Do as I say.... Part II

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

:D :D :D :D :D :D

GROUP: New Video Exposes Behind-the-Scenes Story of Gore’s Own Energy Use Wed May 24 2006 17:59:00 ET

As former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary on global warming fears debuts today, a new video from the Competitive Enterprise Institute tracks Gore’s own “carbon footprint.” CEI’s 70-second video points out that Gore himself is a big user of the hydrocarbon fuels that produce carbon dioxide when combusted.

Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” asks, "Are you willing to change the way you live?" The Gore documentary and new book of the same name go on to suggest ways that people can reduce their carbon footprint, yet Mr. Gore has clearly not taken his own message to heart. He even says in the documentary that he has given his global warming Power Point slide show more than 1,000 times all around the world.

The CEI video, which may be viewed at: http://streams.cei.org/, includes footage of Gore and his constant air travel with two CO2 meters running at the bottom of the page that compare Gore’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with those of an average person.

"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,” said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.

Developing...

a fantastic troll.

A++++ will read again

I'm sorry, but if he's traveling around the world to promote healthier energy use (whether in the form of a documentary or not), don't you think for one little minute that the benefit of the message he's trying to spread far outweighs the steps he (as a single individual) has to take to bring it to people?

You might try thinking pragmatically for half a second before posting this sort of garbage, or are you one of "those people" trying to argue that global warming is a liberal myth?

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: I'm sorry, but if he's traveling around the world to promote healthier energy use (whether in the form of a documentary or not), don't you think for one little minute that the benefit of the message he's trying to spread far outweighs the steps he (as a single individual) has to take to bring it to people?

You might try thinking pragmatically for half a second before posting this sort of garbage, or are you one of "those people" trying to argue that global warming is a liberal myth?

Exactly! Thanks for responding, as mine wasn't gonna so diplomatic.

Please Tex reveal your thoughts.

I'll second Fac51's seconding of his Holiness's sentiments.

FAC 51 wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: I'm sorry, but if he's traveling around the world to promote healthier energy use (whether in the form of a documentary or not), don't you think for one little minute that the benefit of the message he's trying to spread far outweighs the steps he (as a single individual) has to take to bring it to people?

You might try thinking pragmatically for half a second before posting this sort of garbage, or are you one of "those people" trying to argue that global warming is a liberal myth?

Exactly! Thanks for responding, as mine wasn't gonna so diplomatic.

Please Tex reveal your thoughts.

Actually, I'm more interested in what your less than diplomatic response was going to be........

So, HHTP, are you saying that the ends justify the means????

My take on global warming is this: I don't think it's a "liberal myth" but I also don't think it's fact. However, what bothers me is that whenever someone brings up counter arguments or starts poking holes in global warming dogma, the response is usually less than cordial. Why is that? I mean, look at how hostile the reponses have been to the silly articles I've posted. They don't even attack global warming as a theory! All they do is point out how much energy al gore uses to spread a message of telling everyone else to stop using so much energy (there's a little passage from the Bible about he who is without sin casting the first stone...).

To put it in other terms: as soon as 'bro stops buring 100's of thousands of pounds of jet fuel (this is not to mention all the gasoline and disel fuel he burns on ground transportation) on his personal crusade, then I might think about giving up my 300hp V8 SUV.

I'll agree that global warming isn't a proven fact, but it's just silliness to think that pumping all these noisome manmade gases into the atmosphere isn't harmful.

Kinda like the way people hunted the bison to near extinction because people figured they're never run out. "How can they go extinct? Look at all those suckers" Just a bit shortsighted, in my opinion.

Wow! That is great spin, Tex. You have revealed your agenda.

I don’t think Gore is a hypocrite because he used jet fuel, gas & diesel traveling to lectures. They are the only effective means of speedy, long-distance transport. (Also, do you know for a fact his ground transport was only fueled by gas and diesel?) If a green-powered jet were available, I think Gore would use it.

Are you a member or contributor of Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), who produced the video, or just one of their grass-roots tools helping spread their message of disinformation?

Since I wasn’t familiar with Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a little googling gave me this:

Competitive Enterprise Institute 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-547-1010 Fax: 202-546-7757

Founded in 1984, CEI is a Washington-based conservative think tank "whose research on public policy reflects the principles of free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government." CEI is at the center of the global warming misinformation campaign.

