most economies that are dependent on such substances. But, pushing it all forward so quickly, and for such reasons just don't line up with me.

/rant over.

In the case of the comment you were replying to 'the claim' that we have 15 years of evidence to back is - just presenting the facts isn't getting anything done (at least, in the eyes of the US).

As for the issue of whether or not climate change is beign caused by us.... all you'd have to show is that anthropogenic sources CONTRIBUTE. We don't have to show that ALL of the climate change is DIRECTLY caused by people - and it would be a bit unlikely anyway, not only because climate changes both constantly and in cycles.... but also because the kind of science that could track EVERY change of climate and compare it to EVERY production of pollution just doesn't exist yet.

But the consensus is pretty much in that we ARE contributing. And if we can track a direct contribution, it's a strong indicator that there's a whole lot more INdirect contribution. The dissenting voices in the issue are negligible, now... and also, to be honest, almost entirely irrelevent. (I say this, not because of their dissent, but because most of the publicised dissent on the climate change issue consists of people for whom climate change is nowhere close to their actual field of expertise).

Should we be moving ahead with cleaner fuels? Absolutely.

Should we be making it a super high priority? Actually - yes. If you can already see snow moving, it means the avalanche has already started.

Does that mean we should be forming Luddite communes, and making the sign of the devil at any lumps of coal that cross our path? Probably not.

I'd rather we erred WAYYYY on the side of caution, though. What's left of this world is going to be our legacy to our children.

But you do acknowledge that it may mean committing acts violent in nature? Gore didn't say anything he just said people should perform civil disobedience nothing about being passive nothing about being aggressive. Now you typically associate it with non-violent resistance, does not mean everybody does.



Well I await it.

RhynoD, English may not be his mother tongue.

I am a native English speaker, I just spell it more poorly than I speak it. Its probably part lazyness, part trying to get replies up quickly, and part poor education.

No I won't, unless he uses my spelling as a way of attacking my argument like you did.

Well I don't think I was discrediting your argument by going for you because you didn't know how to spell Gore. I was attacking the man because you didn't know how to spell but it wasn't an attempt to prove your argument wrong.

I am a native English speaker, I just spell it more poorly than I speak it. Its probably part lazyness, part trying to get replies up quickly, and part poor education.

This may be a bad time to mention it, but it's "laziness," with an i.

And my spelling has no bearing on the accuracy of my arguments. Drop the ad hominum attacks.

It does, however, affect how seriously people will bother to take your arguments. When you can't spell the relevant subject (in this case, Gore), especially when it's spelled correctly several times in the posts that you're actually quoting, it makes you look like an idiot, and people are less likely to believe that what you have to say is valid. It may not affect the actual validity of the argument, but it does affect whether or not people think it's valid. It also affects whether or not we care.

This may be a bad time to mention it, but it's "laziness," with an i.

I never said I wasn't lazy.

Well I don't think I was discrediting your argument by going for you because you didn't know how to spell Gore. I was attacking the man because you didn't know how to spell but it wasn't an attempt to prove your argument wrong.

Actually, I recall it as being more of a cheap jab than an attempt to discredit my argument. I think I got you mixed up with Rhyno D, who was attacking my arguments by going after my spelling. My apologies. Its late here, and this argument has been tiring.

This is wrong, anyone with two brain cells knows (and any scientist without a political agenda will acknowledge) that global warming is indeed partially caused by us. The question is how responsible we are. Pretending that we are not responsible at all is stupid and ill informed. Its a matter of how much we are to blame.

This is not true, and I will present counter examples.
Neither of which is sound.

1. I once met an old man at a mexican restaraunt, who explained to me that global warming is, in fact, not even an issue centrally about the Earth. Apparently, the sun just got several degrees warmer in its output. Yes, he said this. Yes, he was serious. And I can prove that he had two brain cells, because it takes at least that many to have a stroke.

2. As to scientists without political stance, Dr. Lucius Schtuppenfischer of Miskatonic University, who, due to his research, lacks not only any political stance, but any regard for human institutions as anything other than "smegma to be smeared in the face of Those Who Are Coming", has presented substantial research that Earth's temperature is simply a by product of the "stars being right".

Actually, I recall it as being more of a cheap jab than an attempt to discredit my argument. I think I got you mixed up with Rhyno D, who was attacking my arguments by going after my spelling. My apologies. Its late here, and this argument has been tiring.

Yes that's exactly what it was. But will you get back to my last post, on civil disobedience? You did quote it but only to say that you are lazy when typing.

It does, however, affect how seriously people will bother to take your arguments. When you can't spell the relevant subject (in this case, Gore), especially when it's spelled correctly several times in the posts that you're actually quoting, it makes you look like an idiot, and people are less likely to believe that what you have to say is valid. It may not affect the actual validity of the argument, but it does affect whether or not people think it's valid. It also affects whether or not we care.

So you were knowingly taking advantage of other's ignorence and prejudice to discredit me?

RhynoD, English may not be his mother tongue.

That's not an excuse when the word has already been spelled out repeatedly in the same thread, in posts that he is quoting and responding to.

Yes that's exactly what it was. But will you get back to my last post, on civil disobedience? You did quote it but only to say that you are lazy when typing.

Well, if I recall correctly it was largely a rehashing of old posts. I have already responded to your views on the nature of civil disobediance, and promised to try to post a definition tomorrow.

That's not an excuse when the word has already been spelled out repeatedly in the same thread, in posts that he is quoting and responding to.

Your fixation on my spelling seems telling regarding your abillity to devellope solid arguments for your side.

That's not an excuse when the word has already been spelled out repeatedly in the same thread, in posts that he is quoting and responding to.

Yeah true, true.

Well, if I recall correctly it was largely a rehashing of old posts. I have already responded to your views on the nature of civil disobediance, and promised to try to post a definition tomorrow.

Fair enough.

Your fixation on my spelling seems telling regarding your abillity to devellope solid arguments for your side.

Part of what makes it so stark is that it contrasts strangely with your otherwise able writing. I don't necessarily endorse your position, but with the exception of your spelling, you seem to at least be able to achieve coherency.

Also, I have to ask, did you include "devellope" on purpose, and if so, may I say, nicely done?

(If it wasn't on purpose, never mind.)

It didn't seem very funny.

Made me laugh.

Maybe, maybe not. But you've attacked his call for civil disobediance, which is based in his views about just how serious this problem is. At the very least, you're attacking his argument in support of civil disobediance by attacking his personal character. Its still an ad hominum as far as I can see.

Ad hominem. With an e.

And it's really not a "maybe, maybe not" issue. Read the thread. Did I comment on anything other than what I said I commented on?

And my opinion on the validity of his call for civil disobedience has little to do with what my opinion is of global warming. It has everything to do with whether or not I think civil disobedience is an appropriate response to global warming. Which, I will grant, is related to my opinion of global warming, but not substantially affected by it.

