you're right, it sucks that he's using that much energy (even though he is, according to reports which may or may not be true, in the process of trying to reduce it), especially when he's the spokesman for the campaign against global warming. i also hate when people use so much more than they really need, especially when it takes up unnecessary amounts of land--no matter how famous they are. (by the way, when i was in costa rica, we drove past the house of the president--and it was his own house that he lived in before being elected, and it was no bigger than any other house in the neighborhood! how cool?) so i can definitely see your point on the hypocrisy thing.
but does that make it "great"? i'm not sure why you're skeptical that global warming is a consequence of human actions...you'd have to explain that one to me, because 1. you can't ignore the rapid expansion of industry and automobile use in our world over the time span in which temperatures have been rising, and 2. science tells us that emissions from these activities result in gases being trapped in the atmosphere and, hence, sunlight being trapped on earth (aka, warming). but whatever the causes, global warming is something to be worried about, and the idea shouldn't be ignored just because its most famous and prominent spokesperson isn't living up to the standards he preaches. is this article "great" just because it gives ammunition to people who don't like gore? i don't think so. gore isn't what/who matters to me...it's the issue itself that's important. this article, in my opion, is NOT great--it's bad news. if (like i believe) global warming is being caused (at least in great part) by human activity, it is bad news because people like gore are contributing heftily. if (like you believe) global warming is not necessarily caused by human actions, it's still bad news--it takes emphasis away from trying to find answers and solutions, and places it on personal grudges. this issue is still something that needs to be figured out, and it doesn't have a particular "face"--not al gore, not you, not me. but until we get a better handle on what's actually going on, news and hypocrisy like this can't be good, because it makes the issue seem less important.
so i agree with you on the hypocrisy thing, but i don't think being able to call someone a hypocrite over something so important is a "great" thing.
this is by no means a personal thing (please don't take it that way, you know i love ya!), and i don't think it's even offensive. just getting my ideas out there, as are you. haha, you and i may never completely agree, but we can still have some healthy debate!
(p.s. i've actually chosen a career--urban planning--that will hopefully make me be able to help the environment. yay, i've finally made a decision!)
Hey lindsay! glad to hear you've chosen a career...
I promise i wasn't trying to offend anyone with this post; i'm glad you didn't take it personally! I suppose i should have phrased it differently... When I said "this is great" i didn't mean it in the sens that it is a good thing for me or anybody, i mean it in the sense that i find it incredibly comical. Because you have to admit; it's a pretty funny and blatant example of how politics works these days (on both sides).
Now on to global warming... Now when I say I'm a skeptic, I'm not saying that no matter what I don't believe in it. I'm saying that I haven't been convinced of it yet. Yes, the majority of the scientific community claims that global warming is human caused and a very real threat, but it's very likely that a large number of them have been bullied into holding that position. A scientist who questions the mainstream view on this particular issue runs the risk losing his credibility... There have been calls to revoke AMS certification for meteorologists who are skeptics. Skeptics are compared to holocaust deniers, and those with state titles risk losing them. Here's another good article that sums up my point. Basically, politics is seriously interfering with the scientific method. A scientist should not be attacked for questioning a scientific theory, especially one that hasn't been proved yet.
And it hasn't been proved. In fact, there's a decent body of evidence against the mainstream view... For example, the recorded rise in temperatures could have been caused by a change in solar activity as stated by this article. And apparently in the past several years temperature averages haven't changed much... see here.
haha, i guess i explained it. To put it shortly, my position is that many scientists have a vested interest in supporting the man made global warming theory, and there is still a good deal of evidence that contradicts that theory. That makes me a skeptic, not a hater!
by the way, that is really cool about the costa rican president. Lol don't take me the wrong way... I love the earth and want to keep this planet beautiful for thousands of years to come. You know how much i enjoy backpacking and skiing and all sorts of outdoor activities. Global warming just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. If it's not man-made, then i it really a bad thing? and is there anything that we could or should possibly to do stop it? This earth of ours has been through ice ages and hot periods for a lot longer than we've been around, and i imagine it will keep doing that whether we're here or not...