CEI has tackled tough and contentious scientific issues such as global warming, carbon dioxide and fuel-economy standards, most recently expanding into the politics of food. It has become the go-to think tank in the fight against excessive federal government regulations, supporters say. (Beyond the Theories: Think Tank Debunks Popular Myths; Audrey Hudson, May 18, 2004, Washington Times) The organization mixes free-market ideas with the anti-regulation and environmental movements, but unlike most institutes that are content just to think and speak, the CEI does not shy away from forcing action through the courts or the legislative process. CEI, among many other statements denying the seriousness of global warming, has argued that climate change would create a "milder, greener, more prosperous world" and that "Kyoto was a power grab based on deception and fear" (R. Brunet, "It Just Ain't So, Say These Reputable Scientists" Alberta Report, 10 November, v.24(48) 1997 p20-21). In addition to leading the campaign to convince the public that global warming is uncertain, CEI has weighed in on pesticide risk and endocrine disrupting chemicals - both of which pose no threat to human health, in CEI's view - and has supported regulatory "takings" measures. CEI supports eventual elimination of the Superfund and has advocated the complete privatization of the Endangered Species Act, arguing that species protection would meet the level of "demand," based on how much citizens are willing to pay for habitat preservation (CLEAR fact sheet). CEI has a long anti-environmental pedigree. CEI is a member of the State Policy Network and the Cooler Heads Coalition. CEI was a sponsor of the first Wise Use conference in 1988 and has had membership in the Get Government Off Our Backs coalition, the wise use umbrella group. CEI is also a network member of The Heritage Foundation, Alliance for America, and the anti-Endangered Species Act group, Grassroots ESA Coalition. CEI was also a co-sponsor of the 1998 NY State Property Rights Conference.

With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is supported by both conservative foundations and corporate funding. Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI's prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. CEI is also heavily supported by the various Koch brother foundations.

Clearly, the above-mentioned companies only want the truth and aren't worried about their botton line.

FAC 51 wrote: Wow! That is great spin, Tex. You have revealed your agenda.

I don’t think Gore is a hypocrite because he used jet fuel, gas & diesel traveling to lectures. They are the only effective means of speedy, long-distance transport. (Also, do you know for a fact his ground transport was only fueled by gas and diesel?) If a green-powered jet were available, I think Gore would use it.

Are you a member or contributor of Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), who produced the video, or just one of their grass-roots tools helping spread their message of disinformation?

Since I wasn’t familiar with Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a little googling gave me this:

Competitive Enterprise Institute 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-547-1010 Fax: 202-546-7757

Founded in 1984, CEI is a Washington-based conservative think tank "whose research on public policy reflects the principles of free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government." CEI is at the center of the global warming misinformation campaign.

CEI has tackled tough and contentious scientific issues such as global warming, carbon dioxide and fuel-economy standards, most recently expanding into the politics of food. It has become the go-to think tank in the fight against excessive federal government regulations, supporters say. (Beyond the Theories: Think Tank Debunks Popular Myths; Audrey Hudson, May 18, 2004, Washington Times) The organization mixes free-market ideas with the anti-regulation and environmental movements, but unlike most institutes that are content just to think and speak, the CEI does not shy away from forcing action through the courts or the legislative process. CEI, among many other statements denying the seriousness of global warming, has argued that climate change would create a "milder, greener, more prosperous world" and that "Kyoto was a power grab based on deception and fear" (R. Brunet, "It Just Ain't So, Say These Reputable Scientists" Alberta Report, 10 November, v.24(48) 1997 p20-21). In addition to leading the campaign to convince the public that global warming is uncertain, CEI has weighed in on pesticide risk and endocrine disrupting chemicals - both of which pose no threat to human health, in CEI's view - and has supported regulatory "takings" measures. CEI supports eventual elimination of the Superfund and has advocated the complete privatization of the Endangered Species Act, arguing that species protection would meet the level of "demand," based on how much citizens are willing to pay for habitat preservation (CLEAR fact sheet). CEI has a long anti-environmental pedigree. CEI is a member of the State Policy Network and the Cooler Heads Coalition. CEI was a sponsor of the first Wise Use conference in 1988 and has had membership in the Get Government Off Our Backs coalition, the wise use umbrella group. CEI is also a network member of The Heritage Foundation, Alliance for America, and the anti-Endangered Species Act group, Grassroots ESA Coalition. CEI was also a co-sponsor of the 1998 NY State Property Rights Conference.

