Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>Carbon offset From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Carbon offset is the process of reducing the net carbon emissions of an individual or organization, either by their own actions, or through arrangements with a carbon offset provider. A carbon offset service is one arranged with such a provider, that achieves this net reduction through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.[1] A wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets are also popular, including emissions trading credits. The intended goal of carbon offsets is to combat global warming.[2] The appeal of becoming "carbon neutral" has contributed to the growth of voluntary offsets, which often are a more cost-effective alternative to reducing one's own fossil-fuel consumption. However, carbon offsets are not without controversy, with some environmentalists and economists questioning the overall benefits of the practice.<<< Is Al Gore paying any LPer to plant trees so he can continue using power at present levels? I'm willing to plant a tree for pay.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No again you are blindly defending him." Actually, I hardly ever defend him, blind or otherwise. But this is kind of ridiculous. "yet he himself uses 10 times the normal for his home alone." Maybe he should tell his STAFF to cut down on their use of heat for his OFFICE space which is at his house. Your comments are ignoring that he doesn't just have a tract home in the San Fernando Valley.
Originally Posted By jonvn "the quote lacks validity and if Jonvn says something that has not been peer reviewed and published, it lacks validity." No. If he quotes something and does not editorialize, it means he's not really participating in a discussion board and is just cutting and pasting and not DISCUSSING. If I say something here, it's my opinion. Opinion can be backed up with facts as best can be obtained. You don't peer review opinion.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> I still can't figure out why certain conservatives are so afraid of treating the planet better to the point that they always have to shoot the messenger. Oh wait. It's all about money, no matter what they say. Baloney. George Bush has been promoting alternative fuels for years. This isn't about shooting the messenger. This is about exposing hypocrisy and dishonesty. And it isn't just "certain conservatives." Several scientists, noting they are not fans of the Bush administration, have been very criticial of Gore's attempt to shut-down debate, twist the facts, and draw conclusions that aren't based on evidence. Al Gore isn't just "the messenger" either. He is being praised and glorified by the media, and many are wanting him to run as president. I think the president needs to not be doing what Al Gore is doing. It's not an attack on environmentalism. It's exposing anti-conservative, anti-business, hypocritical extreme liberalism masquerading as environmentalism. >>> How about reversing the question -- if the President feels it is important enough to do in his own home, why doesn't he promote these same efficiencies for society as a whole? He does. I've seen him do it. He just doesn't get credit for it. He's pushing on the R&D side, because right now alternative fuels are impractical and out-of-reach for the average consumer. I myself simply cannot afford a hybrid. May I assume you don't use petroleum anymore? I guess I got the answer to my question. Al Gore is allowed to be a hypocrite because conservatives hate the environment. Whatever. You mean he is not Jesus Christ and is not a sinless person who is perfect? >>> I guess that means his entire message is false. Who said it's false? I said I support environmental responsibility. But if we want people to learn environmental responsibility, Al Gore shouldn't be the teacher. He's a fraud. Three problems with Gore Global Warming: 1. It's agenda-driven science. Certain scientific evidence is allowed. Then Gore attempts to shut-down all debate by claiming we have reached a consensus (baloney) and dissenters are right-wing nuts. 2. It only makes demands of conservatives, big business, and the public. We all have to behave as Gore says, or we are bad, evil, responsible people. 3. Liberals and Hollywood are exempt. Their people can jet around the globe, drive SUVs, and whatnot, as long as they bring out a Prius on occasion. They can consume and waste all they want, and they consider themselves entitled.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> 3. Liberals and Hollywood are exempt. I should clarify that while all liberals are apparently exempt from Gore's professed environmental practices, not all liberals exempt themselves. I'm sure there are many who actually, unlike Gore, do as they expect others to do. Pity they aren't the ones leading the Democratic party.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Baloney. George Bush has been promoting alternative fuels for years. >> Primarily the petroleum based "alternative" fuels that ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips pay him to promote. And, of course, the ethanol based fuel blends that big agriculture pays good political action committee money to have promoted as well.
Originally Posted By Mr X **A minor point - my name is actually Dave. "Dabob" is an acronym** Oh. Sorry bout that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >>> I still can't figure out why certain conservatives are so afraid of treating the planet better to the point that they always have to shoot the messenger. Oh wait. It's all about money, no matter what they say. Baloney. George Bush has been promoting alternative fuels for years.< "Certain conservatives". Did I mention Bush. And it definitely IS all about shooting the messenger.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy DAR: <So are you the sequel to Dabob1?> LOL, best post of the thread.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "No. If he quotes something and does not editorialize, it means he's not really participating in a discussion board and is just cutting and pasting and not DISCUSSING." This is something which has bugged me for some time here - the way everyone gets down on darkbeer I mean. Very few of us here have any expertise to discuss half of what we talk about and I, for one, frequently find myself more interested to read the links provided by participants because those links presumably send us to the viewpoints of people and organizations with more expertise than we have. To be perfectly honest, what value are any of our opinions in a large number of matters? It's clear than many people come here because they like to take contrary positions to others and then try to sway others, I assume, to adopt their viewpoints. But some of us like to read about issues we haven't heard before and see what others who have expertise are saying about things. I am guessing that if darkbeer one day decided to not quote anybody but to offer his opinion about something, a large number of people would rise up and reply - "Yeah? Well who the hell cares what YOU think?"
Originally Posted By jonvn "the way everyone gets down on darkbeer" Perhaps it's because he quotes out of context and distorts what he is representing as what the article says. I found that out the hard way. When he first showed up, he actually snowed me with his quotes, until I started actually looking at what he was quoting, and realized what he said rarely coincided with the original article. <<I am guessing that if darkbeer one day decided to not quote anybody but to offer his opinion about something, a large number of people would rise up and reply - "Yeah? Well who the hell cares what YOU think?">> I would think if he were honest and sincere in his opinions, he would not get that result. Only one person here has had that said to him, because he's not honest and lies constantly about nearly everything he says. So that's not a person worth listening to. Otherwise, I don't think people say that to each other, not usually, anyway.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder John, I couldn't have put it any plainer than I did in post 39 in this thread: <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-84880-P-4.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms gBoard-T-84880-P-4.asp</a> Besides what I wrote above, not only does he now plagiarize, which happened in this thread, but he creates misleading thread titles accompanied by cut and pasted articles that are selectively edited to misrepresent what the article actually says. It's flat-out dishonest, and he's done it for years here and other boards as well. He's been called on it any number of times over the years. As for as World Events here, he never has the guts to respond when called on it, which has been his style over time at other boards too. Yet he keeps doing it, for reasons known only to him. As I said in the linked post, he hides behind these misrepresentations. It particularly strkes me as disingenuous because of what I do for a living. If I were to cite to a case without applying the rule of law from it to the facts of the case I was trying (in other words, include my own analysis), I'd lose every time. I can't just say "Marriage of Petersen" and "a party must show a change of circumstances to modify an order" without saying why it applies to my own facts. Our boy in question not only doesn't apply his own analysis, he misrepresents what his cited case (article) stands for to begin with. To me, it's just as much of a cheat as the garbage beau used to throw around here, except even beau included his own analysis. Why our boy is allowed to continue unabated in WE is beyond me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And since John posed the question, I'd like to ask that the replies stand.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>Why our boy is allowed to continue unabated in WE is beyond me.<<< SPP, I don't read his cut and paste and you may be right about them being out-of-context, but I have just reread the community standards and do not see that he is violating them. It is really easy to abstain from responding to his posts.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Moreover, I'd suggest the standards could use some amending.
