Al Gore
Although I agree with Al Gore that something has to be done about climate change, and that there are many things the US and the West as a whole can do about this problem, I’ve got to say that the man’s arrogance and obvious left-wing bias make it difficult for me to publicly support anything he suggests.
Now, I know that most people will agree with me that the former Vice President comes across as quite arrogant on television, etc., but what truly made me think badly of the man is his book “The Assault on Reason.” I bought this book, hoping that it would provide some intellectual, logical information and views. Of course I realized that it would be from the perspective of a progressive, but I hoped that his bias would not be overly present and that his book would give me more understanding of the views and thinking of the left in the United States. You could say that I hoped to learn from it.
Sadly that was not to be. I started reading the book and put it down after 15 or 20 pages. One month later I tried to read it again, and I read considerably more pages, but still, at page 70 or so I put it down and thought to myself ‘perhaps another time.’ The reason was and still is the man’s arrogance. He pretends to be a student of the enlightenment and of reason. But there’s one problem; he seems to assume that those who disagree with him are unreasonable. Whenever he talks about a specific subject, he makes clear that only his view is reasonable, and that those who dare disagree with him are per definition unreasonable, partisan, etc.
This while it’s very reasonable to disagree with intelligent people on certain subjects. Disagreement, reasonable, intelligent disagreement, is not a sign of unreasonableness, it’s a sign that one is able to think for oneself and that one may draw different conclusions from the same information. Sometimes, however, the information one possesses is different from the information the other has read, used, etc. Gore constantly forgets this and pretends that there’s only one reasonable way; his way.
And so it goes as well with the issue of clean energy and global warming. On this issue too, Gore acts as if he is the one who fully understands it, and as if he is the one who has all the answers. Others may follow his lead - indicating that they are reasonable - or disagree with him - indicating that they do not truly understand the subject - but they can never truly be taken seriously. They are the students, he is the teacher.
All in all, this attitude is quite a pity. When reading “The Assault on Reason,” for instance, I disagreed quite frequently with him (thinking; ‘that does not make sense, because’ etc.), but I did see that the man who wrote it is highly intelligent. If he would start seeing himself as ‘one of us,’ instead of a ’special’ kind of human being, his writings and speeches would be more interesting, and better received; even by those who disagree with him.
Drill Oil. NO.
Thats the debate today. I keep hearing we can’t drill more oil its cheaper and cleaner to make electricity by using wind, solar, etc.
I totally agree. So does everyone who drills for oil.
Thats because oil has almost nothing to do with the creation of electricity. OIL is used for transportation and many aspects of manufacturing such as lubricants that keep machinery runing, getting products to market as in diesel fuel etc.
OIL has nothing to do with creating electricity. But when you hear the treehugging left tell it if we just create more tidal, solar, wind, geothermal we can rid ourselves of the need for oil.
It is not only their arrogance but their total lack of comprehension of the subject that baffles me. They have taken global warming, wrapped it up in a nice big ball and everything can then be made better by alternatives.
I have asked repeatedly What will replace oil?
"Disagreement, reasonable, intelligent disagreement, (is not a sign of unreasonableness)"
I am not seeing much of that from AGW skeptics, and none of it from GW skeptics. Are you sure Gore is criticizing them for disagreeing or for having no proclaimed reasonable reason for disagreeing?
"one may draw different conclusions from the same information"
Science is not information in that sense. It’s information structured and subjected to the point where there is one conclusion. Science aims for that, and you cannot attack scientific conclusions until you have proven the scientific method is not so. Once again, I don’t see examples from his book showing what Gore is doing wrong.
"Gore constantly forgets this and pretends that there’s only one reasonable way; his way."
Are we talking about Gore’s proposed solutions or his description of the situation and those who seek to portray t differently.
"But when you hear the treehugging left"
Stopped reading there. Don’t think you can be taken seriously if you are going to be like Cox and Forkum or Steyn.
"Thats because oil has almost nothing to do with the creation of electricity."
Exactly how little? Even so, we need to focus on alternative fuels, mileage reduction, only buying products that haven’t entailed long transports and generally go for a multi-disciplinary solution on many fronts. Oh, and I want more nuclear power.
He’s also getting a little out there; he recently said that he wants the US to generate all of its electricity from renewable resources in the next 10 years! I’m sorry, but building the additional power lines to bring all the electricity from the windmills and solar panels and such will take longer than that! If it’s even technologically/economically feasible it would take at least 30 years or more.
Typical Al Gore. Always late to the party, but pretends to be the host.
1.5 percent of electricity is generated from the use of oil, if you do not include the minute amount that would be used for oiling the cogs etc.
I have no problems even as an ex oil man for generating all of our electricity from alternatives. Lets get after it and get it done. The only real losers will be the coal and gas industry and the big loser will be coal because their plants will be the first to go away as they are pretty dirty.
Yet in America there is nothing to replace oil at this time. Electric cars……no. Alternative fuels? No…..unless you want to use 71 percent of all our farmland to make fuel, then we could import food instead. Celluostic biofuels……no and mabey not ever. Hydrocarbon farting microbes……….sure, mabey if we want to have a pool about the size of Maine hanging out somewhere and hoping that as with all microbes they dont mutate and destroy their creators.
And if you look at the numbers on electric cars there is just not any reason to suspect that they will make a difference anytime soon and Fuel cell cars are a long and expensive step way away.
Okay, so we need to keep burning oil. Are you ready to adopt a thrid-world family when their country becomes flooded/unarable/younameit.I’m serious and speaking from what the science tells me - we are committing murder. Actual murder. We are not allowed to do that. Bangladesh alone is 125 million people who are pretty much going to die, every single one of them. And don’t get me started on what we have done to Africa to GET the oil in the first place.
