al-Gore: It's okay to lie about Kyoto...

[gerryhatrick]

Sharkman, Gore didn't lie. You just don't understand leftist nuance.

One more time, the quote in question:

I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is... The dictionary has this to say of the word over-representation - Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers. So for those having trouble with the English language, this means (in context) that Gore feels the factual information should be presented many times. Hardly nuance, just plain english. Sheesh.

Waste of time pointing out the obvious to Monty. He has his BS talking point and nothing will move him off it. No interest in truth or reality there, just dishonest talking points.

Sit back and laugh, that is all can be done with it.

[gerryhatrick]

I think I just figured this out.

Monty isn"t intending to lie about what Gore said, he is just too stupid to understand the term "over-representation".

Honest mistake due to a low literacy level. Sorry Monty, I should not judge so quickly.

[Montgomery Burns]

They interviewed a Russian scientist (Yuri something or other) on the Fox News global warming special last Sunday. He said that Russia signed Kyoto because it was great for Russia. Why? They stand to make $12 billion in the next 3 to 4 years. Why? Because they are not a "1st world country", i.e., their greenhouse gas emissions are set at a higher rate compared to Western countries (they showed a factory in Moscow that had not been upgraded since 1950 belching out pollution). Also, Yuri noted that much of Russia is desolate (eg, Siberia) and that allows them to stay under Kyoto's "rate" and allows them to sell credits to "Kyoto credits" to other companies who go over their "Kyoto rate" (they used, as an example, some company in Spain who had to pay $277 million to Russia for producing too much greenhouse gas emissions).

MB, I fear that arguing with you about this is probably a waste of time but here goes.

Kyoto does not set Russia's emission standards at a higher rate because it is not a "1st world country". Under Kyoto, countries are supposed to reduce their emissions below the baseline of 1990. According to official statistics, Russia emitted alot of CO2 in 1990 and official (Russian) statistics now show that Russia's emissions have fallen substantially - presumably because of the collapse of the Soviet economy.

The idea of people paying other people for emissions credits is excellent and is one of the best aspects of Kyoto. You get paid for working, you pay for your groceries and you pay for many other things you enjoy in life. I don't see why you shouldn't also pay for using the environment. The fact, MB, that you don't pay now for using the environment is indication enough to me that we face a serious problem. When something appears to be free, it usually isn't. And that's the situation with the world's environment.

Al Gore is right to raise this issue (but prevarication in defense of a position is rarely if ever productive).

----

The critical flaw in Kyoto is that by exempting some countries (China and India) completely from meeting targets and by arbitrarily picking 1990 as a baseline, Kyoto in effect gives ownership of the world's environment to everyone but North Americans. IOW, we will have to start paying for the use of something that was previously free but since the non-US/Canadian world has self-declared itself the owner, we'll write the cheques to them.

Consider this example. It used to be free to hunt wild animals in North America. Now, for wildlife conservation, hunters have to pay a license fee and follow certain rules. Imagine however if we were to decide (for some crazy reason) that Asians own all the wild animals in North America and so we'd send all the hunting fees collected to Asians.

Kyoto mixes something smart with something crazy. The US government obviously walked away from it. Chretien should have done the same.

I saw Fox's global warming special, August. I suspect you didn't. Russia's official economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, has said that Russia is a developing economy. Developing economies are exempt from Kyoto restrictions. Their economy collapsed after the fall of Eastern European communism. That's the only reason why their CO2 emissions fell. Their factories are old and like the Russian guy showed, one of their major factories in Moscow hasn't been updated since 1950. They haven't tried to develop new technology to reduce CO2 emissions.

The idea that 1st world countries should pay developing countries for "emission credits", when there is no scientific consensus about what causes global warming, is not an excellent idea. I don't recall anyone paying for credits during the Ice Age hysteria of the 1970s. What's next? Canada is going to have to pay Luxembourg or Saudi Arabia for "tree credits" because we chop down more trees and use more lumber than they do?

As EU Enviromental Minister Margot Wallstrom admitted (was she a victim of Karl Rove's mind control ray gun when this slipped out?), Kyoto is about levelling the playing field economically. Russia stands to make about $12 billion in the next 3 to 4 years, not for doing anything specific to reduce CO2 emissions, but because they can't get their act together economically.

Furthermore, taking money from wealthy countries and giving it to developing countries who do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, hurts the development of new energy technologies. The human race's ability to cope with storms, disease, and hunger is directly related to the strength of a society's economy. Countries that have the most wealth are typically the most concerned about the environment, directing some of that wealth into cleaning up after themselves. The poorest countries experience the worst environmental degradation. Only the strong economies of the world can afford the research to develop new energy technologies that can economically substitute for fossil fuels. Govt-mandated restrictions on fossil fuel use will destroy economic vigor, probably delaying the development of new energy technologies.