And my attack on his call for civil disobedience has nothing to do with my attack on his person. My attack on his person is an attack on his person and unrelated, nor did I mean for it to be. If you feel that I have neglected to support my opinion of his call for civil disobedience, then point that out and do not use latin phrases incorrectly.

Perhaps not as well as some, but I don't think quite as badly as you have.

I haven't used any. I've only pointed out that you used them poorly.

A non-answer.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I'm pointing out your apparent inabillity to grasp the concept, yes.

Before that you were throwing it around, though.

You claimed that Gore would find violent actions to support his goals "laudable".

No, I claimed that I would not be surprised if he did.

Repeat after me: quality of spelling does not equal quality of argument. Its hard to keep up with 50 posts at once. I type quickly, I type messily. And when I do fix an error, I apparently get criticized for it.

Repeat after me: My use of proper English in an intellectual setting is an indication of the amount effort I have put into my arguments and therefore reflects on the quality of the argument; additionally, no person is above personal biases and the grammar in my arguments affects others' opinion of me and their opinion of my arguments, even if it does not actually detract from the validity of my argument.

Your fixation on my spelling seems telling regarding your abillity to devellope solid arguments for your side.

Your fixation on my fixation is no less telling.

So you were knowingly taking advantage of other's ignorence and prejudice to discredit me?

I never said it discredited you. I said it reflects on your argument and I am pointing your mistakes out to you that you might correct them and therefore strengthen your argument.

Your fixation on my fixation is no less telling.

It is not a fixation if I am repeatedly forced to defend myself against the same attack. Stop using it, and I will stop responding to it.

I bet you think you're really clever, don't you?

I'd like to respond to your other post as well, but its late and the library were I'm logged on is about to close.

I never said it discredited you. I said it reflects on your argument and I am pointing your mistakes out to you that you might correct them and therefore strengthen your argument.

I'm pretty sure that actually makes it ad hominem, then, actually....

If you're seriously arguing that the spelling (an aspect of the poster, i.e. his ability to type/spell) "reflects on your argument".

Unless the argument was "How do you spell this word?", I can't see any real way that that wouldn't be considered ad hominem.

It is not a fixation if I am repeatedly forced to defend myself against the same attack. Stop using it, and I will stop responding to it.

I'm not attacking you. I'm merely pointing out your mistakes.

I bet you think you're really clever, don't you?

Only as clever as you are intelligent.

I'd like to respond to your other post as well, but its late and the library were I'm logged on is about to close.

I want to be buried in my local library when I die. It's beautiful inside. And also a library. I want a nice tree with a plaque with my name on it in the foyer.

I'm pretty sure that actually makes it ad hominem, then, actually....

If you're seriously arguing that the spelling (an aspect of the poster, i.e. his ability to type/spell) "reflects on your argument".

Unless the argument was "How do you spell this word?", I can't see any real way that that wouldn't be considered ad hominem.

I'm not saying his argument is invalid. I'm saying that I don't particularly care whether or not his argument is valid if he can't take the time to proofread it before he posts it.

This discussion turned to bullshit pretty rapidly.

I'm not saying his argument is invalid. I'm saying that I don't particularly care whether or not his argument is valid if he can't take the time to proofread it before he posts it.

Watch out GnI, I have gone head to head on this issue with RhynoD before. RhynoD please don't start this again, I'm still nursing the sores from last time.

Watch out GnI, I have gone head to head on this issue with RhynoD before. RhynoD please don't start this again, I'm still nursing the sores from last time.

That was a fun thread. I should find it...

This discussion turned to bullshit pretty rapidly.

Which is like saying Clay Aiken is gay...

Which apparently is like Obama declaring that he's black.

Which is like saying Clay Aiken is gay...

Which apparently is like Obama declaring that he's black.

Captain Obvious just keeps pounding on me tonight.

Captain Obvious just keeps pounding on me tonight.

On NSG he usually has to hit people harder and more often to be effective. I suppose it's developed into a habit.

Civil disobedience is 'a silly thing'?
In this one case it is because of the proposed solution to the protested issue. No company exists to capture and liquify CO2 and then pump it into the ground because that is a costly and horribly wasteful undertaking. He's not really looking for a solution, he's looking for a solution where he can make money. Carbon Credits are the new indulgences, a way for the rich to pay their way out of guilt while still doing whatever sinful thing they want. And Gore already has a stake in that, he buys credits from himself.

Also, we need our power, all of us. Even you. And things like wind and wave power aren't the answer. We need cheap, reliable power and that means hydrocarbons and nuclear (or a dam where available). While he is encouraging children and young adults who should know better to trespass and you know that some are going to take it a step further with vandalism or more serious violent acts.

In this one case it is because of the proposed solution to the protested issue. No company exists to capture and liquify CO2 and then pump it into the ground because that is a costly and horribly wasteful undertaking.


Errr... and kinda psychotic...


He's not really looking for a solution, he's looking for a solution where he can make money. Carbon Credits are the new indulgences, a way for the rich to pay their way out of guilt while still doing whatever sinful thing they want.


Wouldn't that be carbon offsetting?


And Gore already has a stake in that, he buys credits from himself.

Also, we need our power, all of us. Even you.


Even me? Even me? What - did I exempt myself or something?


And things like wind and wave power aren't the answer.


Because... you said so?


We need cheap, reliable power and that means hydrocarbons and nuclear (or a dam where available).


Hydrocarbons would be cheap-ish... but have a very finite life expectancy. And 'cheapish'... I think you're basing your calculations on a very limited set of parameters which doesn't allow for little details like increasing price and demand against reducing supply...


While he is encouraging children and young adults who should know better to trespass and you know that some are going to take it a step further with vandalism or more serious violent acts.

Which is a horseshit argument. It's the same excuse that the Spanish Inquisition used for torturing people in the name of the Church...

Because... you said so?

Wind/wave power is not yet, and very possibly will never be a viable source of significant energy because it isn't efficient, reliable, or cheap.

Which is a horseshit argument. It's the same excuse that the Spanish Inquisition used for torturing people in the name of the Church...

A friend of mine said it best today when we were discussing this:
Regardless of whether or not Gore wants violence to happen, regardless of whether or not Gore is directly responsible for controlling people's actions, Gore does need to recognize the fact that calling for civil disobedience can, and probably will lead to violence. As such, the responsible thing for him to do would be to specify the kind of action he envisions, as Gandhi did when he called for civil disobedience: he clarified his call to action so that those following him would have a much harder time misconstruing his call to action as a call for violence.

Cereal?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427421,00.html

Either way, Gore is nuts. He wants to save the world with deadly lasers instead of deadly slideshows.

