The Canadian Guitar Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
Yes, its a far cry from when he was obsessed with trying to push his religion down American's throats. He has a great PR team thats for sure.............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,531 Posts
Well and let's not forget the witchhunt Tipper was involved with during the 80's.

Just goes to prove with the right people and cause anyone can make be a "superstar":2guns:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Well and let's not forget the witchhunt Tipper was involved with during the 80's.

Just goes to prove with the right people and cause anyone can make be a "superstar":2guns:

I'm still laughing about time he claimed to have invented the Internet! And how he got caught for running huge amounts of electricity/energy in his mansion!

They got some PR flack to hurriedly issue a claim that he had bought a few acres of rainforest to offset the carbon. Maybe he did, who can tell. Still, wouldn't it be better to buy those acres AND not waste so much electricity?

They're all the same...

:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,531 Posts
I'm still laughing about time he claimed to have invented the Internet! And how he got caught for running huge amounts of electricity/energy in his mansion!

They got some PR flack to hurriedly issue a claim that he had bought a few acres of rainforest to offset the carbon. Maybe he did, who can tell. Still, wouldn't it be better to buy those acres AND not waste so much electricity?

They're all the same...

:D
I had forgot about the internet thing, that is too funny. I think everyone should do their part for the environ, whether it be buying you're own chunk of the rainforest (kinda like the "I have a bridge for sale') or, like me, eating as much beef as I can to help curtail the amount of unnecessary methane being released into the atmosphere...:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
I hate them all...all US presidents (and president wannabees like Gore) since the end of WWII are exactly the same aside from maybe Jimmy Carter. Rich elitists that help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
 
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
It's not so much the rich (if you work
hard to get to where you are), but
attainment of 'power' at all costs
that irks me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Yes, its a far cry from when he was obsessed with trying to push his religion down American's throats. He has a great PR team thats for sure.............
Now he's obsessed with pushing his earth-based New-Agey, Gaya religion, I don't trust a damn thing he says.

Allo! Allo! Nobody there Accept2 :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,740 Posts
I'm still laughing about time he claimed to have invented the Internet! :D

...for the record, al gore never claimed to have invented the internet.

but, i'm all for ganging up on and publicly ridiculing any individual or group that cares about the planet, and people, and peace (what a stupid concept THAT is!). what are they thinking?

i would much rather lend my support to warmongers, greedy "i've got mine, jack, sucks to be you" capitalists, divisive conservatives and other "realists".

:banana:

-dh
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,653 Posts
...for the record, al gore never claimed to have invented the internet.

but, i'm all for ganging up on and publicly ridiculing any individual or group that cares about the planet, and people, and peace (what a stupid concept THAT is!). what are they thinking?

i would much rather lend my support to warmongers, greedy "i've got mine, jack, sucks to be you" capitalists, divisive conservatives and other "realists".

:banana:

-dh
:food-smiley-004:


An inconvenient truth is worth watching, again and again, until we get it.

This stuff is NOT speculation. It's reality.


All things considered, I believe the world would be a better place now, if Gore was president.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
:food-smiley-004:


An inconvenient truth is worth watching, again and again, until we get it.

This stuff is NOT speculation. It's reality.


All things considered, I believe the world would be a better place now, if Gore was president.
It's not a scientific poll by any means but I can't help but notice amongst my friends, family and social circle a commonality about how one feels about this movie.

It seems anybody who's always been of a scientific bent hates it! Anybody of what we called in University the "artsie" persuasion accepts it as total gospel, with not just no questions asked but none allowed! There are a few exceptions but overwhelmingly it seems to be true.

Meanwhile there are suspicious rumours that many of the scientists listed as on Gore's side are of science areas not applicable to global warming, or dependent for their grant money. Some actually had no idea they were listed as on-side sources and threatened legal action to be removed!

I'm just wondering if the more of a scientific background you have the more you find Gore to be stretching things. If you don't have this background you're not equipped to notice.

This of course has nothing to do with someone's caring or commitment. Just one's ability to wield a healthy scepticism over a scientific argument, which is the very basis of the scientific method.

