Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Monday, May 21, 2007

Indoctrination, Not Education

Sheesh...

First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year.

“I really don’t understand why they keep showing it,” says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). “I’ve spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we’ve seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what’s going on.”

If the Canadians had school choice, where they could use tax dollar “vouchers” to send their kids to any private or public school they wanted, they could avoid teachers that present one-sided, political-agenda-driven “documentaries” as education.

Comments

Vouchers are great. Vermont, I believe, was one of the first to allow them. They even started a firestorm by allowing state credit to go to private schools… i.e. catholic high schools.

That said, the showing of that film is bullshit.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on May 21, 2007 at 08:52 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Hopefully this will encourage more parents to refuse to send their children to the government schools, vouchers or no.  The ugly fact is that great portions of Gore’s movie are pure fiction, and if teachers of whatever persuasion cannot figure this out, then those big buildings can hardly be considered places of education.

Robert Perry on May 21, 2007 at 02:57 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

OK, I’ll have to bite...Robert, can you define or describe which of the “great portions” you’re talking about?

DeuceSoliloquy on May 26, 2007 at 06:26 pm

great portions of Gore’s movie are pure fiction

The stuff between the opening and closing credits!


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 26, 2007 at 06:37 pm
Avatar for andy l

The stuff between the opening and closing credits!
Proof on May 26, 2007 at 06:37 pm

How’s that, Proof!  Do you have proof?

andy l on May 26, 2007 at 07:22 pm
Avatar for andy l

The stuff between the opening and closing credits!
Proof on May 26, 2007 at 06:37 pm

Or, is your mere existance proof enough?

andy l on May 26, 2007 at 07:23 pm

andy: Try looking in the dictionary under “humorless”. You should find your picture there!



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 26, 2007 at 07:42 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

OK, Proof, Not looking for an argument here, just a logical debate...So I will ask you to define again...Exactly which portions of the movie were actually false?  Here is a portion of a comment I posted on the flickertail journal, I think it pretty much defines my stance on the whole global warming debate:

As far as the “debate” on global warming, anybody remember the “debate” on whether or not cigarette smoking is harmful? Remember the “studies” that raised “important” questions of a “direct correlation” as to whether or not cigarettes impact the health of the smoker? Anyone remember when it came to light that they were funded through the Phillip Morris Corp? Anybody still want to debate whether or not cigarette smoking is harmful to the smoker?
Could it be possible that some of the dissenting opinions on global warming are funded through a company like….Exxon? (I honestly don’t know, just a question) Do we as citizens really want to be so quick to discard an opinion offered by 1000 of the world’s leading scientists whose funding sources we are aware of, while reading some other dissenting opinions whose source of funding are murky at best? Ken Lay making recommendations for hiring at the energy commission? Lobbyists sitting in on the “clear skies initiative”? Are we, as citizens of this country, aware of and comfortable with some of these decisions? Have we, as citizens of this country, gone ahead and read this material as the source of our opinions, or did we just just get it filtered down to us through some other voice, without discerning for certain the facts of the matter? I guess at the end of the day on the whole global warming debate, I think “well, if it turns out that global warming was false, we were put through some undue economic hardships”….but, damn, what if the other guys were right?

I think we have every right to debate this issue, but I would like to have something a little more substantial thrown at me other than it’s totally pure fiction. (I paraphrase)..

DeuceSoliloquy on May 27, 2007 at 05:49 am

I think we have every right to debate this issue, but I would like to have something a little more substantial thrown at me other than it’s totally pure fiction.

That funny you should say that since the global warming fanatics including Al Gore have taken this item off of the floor for debate.  I think even Gore said that the “Debate was over” before it started.

We’ve covered Global warming a lot here, I don’t really feel the need to go back to square one. 

By the way, don’t attack who funded the study, attack the validity of the study.  It’s very clear to me that the global warming guys want to silence the other side.

And really the power companies aren’t going to suffer from this junk science.  They’ll still make money, it’s the consumer that will suffer because they will be paying more for less. 

Already the junk science is making it difficult for poor people to eat because ethanol production has doubled the price of corn. 

Anyway do some site searches on Global Warming or wait around until we discuss specific topics.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 27, 2007 at 06:36 am

Exactly which portions of the movie were actually false?