And Inconvenient Truth was retarded.Honey, nobody except really nutty right-wingers thinks of Fox as a reliable source of anything. Not even the time of day.

Cereal?
Serial.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427421,00.html

Either way, Gore is nuts.
Not really, he's just a publicity whore.
And Inconvenient Truth was retarded.
Eh it was super overhyped. And the jury is still pretty much out on the issue. But it wasn't retarded.

Ah, yes, the worst south park episode.

Wind/wave power is not yet, and very possibly will never be a viable source of significant energy because it isn't efficient, reliable, or cheap.



A friend of mine said it best today when we were discussing this:
Regardless of whether or not Gore wants violence to happen, regardless of whether or not Gore is directly responsible for controlling people's actions, Gore does need to recognize the fact that calling for civil disobedience can, and probably will lead to violence. As such, the responsible thing for him to do would be to specify the kind of action he envisions, as Gandhi did when he called for civil disobedience: he clarified his call to action so that those following him would have a much harder time misconstruing his call to action as a call for violence.

Wait, weren't you berating him for trying to be like Gandhi a while back?

Wait, weren't you berating him for trying to be like Gandhi a while back?

I'm berating him for trying and failing. He's not Gandhi, so trying is silly, and beyond that he's doing it poorly.

Wind/wave power is not yet, and very possibly will never be a viable source of significant energy because it isn't efficient, reliable, or cheap.


Unlike, for example, gasoline consumption, which is so efficient, it sometimes yeilds as much as 4% of it's combustion energy in directly usable forms...?

But it's long history of usage, especially when compared with such radical new technologies as the waterwheel and the windmill, ensures it a pride of place in the 'efficient, reliable and cheap' assessments.


A friend of mine said it best today when we were discussing this:
Regardless of whether or not Gore wants violence to happen, regardless of whether or not Gore is directly responsible for controlling people's actions, Gore does need to recognize the fact that calling for civil disobedience can, and probably will lead to violence. As such, the responsible thing for him to do would be to specify the kind of action he envisions, as Gandhi did when he called for civil disobedience: he clarified his call to action so that those following him would have a much harder time misconstruing his call to action as a call for violence.

A friend of yours is a tool.

And the jury is still pretty much out on the issue.

No, it really isn't.

Unlike, for example, gasoline consumption, which is so efficient, it sometimes yeilds as much as 4% of it's combustion energy in directly usable forms...?

Gasoline doesn't have to be efficient. It's cheap enough to make up for it.

A friend of yours is a tool.

A friend of mine would take offense to that. But then he'd ask you to substantiate your claim that he's a fool instead of throwing out baseless accusations against his person without a valid rebuttal to his position and dismiss you as a dimwitted, close-minded imbecile and remind himself not to take offense at others' ignorance, especially when those people are unimportant anonymous internet nobodies who derive pleasure from their self-gratifying and self-perpetuating ignorance.

so...like...Rhyno just has a problem with Gore or something?

Gasoline doesn't have to be efficient. It's cheap enough to make up for it.


Yes. What with the minimal costs of extraction, refining, processing, transport, etc - it works out much cheaper than those hard to find elements like 'the wind'.


A friend of mine would take offense to that. But then he'd ask you to substantiate your claim that he's a fool


I said 'tool', not 'fool'.


...instead of throwing out baseless


Hardly baseless. By the alleged arguments of your alleged friend, "Rage Against the Machine" are culpable for such incendiary slogans as 'take the power back', because they don't clearly delineate the mechanisms by which such a process can be orchestrated in a non-violent, and democratic, fashion.

By the same alleged arguments from the same alleged friend, the words of Jesus to carry his message to all corners of the world are at fault for violence and genocide, because he didn't actually SPECIFY not carrying that message through brutal subjugation and genocide.

It's horsehit. And that makes my comment a little better than 'baseless' - because your alleged friend is using the scope of the message as an EXCUSE.


...accusations against his person without a valid rebuttal to his position and dismiss you as a dimwitted, close-minded imbecile


Which, I think, would be further evidence that this 'friend' would be a tool.


...and remind himself not to take offense at others' ignorance, especially when those people are unimportant anonymous internet nobodies who derive pleasure from their self-gratifying and self-perpetuating ignorance.

Since these comments are hypothetical (since - to be honest, we don't even know you HAVE a friend, much less that you are actually relating his/her actual thoughts) I'll let them pass as, I assume, petulance that someone should dare to denigrate your obviously highly laudable friend.

It doesn't matter that I work in the environmental sciences, because this 'friend' has nothing to say on the issue of the actual environmental issue being discussed, instead occupying themselves with sniping at the messenger for imagined wrongs that (only) that person finds.



EDIT: Wait, wait, wait... are you the same poster who told the forum they could purify water with Iodine?

Yes. What with the minimal costs of extraction, refining, processing, transport, etc - it works out much cheaper than those hard to find elements like 'the wind'.

Yes, wind is so cheap, what with the cost of erecting windmills, running the power lines, finding somewhere with reliable weather patterns, hiring security to protect against knights...

I said 'tool', not 'fool'.

The t and the f look similar. I actually saw tool and typed fool for some reason.

Hardly baseless. By the alleged arguments of your alleged friend, "Rage Against the Machine" are culpable for such incendiary slogans as 'take the power back', because they don't clearly delineate the mechanisms by which such a process can be orchestrated in a non-violent, and democratic, fashion.

RAtM is a band. Not a political leader. And for the record, yes they would also be irresponsible if they incited violence.

Also, Rage Against the Machine is flammable?

By the same alleged arguments from the same alleged friend, the words of Jesus to carry his message to all corners of the world are at fault for violence and genocide, because he didn't actually SPECIFY not carrying that message through brutal subjugation and genocide.

Actually I'm fairly certain he did specify nonviolence.

It's horsehit. And that makes my comment a little better than 'baseless' - because your alleged friend is using the scope of the message as an EXCUSE.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean to say there...

Which, I think, would be further evidence that this 'friend' would be a tool.

Unless you're the tool.

Since these comments are hypothetical (since - to be honest, we don't even know you HAVE a friend, much less that you are actually relating his/her actual thoughts) I'll let them pass as, I assume, petulance that someone should dare to denigrate your obviously highly laudable friend.

My friend likes to lick eyeballs...that are petrified. Do you still doubt his existence?

Also, if I remember correctly, you're female: if so, my friend would like to know if you would like to be petrified...and have your eyeballs licked.

It doesn't matter that I work in the environmental sciences, because this 'friend' has nothing to say on the issue of the actual environmental issue being discussed, instead occupying themselves with sniping at the messenger for imagined wrongs that (only) that person finds.

Why on earth did you ever think this thread is about environmental issues? This thread is specifically about sniping at Al Gore. This thread has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with how intelligent or silly Al Gore is.