Me, when I see someone like Marilyn Churley (the NDP lady) on a talk show proclaiming "The Debate is over! We're right and no one should waste our time demanding anymore answers to questions! Just shut up and follow!" I frankly am astounded! No scientist worth his salt would ever take such an attitude and if he did I'm sure in an unbiased scientific forum he'd be hooted down. I don't know Ms Churley's backgound but I've met few NDP types who kept taking hard sciences and maths in school after their bean seeds died in that jar stuffed with toilet paper in the 6th grade!

This is no shame! We all have different strengths and talents. I can't draw a stick man with a ruler and my wife has to help me match even my socks! However, just as it would not make sense to designate me a fashion guru I don't see how a politician's support or that of a rock star a la Bono for Al Gore's movie counts as a scientific endorsement.

And make no mistake about it, global warming is a scientific issue and groups are calling for very expensive and difficult sacrifices from us and our children. Do you really feel comfortable pledging tax money you need to feed your kids to something promoted by Churley, Bono and Gore? If they're wrong, who can more easily afford the consequences?

:food-smiley-004:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
It's not so much the rich (if you work
hard to get to where you are),
it is about the rich and the poor too. Not just in North America but around the world. The system is designed in a such a way that economic conditions are imposed on developing countries in such a way that they cannot develop. America has been forcing this system down the whole world's throat since the end of world war II and even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union. I think it's funny how people in the US think that the way they vote actually matters. A country with 300 million people has 2 parties. You'd think people would realize that that's just their way of trying to fool people into thinking that they have a say, when in reality people with money make all the rules, control the media and so on. Al Gore is no different from Bush. The only reason Bush is so criticized now is because his invasions are failing and Americans are coming home in body bags whereas other US presidents did a much better job hiding the atrocious acts committed in the name of "freedom" around the world. As for Gore caring about the environment, you should really look into how major political figures in the US are also connected to corporations that do so much environmental damage in the country (the most obvious is Bush and a lot of people in his administration).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,968 Posts
The ones on Gore's side are also the ones who protested against nuclear power and prevented plants being built in the 1970s to shut down the coal fired ones. The US hasnt built a new nuclear power plant since 1978. And now they complain about what they created. The same thing will happen here with global warming. Its all part of combining the logic tree and Sturgeons Law...........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
Another thing about global warming. Am I the only one that doesn't really give a damn if we caused it or not? I realize this may be a very ignorant thing to say but allow me to explain. People are debating whether our pollution caused global warming or is this just the last ice age still ending. What I do know is that we have damaged this planet immensely since industrialization. I also know I like to breathe clean air and drink clean water. In my opinion, pollution is bad whether it's causing global warming or not and the rate at which we pollute needs to be reduced one way or another. Having said that, if global warming is due to the last ice age ending, there isn't anything we can do about it. What I'm getting at is, is it really important which group is right? We certainly cannot undo the damage already made, but we can prevent more damage from being inflicted, which is what we should do anyway...so does it matter whether we caused it or not? am I missing something here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Another thing about global warming. Am I the only one that doesn't really give a damn if we caused it or not? I realize this may be a very ignorant thing to say but allow me to explain. People are debating whether our pollution caused global warming or is this just the last ice age still ending. What I do know is that we have damaged this planet immensely since industrialization. I also know I like to breathe clean air and drink clean water. In my opinion, pollution is bad whether it's causing global warming or not and the rate at which we pollute needs to be reduced one way or another. Having said that, if global warming is due to the last ice age ending, there isn't anything we can do about it. What I'm getting at is, is it really important which group is right? We certainly cannot undo the damage already made, but we can prevent more damage from being inflicted, which is what we should do anyway...so does it matter whether we caused it or not? am I missing something here?
Well, perhaps a little perspective is in order.:smile:

It's important to settle the issue of whether global warming is natural or caused by man because the answer determines what approaches are open to us. Most of us would agree that that we should stop messing things up. The problem is how do we do that and still keep our lights on?