[Montgomery Burns]

"Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is"

1) Liberal code for "I'm lying my ass off" or

2) Liberal nuance for "I'm lying my ass off."

[Montgomery Burns]

Sharkman, Gore didn't lie. You just don't understand leftist nuance.

One more time, the quote in question:

I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is... The dictionary has this to say of the word over-representation - Represented in excessive or disproportionately large numbers. So for those having trouble with the English language, this means (in context) that Gore feels the factual information should be presented many times. Hardly nuance, just plain english. Sheesh.

And the definition of "is" is what, again?

[Montgomery Burns]

I think I just figured this out.

Monty isn"t intending to lie about what Gore said, he is just too stupid to understand the term "over-representation".

Honest mistake due to a low literacy level. Sorry Monty, I should not judge so quickly.

Psychological projection is a telling symptom of the mental illness known as Liberalism.

[newbie]

And the definition of "is" is what, again?

I didn't realize how big of a problem literacy was on this forum.

[sharkman]

I think I just figured this out.

Monty isn"t intending to lie about what Gore said, he is just too stupid to understand the term "over-representation".

Honest mistake due to a low literacy level. Sorry Monty, I should not judge so quickly.

You disagree strongly with someone, so cue the personal attacks, eh? You could at least be creative. As a term, stupid shows shows so little effort.

[gerryhatrick]

I think I just figured this out.

Monty isn"t intending to lie about what Gore said, he is just too stupid to understand the term "over-representation".

Honest mistake due to a low literacy level. Sorry Monty, I should not judge so quickly.

You disagree strongly with someone, so cue the personal attacks, eh? You could at least be creative. As a term, stupid shows shows so little effort.

I get a little annoyed when someone is telling bald-faced lies. That's just me.

So yeah, cue the personal attacks in that case and creativity be damned. MB should learn to debate in good faith. If he believes there's no scientific consensus on global warming or the causes like the handful of fossil fuel funded skeptics believe then let him argue that, but don't come on here and tell us what is quite obviously black = white and then stand behind it like a pig-headed fool.

[sharkman]

Pig headed fool, eh? I think you like to goad people sometimes. But why do you hate Monty so much? Simply because he's a conservative? Maybe you can't refute him to your satisfaction so you lose your cool. Or maybe you're just bored, but either way it's possible Gore lied on this one.

[newbie]

...but either way it's possible Gore lied on this one.

If you're still on the semantic thing, give it up. The real issue is that Al Gore was right on global warming. An interesting article:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20869

[Black Dog]

You disagree strongly with someone, so cue the personal attacks, eh?

Whereas statements equating differing political beliefs with mental illness are the hallmarks of a real winner.

[gerryhatrick]

Pig headed fool, eh? I think you like to goad people sometimes. But why do you hate Monty so much?

I don't hate Monty, I hate being lied to. Do you enjoy it?

but either way it's possible Gore lied on this one.

Oh gawdam, you too? How hard is it to read English?

You and Monty are entitled to your opinions, obviously. What you are not entitled to is your own version of the truth.

It's a stupid debate started by someone who is either too dense to understand a very clear English phrase or just a sh#t disturber. To his credit, I don't think Monty is really that stupid so it is probably the latter.

It's very funny, but in the end quite pointless and he (and anyone else who wants to jump on his wagon) loses all credibility. So the joke's on him I guess.

[Naci Sey]

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have a problem which I hope you can rectify. You expressed your belief that it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is.

The statement has caused an over-representation of consternation among certain of my friends. To them, the statement is equivalent to: it's OK to lie about global warming.

May I suggest that the problem is number of syllables?

Instead of:

it-is-ap-pro-pri-ate-to-have-an-ov-er-re-pre-sen-ta-tion-of-fac-tu-al-pre-sen-ta-tions

which is 24 syllables long, how about:

it-is-smart-to-pre-sent-the-facts-o-ver-and-o-ver-a-gain

a mere 15 syllables in length? (Please do check my addition.)

So rather than, it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations, perhaps you might use smaller words and the phrase: it is smart to present the facts over and over again.

If you do that, my friends might concede that you are NOT lying, but saying something that a six-year-old could understand.

Appreciate your help,

Naci.

PS. I do hope you consider running in 2008.

[Black Dog]

Naci:

*applause*

If anyone can attest to the power of repetition, it's Gore, given the durability of such factually-challenged but oft repeated claims such as "Al Gore said he invented the internet!!!"

[sharkman]

Dear Naci;

Thank you for your kind-hearted and warm letter filled with such clear headed prose concerning my recent grouping of statements here-to-fore made on the accompanying previous number of days, all of which were full of engagements and free food. It has become clear to me that in regarding the web like conflict presently going on in places as far away as France and Europe and yes, even here at home, we are hard pressed on all sides to press on in the midst of these present circumstances, forthwith.