EDIT: Wait, wait, wait... are you the same poster who told the forum they could purify water with Iodine?

I'm fairly certain that wasn't me, as I'm fairly certain I know better.

Yes, wind is so cheap, what with the cost of erecting windmills, running the power lines, finding somewhere with reliable weather patterns, hiring security to protect against knights...


The weather patterns don't have to be all that predictable, so long as they are reasonably predictable, and the technology is reasonably adaptable. The old technology cured this problem by fitting a rotating top on the thing.

Even so - wind power still works out cheaper to construct than fossil fuel extraction. And there's only minimum maintenance after that, the fuel itself is thenceforth effectively free.

You just have to worry about the occassional crazy European tilting at it.


RAtM is a band. Not a political leader. And for the record, yes they would also be irresponsible if they incited violence.

Also, Rage Against the Machine is flammable?


But RAtM weren't inciting violence... they were inciting people to resist the accepted order. And there's the thing - they weren't being uber-specific, and by the argument given, that somehow equates to making them instruments of destruction.

And, yes, RAtM are flammable. Everything's flammable with enough kerosene.


Actually I'm fairly certain he did specify nonviolence.


Different message.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean to say there...


Your 'friend' is claiming that, since the message doesn't SPECIFICALLY attack numerous methods of destructive response, that they are - therefore - encouraged.

That's not really a failing in the message or the messenger - that's a failure in the capacity of your 'friend' to excuse his/her own behaviour.


Unless you're the tool.


Possible.


My friend likes to lick eyeballs...that are petrified. Do you still doubt his existence?


I doubt your existence.


Also, if I remember correctly, you're female: if so, my friend would like to know if you would like to be petrified...and have your eyeballs licked.


If I remember correctly, I'm not female. I might not be averse to the eyeball thing though.


Why on earth did you ever think this thread is about environmental issues? This thread is specifically about sniping at Al Gore. This thread has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with how intelligent or silly Al Gore is.


Gore's message is everything to do with environmentalism, and his culturejamming is to be viewed in that context.


I'm fairly certain that wasn't me, as I'm fairly certain I know better.

Good. There are certain posters that I tend to shun on certain subjects (if I realise in time), because I know no good will come of it. I vaguely remember discussing an environmental issue in the wake of Katrina, where someone said that people left behind there should be 'purifying' their water with Iodine, which I had to instantly jump on as being incredibly bad advice to be giving out on a public forum.

Not you, then. Carry on.

Obama/Gore '12

Obama/Gore '12

Can't see it happening, unless Biden kicks the bucket before the 4 years expires. Clinton/Gore might be a little more likely.

so...like...Rhyno just has a problem with Gore or something?
And therefore, if anybody assassinates Gore, Rhyno is responsible.

And therefore, if anybody assassinates Gore, Rhyno is responsible.

He hasn't explicitly said NOT to, right?

Well, I knew I was stretching the truth after all, civil disobedience can be violent in nature, if you deny this then I may suggest that you are severely ignorant on at least one thing.

*sigh*

I'm NOT linking civil disobedience directly to Marxism. I'm saying that saying civil disobedience is only peaceful and stays that way is like saying that Communism is only for the masses and stays that way.

Most people, do you intend that to mean your understanding? Perhaps you can provide us with a legal definition with Civil disobedience and prove me wrong that civil disobedience has nothing to do with violence.

Civil Disobedience is commonly understood to be the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence.

When violence occurs on behalf of the disobedient then, they are no longer being Civily Disobedient. They're rioting.

Civil Disobedience is commonly understood to be the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence.

When violence occurs on behalf of the disobedient then, they are no longer being Civily Disobedient. They're rioting.

It's you, me and Captain Obvious.

The only people who would vote for him are uninteligent tree huggers.
Mr. "we can save the planet from global warming"
Global warming is inevitable, maybe he'd know that if he opened a science book.

The only people who would vote for him are uninteligent tree huggers.
Mr. "we can save the planet from global warming"
Global warming is inevitable, maybe he'd know that if he opened a science book.

I'd like to try to work up a response that is suitably fitting for this post.

I want to come up with something that resonates on the same level, that touches on the same degree of brilliance.

How about: "Well, you can't fly, either"?

I doubt your existence.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/RhynoD/Haruhi.jpg


This is my friend. His name is Bryon.


And I'll do the rest later. Right now I have to kick his ass in SSBB.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/RhynoD/Haruhi.jpg


This is my friend. His name is Bryon.


And I'll do the rest later. Right now I have to kick his ass in SSBB.

Either that's cosplay.. or he's an airhostess....

So. He might be real. You? Still not convinced.

Either that's cosplay.. or he's an airhostess....

So. He might be real. You? Still not convinced.

That would be Suzumiya Haruhi (http://anime.osiristeam.net/images/others/s_haruhi.jpg).

He bought fake boobs and shaved his legs.

Also, you know I'm real because I've already established that I'm actually David Hasselhoff (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14037142&postcount=7).

Also, you know I'm real because I've already established that I'm actually David Hasselhoff (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14037142&postcount=7).

He's not real. How else would you explain his incredible popularity in Europe. I mean, it's not as if we don't know that Europe is just a figment of our American imaginations.

It's funny how you talk about An Inconvienient Truth, and then I have to watch it for English the next day...

>.>

Civil Disobedience is commonly understood to be the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence.

When violence occurs on behalf of the disobedient then, they are no longer being Civily Disobedient. They're rioting.

Of course, in a perfect world, people aren't violent, pigs fly, people don't get sick and age, and there is no government.

Unfortunately, I live in a place called Reality, and even if *you* are non-violent, it doesn't mean the other 9,999 schmendricks around you aren't about to go postal on me at the drop of a hat.

Of course, in a perfect world, people aren't violent, pigs fly, people don't get sick and age, and there is no government.

Irrelevant to my point.

Unfortunately, I live in a place called Reality, and even if *you* are non-violent, it doesn't mean the other 9,999 schmendricks around you aren't about to go postal on me at the drop of a hat.

That is quite true. However, if any of those schmendricks does go Postal, then they are no longer practicing Civil Disobedience.

Irrelevant to my point.

I see NSG hasn't lightened up any since I left...

That is quite true. However, if any of those schmendricks does go Postal, then they are no longer practicing Civil Disobedience.

True. I'm not saying that Gore is responsible for violence by calling people to civil disobedience, I'm saying that civil disobedience is likely to cause rioting. How widespread depends on location and size, but to say that civil disobedience does not cause rioting is silly.

