Al Gore's Mea Culpa

[Shady]

Al Gore: "Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol."

ATHENS, Greece — In a mea culpa of sorts, former Vice President Al Gore on Monday said he made a mistake in supporting corn-based ethanol while he was in office, admitting he was more interested in farm votes for his presidential run than what was best for the environment.

NBC

Hmmm. What other environmental policies has he supported because of politics instead of science? Is he supporting current policies because of politics instead of science? That one is a rhetorical question since we all know the answer is a resounding yes.

What's also of note, is that while he was campagining and supporting the ethanol policies he now admits were wrong. He was citing the science of these policies to make the case for their necessity. Sound familiar?

[Michael Hardner]

This is something to note. There is no science in policy other than polling science. The scientists can tell us if the earth is warming, but policy changes are proposed by politicians.

Anybody who thought that Al Gore was an angel of truth can now count themselves amongst the newly educated. And what I'd like is for the people to find intellectual leaders who don't have votes to gain, or millions to put in their pocket.

[dre]

This is something to note. There is no science in policy other than polling science. The scientists can tell us if the earth is warming, but policy changes are proposed by politicians.

Anybody who thought that Al Gore was an angel of truth can now count themselves amongst the newly educated. And what I'd like is for the people to find intellectual leaders who don't have votes to gain, or millions to put in their pocket.

And what I'd like is for the people to find intellectual leaders who don't have votes to gain, or millions to put in their pocket.

Yeah! Also? Unicorns! That would be sweet too.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is something to note. There is no science in policy other than polling science. The scientists can tell us if the earth is warming, but policy changes are proposed by politicians.

Agreed...any such decisions and choices will not be left in the hands of "scientists" always in search of their next research grant.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah! Also? Unicorns! That would be sweet too.

It's not whether these unicorns exist, but the degree to which they exist.

We used to have a right-wing William F. Buckley unicorn, and now we have a Glenn Beck unicorn. The former unicorn was easier to watch.

[bloodyminded]

It's not whether these unicorns exist, but the degree to which they exist.

We used to have a right-wing William F. Buckley unicorn, and now we have a Glenn Beck unicorn. The former unicorn was easier to watch.

No kidding, eh? Buckley was a snobby-sounding blowhard, but at least had attributes such as an intimidating intellect and a displayed desire to engage in civil debate with opponents. His discusion with Noam Chomsky is a sort of underground classic.

Beck throws a screaming tantrum--I mean literally, without a hint of exaggeration, a screaming tantrum--at a caller who disagreed with him about universal healthcare.

[Michael Hardner]

No kidding, eh? Buckley was a snobby-sounding blowhard, but at least had attributes such as an intimidating intellect and a displayed desire to engage in civil debate with opponents. His discusion with Noam Chomsky is a sort of underground classic.

Thanks for the tip - I will seek that one out.

[Shady]

No kidding, eh? Buckley was a snobby-sounding blowhard, but at least had attributes such as an intimidating intellect and a displayed desire to engage in civil debate with opponents. His discusion with Noam Chomsky is a sort of underground classic.

Beck throws a screaming tantrum--I mean literally, without a hint of exaggeration, a screaming tantrum--at a caller who disagreed with him about universal healthcare.

I realize you have a history of being distracted by shiny objects. But this thread isn't about Glenn Beck. It's about Al Gore. And his pushing of false science for political and personal gain.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I realize you have a history of being distracted by shiny objects. But this thread isn't about Glenn Beck. It's about Al Gore. And his pushing of false science for political and personal gain.

Who cares? No one who knows anything about climate change actually listens to what he has to say. In fact it was those who understand climate change that have pointed out all the flaws in his crappy documentary.

[dre]

Who cares? No one who knows anything about climate change actually listens to what he has to say. In fact it was those who understand climate change that have pointed out all the flaws in his crappy documentary.

Gore did the same thing everyone else does. The only difference is he admitted it.

[TimG]

This is something to note. There is no science in policy other than polling science. The scientists can tell us if the earth is warming, but policy changes are proposed by politicians.

Right. Which is why politicians have no business claiming that the "science" requires that their pet policies be implemented. The science does no such thing. Policy is the stuff of politics.

[bloodyminded]

I realize you have a history of being distracted by shiny objects. But this thread isn't about Glenn Beck. It's about Al Gore. And his pushing of false science for political and personal gain.

First of all, Beck isn't shiny; he's extremely dull, at least in wit and intellect. Though I agree he's distracting.

Second, I was responding to another poster...who himself was not so much going off-topic as throwing in an offhand remark, something that happens on almost every thread with few exceptions.

I think you simply don't like people exposing Beck as the insufferable moron he tries so diligently to be...even when we're using another conservative's obvious superiority as the point of comparison.