and hypocrisy is another pet peeve of mine. I couldn't help but post this article... and i was hoping for a little debate when i did! love ya too... :P
you're right, it sucks that he's using that much energy (even though he is, according to reports which may or may not be true, in the process of trying to reduce it), especially when he's the spokesman for the campaign against global warming. i also hate when people use so much more than they really need, especially when it takes up unnecessary amounts of land--no matter how famous they are. (by the way, when i was in costa rica, we drove past the house of the president--and it was his own house that he lived in before being elected, and it was no bigger than any other house in the neighborhood! how cool?) so i can definitely see your point on the hypocrisy thing.
but does that make it "great"? i'm not sure why you're skeptical that global warming is a consequence of human actions...you'd have to explain that one to me, because 1. you can't ignore the rapid expansion of industry and automobile use in our world over the time span in which temperatures have been rising, and 2. science tells us that emissions from these activities result in gases being trapped in the atmosphere and, hence, sunlight being trapped on earth (aka, warming). but whatever the causes, global warming is something to be worried about, and the idea shouldn't be ignored just because its most famous and prominent spokesperson isn't living up to the standards he preaches. is this article "great" just because it gives ammunition to people who don't like gore? i don't think so. gore isn't what/who matters to me...it's the issue itself that's important. this article, in my opion, is NOT great--it's bad news. if (like i believe) global warming is being caused (at least in great part) by human activity, it is bad news because people like gore are contributing heftily. if (like you believe) global warming is not necessarily caused by human actions, it's still bad news--it takes emphasis away from trying to find answers and solutions, and places it on personal grudges. this issue is still something that needs to be figured out, and it doesn't have a particular "face"--not al gore, not you, not me. but until we get a better handle on what's actually going on, news and hypocrisy like this can't be good, because it makes the issue seem less important.
so i agree with you on the hypocrisy thing, but i don't think being able to call someone a hypocrite over something so important is a "great" thing.
this is by no means a personal thing (please don't take it that way, you know i love ya!), and i don't think it's even offensive. just getting my ideas out there, as are you. haha, you and i may never completely agree, but we can still have some healthy debate!
(p.s. i've actually chosen a career--urban planning--that will hopefully make me be able to help the environment. yay, i've finally made a decision!)
Reply
I promise i wasn't trying to offend anyone with this post; i'm glad you didn't take it personally! I suppose i should have phrased it differently... When I said "this is great" i didn't mean it in the sens that it is a good thing for me or anybody, i mean it in the sense that i find it incredibly comical. Because you have to admit; it's a pretty funny and blatant example of how politics works these days (on both sides).
Now on to global warming... Now when I say I'm a skeptic, I'm not saying that no matter what I don't believe in it. I'm saying that I haven't been convinced of it yet. Yes, the majority of the scientific community claims that global warming is human caused and a very real threat, but it's very likely that a large number of them have been bullied into holding that position. A scientist who questions the mainstream view on this particular issue runs the risk losing his credibility... There have been calls to revoke AMS certification for meteorologists who are skeptics. Skeptics are compared to holocaust deniers, and those with state titles risk losing them. Here's another good article that sums up my point. Basically, politics is seriously interfering with the scientific method. A scientist should not be attacked for questioning a scientific theory, especially one that hasn't been proved yet.
And it hasn't been proved. In fact, there's a decent body of evidence against the mainstream view... For example, the recorded rise in temperatures could have been caused by a change in solar activity as stated by this article. And apparently in the past several years temperature averages haven't changed much... see here.
haha, i guess i explained it. To put it shortly, my position is that many scientists have a vested interest in supporting the man made global warming theory, and there is still a good deal of evidence that contradicts that theory. That makes me a skeptic, not a hater!
Reply
and hypocrisy is another pet peeve of mine. I couldn't help but post this article... and i was hoping for a little debate when i did! love ya too... :P
Reply
Leave a comment