Global Warming is a big sham,

It's the alarmist focus of our time, in medieval times it was witches, just a few years ago it was nuclear destruction (in my opinion nuclear capabilities saved the world from world war three, no-one in their right mind would go to war in full knowledge of nuclear arms capabilities, M.A.D as it was popularly known) anyone who questions what I've said about global warming, go to this site-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Current graphs showing a major rise in global surface temperature fail to take into account that the stations recording these temperature rises have been in the centre of gradual major urban developements, and even the most hardline "global warming-ist" couldn't deny that surface temperature rises significantly as you get closer to the centre of developed (urban) areas.

In fact surface temperature has been shown to be falling, and a "mini ice-age" is more likely to occur than a vanishing polar ice cap, look at the attempt to publicise global warming going on in the Arctic right now,


( go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/03/adventures-in-arctic-kayaking/ )

two guys decided to try kayak to the north pole (or to as close as they could get), a silly idea anyway, hundreds of miles away from their target they recently transmitted a message, simply cut it down, it reads "we're stuck", in what I wonder? "lots of ice" seems to be the general gist of alot of their messages. Pardon me but isn't the ice meant to be on the go in the Arctic?

Also, in reference to the "carbon Dioxide, Oh No!!!" arguement, Digging down through Permafrost reveals much about atmospheric conditions of past ages, and it is easy enough to calculate Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere thousands of years ago (it's actually quite a precise method of measurement). The graphs from these readings show that carbon dioxide was much more prominent in any given local atmosphere ages ago, and how to we know that, because it says so in the ice. Oh hang on we've reached the blooper in arguement! It's "what??? there was ice?!!!!!!!!" Yes, Ice, Lots of it, plenty anyway. As greenhouse gases go, carbon dioxide isn't much of a biggy, in fact water vapor is much much worse if you look upon greenhouse gases in that way, being more chemicaly capable of reserving heat (reserving probably not being quite the right word) than Co2.

Well I've probably ranted enough for my comment to be irrelevent to the thread but either way, any doubters, at least check out this website
(as aforementioned)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

this is a website full of guys (and gals) who really know what their on about, and on the plus side, they aren't trying to scare people.

Global Warming is a big sham,

It's the alarmist focus of our time, in medieval times it was witches, just a few years ago it was nuclear destruction (in my opinion nuclear capabilities saved the world from world war three, no-one in their right mind would go to war in full knowledge of nuclear arms capabilities, M.A.D as it was popularly known) anyone who questions what I've said about global warming, go to this site-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Current graphs showing a major rise in global surface temperature fail to take into account that the stations recording these temperature rises have been in the centre of gradual major urban developements, and even the most hardline "global warming-ist" couldn't deny that surface temperature rises significantly as you get closer to the centre of developed (urban) areas.

In fact surface temperature has been shown to be falling, and a "mini ice-age" is more likely to occur than a vanishing polar ice cap, look at the attempt to publicise global warming going on in the Arctic right now,


( go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/03/adventures-in-arctic-kayaking/ )

two guys decided to try kayak to the north pole (or to as close as they could get), a silly idea anyway, hundreds of miles away from their target they recently transmitted a message, simply cut it down, it reads "we're stuck", in what I wonder? "lots of ice" seems to be the general gist of alot of their messages. Pardon me but isn't the ice meant to be on the go in the Arctic?

Also, in reference to the "carbon Dioxide, Oh No!!!" arguement, Digging down through Permafrost reveals much about atmospheric conditions of past ages, and it is easy enough to calculate Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere thousands of years ago (it's actually quite a precise method of measurement). The graphs from these readings show that carbon dioxide was much more prominent in any given local atmosphere ages ago, and how to we know that, because it says so in the ice. Oh hang on we've reached the blooper in arguement! It's "what??? there was ice?!!!!!!!!" Yes, Ice, Lots of it, plenty anyway. As greenhouse gases go, carbon dioxide isn't much of a biggy, in fact water vapor is much much worse if you look upon greenhouse gases in that way, being more chemicaly capable of reserving heat (reserving probably not being quite the right word) than Co2.

Well I've probably ranted enough for my comment to be irrelevent to the thread but either way, any doubters, at least check out this website
(as aforementioned)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

this is a website full of guys (and gals) who really know what their on about, and on the plus side, they aren't trying to scare people.

Despite the nonsensical introduction you gave it, I checked out the link to your website, and it failed to deliver on any of the promises you made for it, and turned out to be little more than a blog, with a few people making smartass sarcastic comments about newspaper clippings.

Hell, I can get that here, and from a better class of troll.

I think I'll pass, thanks.

Hell, I can get that here, and from a better class of troll.

You know, you can put lipstick on a pig...

:D

You know, you can put lipstick on a pig...

:D

One time, at Band Camp....

It's funny how you talk about An Inconvienient Truth, and then I have to watch it for English the next day...

>.>

English hey? What teachers are no moving to teaching enviromental crap in other class' now?

Civil Disobedience is commonly understood to be the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence.

When violence occurs on behalf of the disobedient then, they are no longer being Civily Disobedient. They're rioting.

I want to point out the active refusal to obey certain laws and demands and commands of a government. So laws that prohibit violence and if I actively refuse to obey these laws than that isn't civil disobedience?

But besides all that, how does Al Gore wish us to act civilly disobedient?

That was a fun thread. I should find it...

lol, I don't even remember what it was originally about, though I still don't understand it completely. But I don't want to go there again.

English hey? What teachers are no moving to teaching enviromental crap in other class' now?

It's actually called Interdisciplinary General Education, which, when completed over the course of about 2 1/2 years, counts for about all of your lower- and middle-division general ed credit. It's supposed to be a whole bunch of different ideas and stuff all wrapped up into one neat class, but I find it's always wildly disorganized and boringly simple, plus the name is fucking over the top, so I just call it English.

What sucks is that the professor that I have apparently (and I take this from a website that rates our profs. and is based solely on opinions from people at my uni.) grades on opinion and picks favorites, so I'm guessing this movie showing does not bode well for my overall final grade.

On the other hand, I guess I should consider myself lucky that I haven't run into this the other 2 years that I've been in this program...

It's actually called Interdisciplinary General Education, which, when completed over the course of about 2 1/2 years, counts for about all of your lower- and middle-division general ed credit. It's supposed to be a whole bunch of different ideas and stuff all wrapped up into one neat class, but I find it's always wildly disorganized and boringly simple, plus the name is fucking over the top, so I just call it English.

What sucks is that the professor that I have apparently (and I take this from a website that rates our profs. and is based solely on opinions from people at my uni.) grades on opinion and picks favorites, so I'm guessing this movie showing does not bode well for my overall final grade.

On the other hand, I guess I should consider myself lucky that I haven't run into this the other 2 years that I've been in this program...

Oh ok fair enough, I hate professors/teachers who do that, amusing story from back when I was in school two people did their essay one always got high marks and the other always got low marks, they swapped essays and handed them in as their own. The one who always got a high mark still managed to get a high mark despite the almost failing student writing it up, the one that always got a low mark got a low mark despite the A student writing it up, how's that for favourites.