A2T has a good point about nuclear power. The green movement DID successfully block new atomic reactors! Yet we got more and more people who needed power so we turned to dirty things like coal-fired generators instead. The amount of carbon released by a nuclear power plant is a spit in the wind compared to that of a coal burning generator even with modern scrubbers, which incidently we did NOT install on the old ones!

Personally, I think it's a case that non-scientific people find nuclear scary because they don't know much about it except for bombs and things like coal ok because they can relate better. Maybe I'm wrong.

The big problem with many in the green movement is that they seem to be against ANY practical solution! They trumpet for things like solar or wind but those sources have problems themselves. Wind needs backup power available and solar is still far more expensive. So they can help but they have nowhere near the capacity to replace what we're using now. Most people have no idea how much power can be drawn from the average solar cell and what that cell costs. Try powering your stove from that backpack solar cell sold by Canadian Tire and you'll starve pretty quickly!

The biggest mug's game they sell is conservation! To hear some of them talk we can provide more power with conservation than we generated in the first place!

Conservation is really just another word for efficiency. If we waste 50% of what we generate then if we improved efficiencies we'd have more power available without building new generators.

Now, efficiency is always worthwhile but stop and think about it for a moment. First, how much improvement in efficiency is possible? At what cost?

Consider a simple analogy. We have a farm of 100 acres that is worked in a rather old-fashioned and inefficient manner. The farm feeds a clan of 40 people but everybody is a little hungry. There never seems to be quite enough food.

Now, up comes a graduate of the Green Agricultural College. He quickly shows them how they've been growing in an inefficient manner. He improves crop yields so that less effort is wasted yet produces more food. Everybody has a bit more leisure time and gains a little weight.

The next day 5 babies are born and 10 long lost relatives show up at the door and are now part of the clan! They all have to be fed!

So the Agri grad scratches his head, consults his textbooks and improves efficiencies yet again. Of course, he doesn't get the same amount of improvement as before. The first 80% of improvement is always easy but the next 20% is always far harder.

The clan population then grows some more.

You see where we're going? You can only get so efficient. Sooner or later you need some new acres added to the farm, no matter how efficiently you farm it.

This puts the lie to the constant cries to raise prices on things like gasoline and heating fuels in order to encourage conservation. Most folks have long ago given up driving for the sheer pleasure of it. They drive because they have little or no choice. They have to get to work, buy groceries and whatever. Public transit rarely is practical for most commuters and bringing home the family groceries on a bus is a joke!

People can always buy a car with better gas mileage the NEXT time they buy a car but few can afford to make the purchase today. Yet they have to pay any price increase today! Most folks have already sealed up their windows and door frames and put more insulation in their attics. Are they supposed to sell the old house and buy a more modern energy-efficient one?

Maybe I'm the only one too poor to do so and everybody else is more than rich enough. I dunno.

So we get bans on incandescent light bulbs. Does everybody understand how many watts of the total electricity usage in the average home is used by incandescent lamps? Do you understand what percentage is used by stoves, refrigerators, furnace motors, washers/dryers and such?

The savings are mice nuts! It's just more smoke and mirrors! It just LOOKS like the government is doing something! Meanwhile they're using this as an excuse to tax us more, pretending it's for our own good and they're going to use all the extra money to save the planet for us.

Or am I the only one who doesn't believe what politicians tell us?

Another misconception about electricity that many folks have is that it is not store-able! It doesn't matter that you saved a 100 watts from your new compact lamps on your total bill. The electricity company can't use that savings when it has to supply your electric stove. You see a saving from not having to provide a little bit more watts for old bulbs and your stove AT THE SAME TIME but that's it! You have to have enough generating capacity to handle peak loads, period. Savings must be spent immediately, they cannot be stored.

So as our population grows the idea that we can supply everyone with the power they need without ever adding new generators is just a fallacy. To think we can do it with wind and solar alone with no backup facilities is just bonehead engineering. Whether you like it or not, nuclear is the ONLY choice that will work without making everyone much more poor and hungry! We can argue about whether we should go with a British or German reactor 'cuz we Canadians can never build one one time and on budget but that's about all.

Not a single soul died or was hurt at Three Mile Island, despite all the hoopla from the anti-nuke crowd. All the safeties worked.