But ok, back to Al Gore: I think he's foolish and quite unimpressive.

Edited November 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Who cares?

Who cares? Seriously? Maybe tax payers who saw billions of dollars go to subsidize corn-based ethanol production. Maybe food buyers that saw a huge spike in corn-based food products. Just them.

[TimG]

Gore did the same thing everyone else does. The only difference is he admitted it.

The better question is why we should automatically assume that politically popular policies like wind and solar subsidies are any better than ethanol subsidies.

[dre]

Right. Which is why politicians have no business claiming that the "science" requires that their pet policies be implemented. The science does no such thing. Policy is the stuff of politics.

Utterly silly. Science and technology have been a primary driver in LOTS of public policy. Theres nothing unusual or improper AT ALL about a politician citing science in support of a specific policy. You guys live on a different planet I think.

[bloodyminded]

Utterly silly. Science and technology have been a primary driver in LOTS of public policy. Theres nothing unusual or improper AT ALL about a politician citing science in support of a specific policy. You guys live on a different planet I think.

Yes, good lord!

They have no problem citing someone from the social sciences--notably, economists. (The "proper" economists, that is.)

But the harder sciences? Gods, no, don't listen to them.

[waldo]

uhhh... Gore lost that 2000 election to the U.S. Supreme Court... also... see 'hanging chads'! Even in defeat, the boogeyman strikes!

Ethanol has been produced for fuel in the United States for at least 28 years. The subsidy provided in the Energy Policy Act of 1978 (10.6 cents per liter, or 40 cents per gallon) launched the industry. Between 1978 and today, the ethanol subsidy has ranged between 10.6 and 15.9 cents per liter (40 and 60 cents per gallon).

[dre]

The better question is why we should automatically assume that politically popular policies like wind and solar subsidies are any better than ethanol subsidies.

You cant assume anything. You dont know if a technology is valuable until you reach a certain ammount of capitalization. Youre wild guesses are as meaningless as everyone elses.

[TimG]

Theres nothing unusual or improper AT ALL about a politician citing science in support of a specific policy.

That is not what I said. I said a politican has no business saying the science REQUIRES that their pet policies be implemented. Yet this is what politicians like Gore do on a regular basis.

[TimG]

You cant assume anything. You dont know if a technology is valuable until you reach a certain ammount of capitalization. Youre wild guesses are as meaningless as everyone elses.

We have already gone way past that critical mass when it comes to wind and solar (look at spain, denmark). The trouble with your logic is it is an excuse to waste money because no technology can ever be declared a 'failure' because proponents will always say 'we just need more capital!'. Edited November 23, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Who cares? Seriously? Maybe tax payers who saw billions of dollars go to subsidize corn-based ethanol production. Maybe food buyers that saw a huge spike in corn-based food products. Just them.

Hey you're quote mining again and not actually responding to what I said what a surprise.

On topic anyone with even the slightest understanding of corn ethanol could tell you that it won't work, I've known this since the day I first heard about it, it still produces emissions and has a fraction of the energy density of oil.

Edited November 23, 2010 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

On topic anyone with even the slightest understanding of corn ethanol could tell you that it won't work, I've known this since the day I first heard about it, it still produces emissions and has a fraction of the energy density of oil.

Gee - that is EXACTLY what I say about wind and solar PV (and ethanol too)...

[dre]

We have already gone way past that critical mass when it comes to wind and solar (look at spain, denmark). The trouble with your logic is it is an excuse to waste money because no technology can ever be declared a 'failure' because proponents will always say 'we just need more capital!'.

We have already gone way past that critical mass when it comes to wind and solar

Iv already destroyed that claim. Wind and solar are in a state of flux, prices of installations and kwh's have been coming down. Costs are still highly responsive to investment. When the technologies are mature investment will no longer bring down costs significantly, and people will stop investing. Unless of course the wind and solar energy can successfully lobby the government for permanent subsidies like the nuclear industry has.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Gee - that is EXACTLY what I say about wind and solar PV (and ethanol too)...

Since when has solar and wind produces emissions? So if that's "EXACTLY what {you} say about wind and solar" than I have to question your understanding of both.

[TimG]

When the technologies are mature investment will no longer bring down costs significantly, and people will stop investing.

The technology of creating ethanol from corn has improved dramatically over the last 15 years yet that does not change the fact that it is technology that is useless without subsidies. Also - the technology of cars has improved constantly over the last 100 years yet that is a mature industry.

The only measure that is reasonable is how long the subsidies have been in place and whether they can be removed anytime soon. When it comes to wind and solar the subsidies have been handed out for decades and there is no sign that situation will end anytime soone.