What are you proposing utsu. I am always open to suggestions. I like to have discussions not debates. Are you suggesting that we give up cars in the next year and as such put about 35,000,000 people out of work?
Gas stations, autoparts stores, car washes, Car dealership, auto mechanics, Truck drivers, RV dealers, Boat makers and sales, snowmobiles, motorcycles etc…etc…etc. Cruise lines, Airlines. Airports.
The point of that exercise was to remind you of how extensively our entire world is tied into fossil fuels. However I am totally open to replacing all electricity with alternatives which will reduce our foot print below the kyoto accords. Yet until you can show me a means by which we can replace nearly our entire western civilization’s infrastructure then Im afraid we are stuck with Oil for awhile longer.
I agree that the matter is urgent but the fact of the matter is that most of the greenhouse problem has resulted not so much in the world producing carbon as to the nations clearing forests that are essentially the lungs of the world. That is why I urge everyone to plant a tree. Grow some plants in your house.
Any ideas on what we can do to replace it? There is an old axiom in the awl business. Nothing is free if you think it is then Ill buy it and sell it to the highest bidder.
Really utsu? Lets examine.
What saves more gas? Shipping 10 product items 10 miles that consumes 1 gallon of gas, or shipping 1 million product items 10,000 miles and that consumes 10,000 gallons of gas?
Guess there’s no shortage of the kool-aid.
Mr. Gore is right about the future but wrong about the technology.
Free Power Forever
http://nlspropulsion.net/Documents/Free%20Power%20Forever.pdf
"Shipping 10 product items 10 miles that consumes 1 gallon of gas, or shipping 1 million product items 10,000 miles and that consumes 10,000 gallons of gas?"
Also depends on the resources and manufacturing methods involved. But yeah, I see your point. So we consume less, then. Problem is it’s not that easy to see which product has produced the least CO2.
"Are you suggesting that we give up cars in the next year and as such put about 35,000,000 people out of work?"
The problem is that while I am sure that people are already dying because of me and previous Swedish generations (to limit the scope) I don’t know how much above my quota I have thrown away, and how much I have to pay back, and how to do that effectively. Or, for that matter, how many I have murdered. My life produces CO2, and I am often too comfortable to change that.
I mean, should Volvo workers have to pay for the Americans that use up more than their share? No, which is why we need to go large, and insist on a global system where the richer countries pay the poor ones (provided the poor countries don’t embezzle the money) for polluting our collective world and causing collective ills. Isn’t money and the profitibality of things a great motivator of change? We can’t have under- or overacheivers here. Sweden is making great progress, but it is a small contribution. Even Sweden is seeing new species of slugs and ticks, palmtrees are moving upwards and the boars are multiplying as if they had oysters and viagra in their diet. We are actually afflicted ourselves, so I hate to think about what is happening to Bangladesh.
"The point of that exercise was to remind you of how extensively our entire world is tied into fossil fuels. "
We need to research how to move away from fossil fuels, how to decrease the usage of fossil fuels, how to decrease the polluting byproducts of fossil fuels and create a global system that forces some initivative and enthusiasm for such research and investigation.
"Yet until you can show me a means by which we can replace nearly our entire western civilization’s infrastructure then Im afraid we are stuck with Oil for awhile longer."
Nuclear power, only electric motors for trips of a certain distance. Trains. Except slow progress, and begin now. That’s a start. If we can’t do enough within a certain time-frame we’d better be prepared to spend a lot on climate refugees, climate wars and disaster relief. It’s our responsibility.
"resulted not so much in the world producing carbon as to the nations clearing forests that are essentially the lungs of the world."
We pay the forest-clearing nations to not clear forests. I’d rather pay from the nose than let Africa become drier or see poor countries turn to chaos. I mean, if we pass a certain limit then the rainforests will start dying on their own, which will let them die faster which will… Yeah, see what I mean? But can we jsut stop the debate on whether there is GW? I can accept that it isn’t only Anthropogenic GW if I see the science but I think we need to move on to meld the different approaches of state intervention, global systems of offsets, economic compensation, personal changes, consumer awareness and just figure out what works where.
I concur that Al Gore is too aggressive to be productive and has an obvious hidden agenda. Whether he is making profit off of his products or trying to start a new religion, I don’t know. However, his inability to listen to scientists and really study the topic is most frightening when the general public will follow his lead like a puppet master.
As a real scientist, I understand that there is much we do not know. However, it is very well understood that the global climate has changed continueously over the last 4.6 billion years of the Earth’s existence. I also know that there is no simple solution. Biofuels deplete food supplies to third world countries, electric cars send electronic impulses similar to those of cell phones times 1000, etc. Solutions need to be wholistic and studied wholistically.
Does global warmin ocurr? Yes. Is it a product of human nature? Not entirely. The world is a much bigger place than mankind and will go on the way it has for the last 4 and 1/2 billion years with or without us interferring.
Utsu,
Don’t worry about saving the planet. It will save itself. If you want to take care of it and the people who inhabit it, then do so. Quit arguing about what needs to be done and do everything you can do. Recycle, drive less, use the public library instead of buying books, purchase non-printed checks, plant some trees, offer to carpool with neigbors or pick up groceries for them, teach other people in a kind and nonjudgmental way how to help the environment by setting an example. And go spend some time with your local teenagers or homeless people so you can see first hand where the real problems of the world are. Life is very short. Use your energy and frustrations to make it better. Don’t waste time trying to convince other people you are right. It is what people do when they feel insecure about themselves or have hidden agendas. Like our buddy Al Gore.