And if someone is going to trot out that tired old example of Chernobyl then I"ve got a Lada or a Yugo to sell them. After all, a car's a car and they're all the same, right?

:food-smiley-004:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,740 Posts
...the best possible solution is to ignore the real issues in favour of name calling, finger pointing, public humiliation and ridicule, personal insults and anything else that will divide people into as many opposing factions as possible.

labelling global warming as a left wing conspiracy is a good start.

here in toronto we have am640 talk radio leading the way on all fronts.

:sport-smiley-002:

-dh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,531 Posts
Wild Bill you're not the only one who doesn't buy into everything the government is telling us. Alot of what they have put out in regards to this subject is garnish to salad, to make it appear that they are trying to change how we treat the environment. All of it just adds up to a drop in the bucket. I often wonder as well about all this electricity conservation they are pumping. Is it really about saving the enivronment from the coal burning plants or about having extra electricity to export for greater profit.

I don't beleive for a minute the we have caused global warming, we may have helped it along faster than it would have happened, but there is enough scientific proof out there to show that it has happened before and it has happened again, just like the changing of the magnetic poles.

The big push on smart cars and hybrids makes me wonder as well. The hybrids do not get any better gas mileage than alot of vehicles but they do produce less emissions (which is good), but why can't they do both? I question why the average north american pickup truck gets that same gas mileage roughly that ones from 30 years ago did, granted once again they are supposed to have less emissions but why not make them more fuel efficient too...the reason..profits. It would seem to me that a vehicle that gets more miles per gallon should also equate somewhat to less emissions as less fuel is being consumed.

Gore's movie was interesting, but I have also watched documentaries that are on the opposite end of the spectrum. As with most things, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
"I'm right, you're mistaken, he's dead wrong!"

...the best possible solution is to ignore the real issues in favour of name calling, finger pointing, public humiliation and ridicule, personal insults and anything else that will divide people into as many opposing factions as possible.

labelling global warming as a left wing conspiracy is a good start.

here in toronto we have am640 talk radio leading the way on all fronts.

:sport-smiley-002:

-dh
Sadly David, AM640 is just following the trend. You should hear what I've been called on other boards for being a "denier"!

That's why whenever someone resorts to name calling instead of real debate I just bail. One fellow wrote a long thread about how the most important trait in the debate about global warming was "passion". He seemed to be claiming that because he and his crowd cared so passionately about saving the planet that folks like me should automatically believe anything he says.

I had a girlfriend years ago who passionately loved disco but I just couldn't accept it as the epitome of guitar technique...:eek:

Anyhow, I've come to believe that as a society we are just too dumb to handle such debate in a logical, civilized manner. There are a lot of exceptions of course but the general baseline seems pretty low. We "educate" by instilling lots of data but we don't seem to be teaching the critical thinking skills necessary to make the right choices.

I guess I'm referring to "wisdom". Talk radio is full of negative examples of what passes for judgement these days. Ever listen to Andy Barry on the CBC? Nice guy but if he was in charge of something like designing a bridge I would never let my family walk across it! Like many in the media he seems to feel that because he's articulate he can give an opinion on scientific things like global warming, without seeming to have any sort of scientific background at all. Perhaps I'm misjudging him but I've listened to him a lot over the years and he doesn't sound to me like he could change a plug on a lamp!

Could probably pick a nice colour for that lamp, 'though.

AM640 is not my usual station but perhaps you can tell me if they use an old scam I've heard many times on the CBC. You set up a panel to discuss some politically correct issue. You make sure the guys on the politically correct side are all very articulate. You then find some opposing voices who might have equally good credentials but have irritating voices and mannerisms and often outright snarky personalities. The average viewer or listener can't help but come away accepting the PC side. The opposition might have better facts but they are presented by "ugly" folks!

All this is just entertainment, until it begins to affect taxes and prices. I'd like to clean up and save the planet as much as the next guy but when it takes money I'd rather spend on my kids (and see spent on other folk's kids!) I want to be damn sure it's money wisely spent!

:food-smiley-004:
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top