With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is supported by both conservative foundations and corporate funding. Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI's prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. CEI is also heavily supported by the various Koch brother foundations.

Clearly, the above-mentioned companies only want the truth and aren't worried about their botton line.

First of all, let me state that you and Commrade are giving me way too much credit for being a (even a low level) political operative. Perhaps it's that you just cannot believe that someone with my political views can possibly be a fan of NO. Or maybe you just don't know any conservatives.

I'm not an operative of the Republican Party. I'm not on the payroll of any conservative think tanks. I give $50 a year to the party and you know what it gets me? A never ending stream of solicitations for more $$$. But, I decided a long time ago that I should put my money where my mouth is.

As far as CEI is concerned, thanks for the research. It's seems like a foundation worth supporting.

the other things is

al gore is old meme even if he is doing this environmental crap now


ChrissMari wrote: the other things is

al gore is old meme even if he is doing this environmental crap now


THANKS ALOT CHRISSMARI!!!! I could have done without that ass shot in the link posted. . .I think it did some permenant damage to my brain.

JHC

Tex wrote:

FAC 51 wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: I'm sorry, but if he's traveling around the world to promote healthier energy use (whether in the form of a documentary or not), don't you think for one little minute that the benefit of the message he's trying to spread far outweighs the steps he (as a single individual) has to take to bring it to people?

You might try thinking pragmatically for half a second before posting this sort of garbage, or are you one of "those people" trying to argue that global warming is a liberal myth?

Exactly! Thanks for responding, as mine wasn't gonna so diplomatic.

Please Tex reveal your thoughts.

Actually, I'm more interested in what your less than diplomatic response was going to be........

So, HHTP, are you saying that the ends justify the means????

My take on global warming is this: I don't think it's a "liberal myth" but I also don't think it's fact. However, what bothers me is that whenever someone brings up counter arguments or starts poking holes in global warming dogma, the response is usually less than cordial.

It's not dogma, it's science. Just like a conservative, to be mixing up religion and science.

Why is that? I mean, look at how hostile the reponses have been to the silly articles I've posted. They don't even attack global warming as a theory! All they do is point out how much energy al gore uses to spread a message of telling everyone else to stop using so much energy (there's a little passage from the Bible about he who is without sin casting the first stone...).

It's a silly ad hominem attack, Tex. It smells of desperation-- when you've lost the global warming argument, attack "algore"

68Pontiac wrote:

ChrissMari wrote: the other things is

al gore is old meme even if he is doing this environmental crap now


THANKS ALOT CHRISSMARI!!!! I could have done without that ass shot in the link posted. . .I think it did some permenant damage to my brain.

JHC

lol goatse.. sorry i really did forget it was on that page

it's old meme though I'm surprised you've not seen it before

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Tex wrote:

FAC 51 wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: I'm sorry, but if he's traveling around the world to promote healthier energy use (whether in the form of a documentary or not), don't you think for one little minute that the benefit of the message he's trying to spread far outweighs the steps he (as a single individual) has to take to bring it to people?

You might try thinking pragmatically for half a second before posting this sort of garbage, or are you one of "those people" trying to argue that global warming is a liberal myth?

Exactly! Thanks for responding, as mine wasn't gonna so diplomatic.

Please Tex reveal your thoughts.

Actually, I'm more interested in what your less than diplomatic response was going to be........

So, HHTP, are you saying that the ends justify the means????

My take on global warming is this: I don't think it's a "liberal myth" but I also don't think it's fact. However, what bothers me is that whenever someone brings up counter arguments or starts poking holes in global warming dogma, the response is usually less than cordial.

It's not dogma, it's science. Just like a conservative, to be mixing up religion and science.

Why is that? I mean, look at how hostile the reponses have been to the silly articles I've posted. They don't even attack global warming as a theory! All they do is point out how much energy al gore uses to spread a message of telling everyone else to stop using so much energy (there's a little passage from the Bible about he who is without sin casting the first stone...).

It's a silly ad hominem attack, Tex. It smells of desperation-- when you've lost the global warming argument, attack "algore"

.....and, it's just like a liberal to treat science as a religion. I'm not saying you do it, but many of your fellow travelers do.

As far as what type of rhetorical attack the atricles were making, they were actually Ad hominem tu quoque . But, more on that later......