While it may be a little bit late, you should just write assignments that align with what he wants to hear that way you are guaranteed a good mark if that is how he marks. That does sound like an interesting course, if it is one where you just sit around and discuss topics.

Errr... and kinda psychotic...
"So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage."
-Reuters article by Michelle Nichols (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE48N7AA20080924?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

Just what do you mean by "kinda psychotic"? This is what is being advocated by the likes of Gore. I don't like it because I think that this gas, which is necessary for plants to grow, can be used to increase food production in stacked controlled environments.

Wouldn't that be carbon offsetting?
Something else he advocates. And something else I am not a fan of. I really think the man is invested in this issue just as much, if not more, for the money. I'm also against offsetting because it does nothing more to help the environment than indulgences erased sins. It's something arrogant rich snobs use to assuage their consciences for their decadent lifestyles.


Even me? Even me? What - did I exempt myself or something?
You wouldn't be able to run your computer and use it to rant without electricity and only a tiny, intermittent fraction of it is produced by windmills. Hydrocarbons and nuclear are going to be the source of power until an alternative can be made cheap, reliable and compact enough to replace them and wind just isn't that and probably won't be.

Because... you said so?
Because there isn't that much power in wind and it doesn't blow reliably enough in most places. Wind plants need peaker plants, variable hydrocarbon backups for peak demand or low output. They also need to be manufactured and to power even a small chunk of the United States could easily take thousands of these eye-sores. That's an assload of materials and fuel consumed in the production, transportation, and assembly and errection.

Hydrocarbons would be cheap-ish...
Cheaper than wind. And there's an assload of coal in the US that could be converted into other fuels to keep us well supplied for decades. All it takes is increased refining capacity.

Which is a horseshit argument. It's the same excuse that the Spanish Inquisition used for torturing people in the name of the Church...
Are you 14 or just stupid? Trespassing is a crime and a fairly serious one. Not as serious as vandalism but more than a parking ticket. There is a big difference between voicing concerns about something and invading someone's property to damage or destroy their other property. I'm fine with protest, hell I encourage it if you feel that it will get you some attention to voice your concerns, so long as it's peaceful. Telling people that they can and should disobey laws they don't like it just asking for trouble and urging civil disobedience without specifying what you mean by that isn't very smart.

Oh ok fair enough, I hate professors/teachers who do that, amusing story from back when I was in school two people did their essay one always got high marks and the other always got low marks, they swapped essays and handed them in as their own. The one who always got a high mark still managed to get a high mark despite the almost failing student writing it up, the one that always got a low mark got a low mark despite the A student writing it up, how's that for favourites.

While it may be a little bit late, you should just write assignments that align with what he wants to hear that way you are guaranteed a good mark if that is how he marks. That does sound like an interesting course, if it is one where you just sit around and discuss topics.

Yeah, I know. And it was the first day of class today, so it's far from too late.

What irks me about the practice is that I don't exactly get to write my best, because I can't heartily support topics in an essay that I don't actually support. Basically, I write what I would say. So I'm at a disadvantage to write that way.

Minor annoyance, though... It's hard to get anything lower than a B in the course, unless you try to fail, and I've done well in a course where I wrote an essay and made an argument against a Richard Dawkins paper when the professor of the class was a regular correspondant with Dawkins. So... well, maybe that last example was bad because I don't think he favored one side, but still... yeah?

Hell, I can get that here, and from a better class of troll.

No one gives those trolls any credit. It's a hard job, raising the quality of trolling on NS.

Oh, and whether or not I exist is a moot point. You don't exist either. We're both just figments of Myrth's imagination.

"So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage."
-Reuters article by Michelle Nichols (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE48N7AA20080924?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

Just what do you mean by "kinda psychotic"? This is what is being advocated by the likes of Gore.


It's kinda psychotic because it's like trying to stop your patient dying by putting your hand over their mouth so the breath can't get out.


I don't like it because I think that this gas, which is necessary for plants to grow, can be used to increase food production in stacked controlled environments.


Sure, Carbon capture and redistribution is a great idea. It takes something which is currently functioning as a damaging contaminent, and transfers it into a useful form.

It would, of course, be even more expensive.

"
Something else he advocates. And something else I am not a fan of. I really think the man is invested in this issue just as much, if not more, for the money. I'm also against offsetting because it does nothing more to help the environment than indulgences erased sins. It's something arrogant rich snobs use to assuage their consciences for their decadent lifestyles.


That's cool. You're clueless about the concepts, so that's his fault. I get it.

Do you even know what carbon offsetting is?


You wouldn't be able to run your computer and use it to rant without electricity


Okay. That's the second time you've made this about me and my internet access, and it's not a point I contested in the first place. So... and?


...and only a tiny, intermittent fraction of it is produced by windmills.


Hence, problem, right?


Hydrocarbons and nuclear are going to be the source of power until an alternative can be made cheap, reliable and compact enough to replace them and wind just isn't that and probably won't be.


Wind probably won't be the replacement for hydrocarbons ON IT'S OWN, no... but then - no one ever suggested it should.

And the shorter we make that gap until hydrocarbon fuels are phased out, the better. Hence my objection to trying to create a hydrocarbon safety-net.


Because there isn't that much power in wind and it doesn't blow reliably enough in most places. Wind plants need peaker plants, variable hydrocarbon backups for peak demand or low output.


Crap. Solar power, wave power, hydroelectric power... geothermal power. If we really sit down and work on alternate fuels hydrocarbon 'backups' are totally unnecessary.


They also need to be manufactured and to power even a small chunk of the United States could easily take thousands of these eye-sores.



They need to be manufactured... but afterwards, they generate almost free power.

And, you call them eyesores... I find them less unattractive than open-face mining, oil drilling, pollution belching refineries, squat powerstations, slag heaps, contaminated water sources, and contaminated air.

But, I guess that's a matter of preference. And actually having a clue about the factors.


That's an assload of materials and fuel consumed in the production, transportation, and assembly and errection.


Sure. And then it's practically free. You don't have to keep replacing the 'fuel'.


Cheaper than wind.


In what way is a fuel that has to be drilled/mined and processed/refined... cheaper than the already occuring flow of air?

Answer, it's not.


And there's an assload of coal in the US that could be converted into other fuels to keep us well supplied for decades.


Not at currently increasing fuel demands. And it's not gonna get any easier to find and process.


All it takes is increased refining capacity.


Wasn't adding infrastructure your argument AGAINST wind power?


Are you 14 or just stupid?


Neither. But your personal attack is very telling.


Trespassing is a crime and a fairly serious one.


I disagree.


Not as serious as vandalism but more than a parking ticket. There is a big difference between voicing concerns about something and invading someone's property to damage or destroy their other property.