I hope this addresses your concerns and fills your heart with song and hope and music. Your letter gives me the motivation I need to see that people like you are out there.

Your servant(and hopefully president one day to avenge the election Bush stole from me in '96)(I mean '00)

Al Gore.

Back to reality: Surely the global warming people can do better than to use a washed up politician whose 15 minutes of fame ended 6 years ago. Or not.

[Black Dog]

Back to reality: Surely the global warming people can do better than to use a washed up politician whose 15 minutes of fame ended 6 years ago. Or not.

And sharkman taps out! SHARKMAN TAPS OUT!!

[sharkman]

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have a problem which I hope you can rectify. You expressed your belief that it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is.

The statement has caused an over-representation of consternation among certain of my friends. To them, the statement is equivalent to: it's OK to lie about global warming.

May I suggest that the problem is number of syllables?

Instead of:

it-is-ap-pro-pri-ate-to-have-an-ov-er-re-pre-sen-ta-tion-of-fac-tu-al-pre-sen-ta-tions

which is 24 syllables long, how about:

it-is-smart-to-pre-sent-the-facts-o-ver-and-o-ver-a-gain

a mere 15 syllables in length? (Please do check my addition.)

So rather than, it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations, perhaps you might use smaller words and the phrase: it is smart to present the facts over and over again.

If you do that, my friends might concede that you are NOT lying, but saying something that a six-year-old could understand.

Appreciate your help,

Naci.

PS. I do hope you consider running in 2008.

Uh, Bd, I must confess I'm not totally sure what you mean by tapping out, but in case you misunderstood what I was doing, I was responding to the above 'letter'.

And just when exactly did you become the "man of action, gentleman of leisure"? At the 4500 mark?

[Black Dog]

Uh, Bd, I must confess I'm not totally sure what you mean by tapping out, but in case you misunderstood what I was doing, I was responding to the above 'letter'.

Your jab at Gore ("Surely the global warming people can do better than to use a washed up politician whose 15 minutes of fame ended 6 years ago. Or not.") has all the hallmarks of someone desperate to change the subject. In other words, having faied to support the idea that Gore advocated liying about climate change, you simply attack the man.

[Montgomery Burns]

It is amusing to see these people who constantly claim that Bush "lied" - now defending al-Gore. Fine then. I'm going to storm into the emergency room at the hospital, claim that my foot is infected with gangrene so that I can jump to the head of the line and have a doctor look at my ingrown toenail right away. After all, an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous my medical condition is okay as long it will get my doctor to solve the crisis that is my ingrown toenail.

Gore is spewing tons of hydrocarbons into the air flying around the globe spreading his "the sky is falling" BS. He should be using video streaming on the internet he created.

[newbie]

It is amusing to see these people who constantly claim that Bush "lied" - now defending al-Gore. Fine then. I'm going to storm into the emergency room at the hospital, claim that my foot is infected with gangrene so that I can jump to the head of the line and have a doctor look at my ingrown toenail right away. After all, an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous my medical condition is okay as long it will get my doctor to solve the crisis that is my ingrown toenail.

Gore is spewing tons of hydrocarbons into the air flying around the globe spreading his "the sky is falling" BS. He should be using video streaming on the internet he created.

Right has lost the arugument on global warming so Al Gore ad hominems abound. Much expected behaviour from our favorite cartoon charater.

[BHS]

Right has lost the arugument on global warming so Al Gore ad hominems abound. Much expected behaviour from our favorite cartoon charater.

You are so going to eat these words after the next ice age starts.

[newbie]

Right has lost the arugument on global warming so Al Gore ad hominems abound. Much expected behaviour from our favorite cartoon charater.

You are so going to eat these words after the next ice age starts.

Don't think so. Any future ice age will be caused by our inattention to global warming.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

[BHS]

Don't think so. Any future ice age will be caused by our inattention to global warming.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

Whew! You guys have got all the bases covered. No matter what happens, mankind is always "proved" to be the cause. Colour me convinced! Forget everything I wrote earlier! Scratch that - I'm sure you already have.

Mankind is the cause the only cause of environmental "degradation" and Kyoto atonement is the only source of absolution for the planet. Are you guys sure you aren't a religion? I mean, come on, you have to see the parallels.

[newbie]

Don't think so. Any future ice age will be caused by our inattention to global warming.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

Whew! You guys have got all the bases covered. No matter what happens, mankind is always "proved" to be the cause. Colour me convinced! Forget everything I wrote earlier! Scratch that - I'm sure you already have.

Mankind is the cause the only cause of environmental "degradation" and Kyoto atonement is the only source of absolution for the planet. Are you guys sure you aren't a religion? I mean, come on, you have to see the parallels.

This is not left or right or religious. From the article:]Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.

These are dedicated scientists who are studying this. We are creating the problem that will only produce more environmental instabilities. Do you really think the ozone layer has depleted itself without our help?