"Invading someone's property to damage and destroy" isn't trespass.


I'm fine with protest, hell I encourage it if you feel that it will get you some attention to voice your concerns, so long as it's peaceful.


So long as they protest somewhere far away and ineffective?


Telling people that they can and should disobey laws they don't like it just asking for trouble and urging civil disobedience without specifying what you mean by that isn't very smart.

Matter of opinion. I think encouraging people to resist the 'powers that be' is a good thing. A little iconoclasm is a constructive force overall. What's your real complaint here?

You just can't stand the idea of people gathering in a field somewhere so that the construction is slowed down?

It riles you up that someone gave a less than explicit instruction?

I think the evidence shows that you've an issue with Gore, and this is just an excuse to moan about it. I also think you'd probably best stay clear of getting too deeply involved in debates on which you are clearly quite so clueless.

I see NSG hasn't lightened up any since I left...

Just felt the need to nip that in the bud before some wiseass decided to build a strawman out of it. Can't be too careful these days.

True. I'm not saying that Gore is responsible for violence by calling people to civil disobedience, I'm saying that civil disobedience is likely to cause rioting. How widespread depends on location and size, but to say that civil disobedience does not cause rioting is silly.

So you're saying that Civil Disobedience creates a situation that people may--and likely will--take advantage of and exploit to their own ends resulting in violence?

I'll agree to that.

I want to point out the active refusal to obey certain laws and demands and commands of a government. So laws that prohibit violence and if I actively refuse to obey these laws than that isn't civil disobedience?

Not if the protest involves violence. But that's not the sort of thing that people generally use Civil Disobedience against.

But besides all that, how does Al Gore wish us to act civilly disobedient?

No clue.

Just felt the need to nip that in the bud before some wiseass decided to build a strawman out of it. Can't be too careful these days.

Ah.

To be fair, NSG was no less light-hearted then than it is now, so it's no real problem of yours. Plus, it's more fun to say something like that rather than "The world isn't perfect." You can only say that so many times before you start getting bored of it. :p

I was going to continue this little debate and explain to you, GnI, how you are wrong in stunningly boring detail with an exhaustive point-by-point rebuttal. But it doesn't really interest me. I have just stopped caring about people being wrong on the internet. I have stopped caring that there are people who believe in free energy, ghosts, conspiracy theories, God, etc. because debating on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics, even when I win you're still retarded. You'll never accept that you could be wrong, you'll never change your mind. People like you cling to your prejudices and your preconceptions and your antipathy to people who don't think like you. And no amount of reason is going to change that so I'm not going to bother trying.

I must say Bush is a crappy president but at least we didn't elect Gore he would have us eating by candle light.

True. I'm not saying that Gore is responsible for violence by calling people to civil disobedience, I'm saying that civil disobedience is likely to cause rioting. How widespread depends on location and size, but to say that civil disobedience does not cause rioting is silly.

There is no way this would not turn violent because the people with out electricity would show up and kick those hippies ass after day two no air conditioning.

I have to leave this argument to care for my family.

Fixed. If you were a politician, that would be the equivalent of what you just claimed.

I was going to continue this little debate and explain to you, GnI, how you are wrong in stunningly boring detail with an exhaustive point-by-point rebuttal. But it doesn't really interest me. I have just stopped caring about people being wrong on the internet. I have stopped caring that there are people who believe in free energy, ghosts, conspiracy theories, God, etc. because debating on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics, even when I win you're still retarded. You'll never accept that you could be wrong, you'll never change your mind. People like you cling to your prejudices and your preconceptions and your antipathy to people who don't think like you. And no amount of reason is going to change that so I'm not going to bother trying.

This is what I would be tempted to do, too - if I were going to have to try to explain what exactly I meant by claiming that oil was cheaper than air.

Aw, damnit. I never got around to posting a definition for civil disobediance. Sorry about that. Did anyone else?

Aw, damnit. I never got around to posting a definition for civil disobediance. Sorry about that. Did anyone else?

I'm pretty sure I did at somewhere around 10 pages ago... but is it really necessary?

I'm pretty sure I did at somewhere around 10 pages ago... but is it really necessary?

Apparently so: their was a lot of argument over weather "civil disobediance" involved violence, as you may recall.

Apparently so: their was a lot of argument over weather "civil disobediance" involved violence, as you may recall.

Which is ridiculous...

If you're talking about people being violent against the civilly disobedient it only makes their case stronger.

If you're talking about the civilly disobedient being violent then you are not really speaking of the civilly disobedient.

Which is ridiculous...

If you're talking about people being violent against the civilly disobedient it only makes their case stronger.

If you're talking about the civilly disobedient being violent then you are not really speaking of the civilly disobedient.

Well, obvious points sometimes escape the narrow-minded and biased.

"Non-violence: A controversial issue in debates on civil disobedience is non-violence. Like publicity, non-violence is said to diminish the negative effects of breaching the law. Some theorists go further and say that civil disobedience is, by definition, non-violent. According to Rawls, violent acts likely to injure are incompatible with civil disobedience as a mode of address. ‘Indeed’, says Rawls, ‘any interference with the civil liberties of others tends to obscure the civilly disobedient quality of one's act.’(Rawls, 1971, 366)."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

Well, obvious points sometimes escape the narrow-minded and biased.

I would like to know how it is bias?

But Gore still wants people to break the law.

I would like to know how it is bias?

But Gore still wants people to break the law.

So does Jesus.

So does Jesus.

Not true, actually. Jesus specifically says that you should follow the laws and customs where you are, even if you'd rather not, unless those laws specifically contradict Christianity. And that isn't accidentally contradicts Christianity: only where it specifically contradicts Christianity.

So no, Jesus does not tell us to break the law. Maybe Raptor Jesus does, though.

Well, obvious points sometimes escape the narrow-minded and biased.

This is exactly one of the arguments being made: People are stupid. Gore says "Civil disobedience" and stupid people interpret that to mean molotovs. Gore needs to be specific.

Not true, actually. Jesus specifically says that you should follow the laws and customs where you are, even if you'd rather not, unless those laws specifically contradict Christianity. And that isn't accidentally contradicts Christianity: only where it specifically contradicts Christianity.

So no, Jesus does not tell us to break the law. Maybe Raptor Jesus does, though.

You can't state an exception and then claim a rule as absolute...

This is exactly one of the arguments being made: People are stupid. Gore says "Civil disobedience" and stupid people interpret that to mean molotovs. Gore needs to be specific.You still haven't specified that nobody should assassinate Gore.
And you know that the ranks of global-warming-deniers include a lot of stupid people also.

So does Jesus.

And? Breaking the law is still breaking the law.

You can't state an exception and then claim a rule as absolute...

You're claiming the exception is the rule, though. It's not the rule, it's the exception. Jesus does not teach that one should break the law: Jesus teaches that one should follow the law unless you are absolutely incapable of it.

Don't get me wrong. You want to poke holes in Christianity, go for it. Just do it right.

And? Breaking the law is still breaking the law.

And?

It's possible for a law to be 'wrong'. And if it is, it should be broken.

Or are you seriously arguing that the law should be regarded above all things?

You're claiming the exception is the rule, though. It's not the rule, it's the exception. Jesus does not teach that one should break the law: Jesus teaches that one should follow the law unless you are absolutely incapable of it.

Don't get me wrong. You want to poke holes in Christianity, go for it. Just do it right.

I'm not poking holes in Christianity.

I said Jesus told us to break the law, you're saying he didn't. Well... sometimes he did...

Which means that your initial response was wrong. Which means I was right.

I'm not poking holes in Christianity.

I said Jesus told us to break the law, you're saying he didn't. Well... sometimes he did...

Which means that your initial response was wrong. Which means I was right.

You're arguing semantics, now. Your initial statement that Jesus told people to break laws did (and more than likely was meant to) imply that Jesus was seditious and telling people to break laws on his behalf. On the contrary, Jesus specifically told people not to break laws on his behalf.

The implication you were making, if not the literal meaning of the words you used, was false.

And?

It's possible for a law to be 'wrong'. And if it is, it should be broken.

Or are you seriously arguing that the law should be regarded above all things?

I, for one, am of the opinion that every citizen has the right to break any law. The government also has every right to punish the citizen for doing so, provided the punishment is fair and the person is judged by a jury of his or her peers.

So, if a law is wrong, you have every right to break it. But don't be pissy if your government throws you in jail for it until the law is changed.

I, for one, am of the opinion that every citizen has the right to break any law. The government also has every right to punish the citizen for doing so, provided the punishment is fair and the person is judged by a jury of his or her peers.

So, if a law is wrong, you have every right to break it. But don't be pissy if your government throws you in jail for it until the law is changed.

Seems fair. At which point did I disagree?

Of course - since 'civil disobedience' veers dangerously close to 'free speech' territory, and even closer to 'peaceful protest' territory, governments should bear those factors in mind when they're deciding how to deal with the situation.

People always sympathise with the one guy in front of the tanks.

You're arguing semantics, now. Your initial statement that Jesus told people to break laws did (and more than likely was meant to) imply that Jesus was seditious and telling people to break laws on his behalf. On the contrary, Jesus specifically told people not to break laws on his behalf.

The implication you were making, if not the literal meaning of the words you used, was false.

No no - YOU are arguing semantics.

I made a statement, and you are arguing what defintions can be dug out of it. I said what I said and I stand by it... no matter what implications you may chose to 'discover'.

(Worth remembering, perhaps, if Jesus was real, what he is described as doing probably would be described as 'seditious').

I, for one, am of the opinion that every citizen has the right to break any law. The government also has every right to punish the citizen for doing so, provided the punishment is fair and the person is judged by a jury of his or her peers.

So, if a law is wrong, you have every right to break it. But don't be pissy if your government throws you in jail for it until the law is changed.That's what "civil disobedience" means. You are entirely in agreement with Gore, then.

That's what "civil disobedience" means. You are entirely in agreement with Gore, then.

No, I'm entirely in agreement with the idea that one has the right to be civilly disobedient. I am not in any kind of agreement that civil disobedience is at all necessary or wise in this particular instance.

And?

It's possible for a law to be 'wrong'. And if it is, it should be broken.

Or are you seriously arguing that the law should be regarded above all things?

Yes it is possible for someone to consider a law to be wrong, but I believe in the Rule of Law and that the rule of law should be paramount, no man should be above it. Now laws may be wrong but there are ways of going about and changing it, and if you want to break the law go ahead but be aware of the consequences of your actions.

Why shouldn't the law of a nation be regarded above all other things?

Yes it is possible for someone to consider a law to be wrong, but I believe in the Rule of Law and that the rule of law should be paramount, no man should be above it. Now laws may be wrong but there are ways of going about and changing it, and if you want to break the law go ahead but be aware of the consequences of your actions.

Why shouldn't the law of a nation be regarded above all other things?

So you would support the Collateral Bar rule in a more rigorous application?

I hate to raise the textbook response, but I believe it may be salient here. What is your view of classical instances of civil disobedience, such as the Birmingham March and similar scenarios?

So you would support the Collateral Bar rule in a more rigorous application?

I hate to raise the textbook response, but I believe it may be salient here. What is your view of classical instances of civil disobedience, such as the Birmingham March and similar scenarios?

Which section the violence inflicted by the police force which was wrong, the firebombing by the KKK which saw the new law coming in (abolishing segregation) as wrong? They broke the law despite a law they considered to be wrong, and yes they were breaking the law which was also wrong. Or the protest by the students which if protesting was against the law then yes they shouldn't have and found other ways of doing it. Of course they would have been aware of the consequences of their actions.

If we are talking about the same march here.

Which section the violence inflicted by the police force which was wrong, the firebombing by the KKK which saw the new law coming in (abolishing segregation) as wrong? They broke the law despite a law they considered to be wrong, and yes they were breaking the law which was also wrong. Or the protest by the students which if protesting was against the law then yes they shouldn't have and found other ways of doing it. Of course they would have been aware of the consequences of their actions.

If we are talking about the same march here.

Well, suppose an authorized and duly elected local government denied a marching permit to a petitioning group, say, civil rights marchers.

The Commissioner of Public Safety dislikes the group in question, and despite their peaceful marches, advises them they will never, ever receive the permit.

An injunction is filed by the civil authorities to prevent the march.

Cognizant of this, they march anyway and are jailed. They file a motion to dissolve the injunction, after the fact, of course. They submit to arrest and behave peacefully while incarcerated.

Are there any circumstances that might justify their defiance? Should they be permitted to challenge the constitutionality of the underlying statute, or do they waive that right by having openly defied it, per the Collateral Bar Rule (I'm not sure if something similar stands in other countries)?

Well, suppose an authorized and duly elected local government denied a marching permit to a petitioning group, say, civil rights marchers.

The Commissioner of Public Safety dislikes the group in question, and despite their peaceful marches, advises them they will never, ever receive the permit.

An injunction is filed by the civil authorities to prevent the march.

Cognizant of this, they march anyway and are jailed. They file a motion to dissolve the injunction, after the fact, of course. They submit to arrest and behave peacefully while incarcerated.

Are there any circumstances that might justify their defiance? Should they be permitted to challenge the constitutionality of the underlying statute, or do they waive that right by having openly defied it, per the Collateral Bar Rule (I'm not sure if something similar stands in other countries)?

Their defisnce to break the law? no, should they be allowed to challenge the law? Of course they should be but through legal means.