The pseudo-science-psychobabble that is Al Gore’s movie has been dissected on this blog numerous times in numerous places.
Instead of telling you what’s wrong with the movie, let me give you a very short list of people who also believe the movie is filled with falsehoods… Al Gore.
Al has not stopped his own profligate use of energy, even as he calls for everyone else to alter their lifestyle. Could any rational human being believe that our energy usage threatens the planet, but as long as I purchase (or am given) “carbon credits” then I can use as much energy as I want?
Or, he wants to reduce energy usage, so he will fly musicians, their equipment, their roadies and their fans to all seven continents on the planet to hold concerts? What’s he going to do? Issue them all carbon credits? Ally, ally oxen free?
Is there a real crisis or just a marketing opportunity for companies that sell carbon credits...oh! Like Al Gore’s company! What a co-inky-dink!
By the way, Wait for my movie, ”An Inconvienient Weight”. I will, for a small fee, issue you a “gravity credit"(which alters gravity to the exact same degree as carbon credits alter energy usage). If people don’t weigh as much, the planet won’t use as much energy to turn, your car will get better gas mileage and it may actually freshen your breath! (Please hold my movie to the same standards as Al Gore’s!)
Thank you!


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 06:45 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

OK, whistler, Proof, I will do some more searching and see, sorry we couldn’t have any further debate but you’ve stated your reasons.  I don’t necessarily think I attacked who funded any specific study,(I honestly do not know) but I would always be hesitant to fully accept any explanation without knowing where the dollars came from to put it out there.  While I agree that Al’s saying “the debate is over” doesn’t lend itself to a whole lot of rational discourse, I do have to point out that I feel your response to my questions does much of the same.

DeuceSoliloquy on May 27, 2007 at 07:44 am

Thanks Deuce, there’s a lot to be learned by a real debate over the global warming issues.  Generally when we post on the subject of global warming we get the people who repeat the dogma of global warming.

1.  The debate is over.

2.  Every scientist is on board.

3.  It’s a moral issue.

4.  25,000 Scientists can’t be wrong.

yada yada yada.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 27, 2007 at 07:57 am

Deuce: I am not going to question your sincerity, but I must point out that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion.  In the instance of the hypothesis that human activity is going to cause a climate crisis on this planet, there is as yet no proof of that.  It isn’t valid science to claim that it must be disproven; consensus is not scientific proof, and until such proof is brought forth, it is proper to assume it to be an unproven hypothesis.  Al Gore is trying to hustle us, and the MSM is assisting him in that effort.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 27, 2007 at 08:03 am

I feel your response to my questions does much of the same.

Deuce: Bit of a difference in declaring “the debate is over” and me just not wanting to beat that dead horse again!
Having lived through the “Coming Global Ice Age” of the seventies, I think I’ll weather the “Coming Global Warming” bunkum of the current age.



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 08:06 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

OK Whistler, I have to admit that I probably lean a little more to the left than a lot of you guys, but at this point in my life, I think those definitions are exactly what is wrong with politics in this country today...I honestly have not worked out for sure in my mind where I am at in the global warming issue, (or education, Iraq, who I’m voting for next November or what I’m making for lunch today).....But I do think that at the heart of the matter politically (not my lunch decision) is for everybody to be able to have a rational debate without slandering, propagandizing or any other “trollish?” behavior....We as a country have A LOT of work to do, a lot of information to sort out, and a lot of important decisions that have to be made....I’m just trying to pitch in a little bit to get the conversation going...thanks…

DeuceSoliloquy on May 27, 2007 at 08:07 am

I’m just trying to pitch in a little bit to get the conversation going

Deuce: Any sincere quest for truth will find its welcome here. Perhaps rather than asking us to debunk the entire movie (big task- been there, done that!) you could focus on an individual point or two either that you believe in or think are questionable.
Make the debate bite-sized and not a term project...you might get more response!



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 08:12 am

Here’s one post that Rob did to refute Algore’s movie.

You can also read the comments below to see how things are discussed.

Personally I would like someone to logically discuss Global Warming because I think I’d learn a lot.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 27, 2007 at 08:13 am

Heck that was me that posted that.

Sometimes I amaze even myself.  smile


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 27, 2007 at 08:14 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

OK, and Proof and Robert, I profess not to be a scientist, but I know a little bit about the steps of the scientific process, and looking for a cause and effect relationship factors into it.  I, also went through the whole “coming of the next ice age” in the 70’s, but I have also come to the conclusion that the science in this decade is more advanced than what we had to work with 30 years ago.  (remember the $60 paper-weight sized calculators?) So I guess at this stage of where I’m at, I’ve seen (and not just in Gore’s movie) recent studies of carbon dioxide collections in our atmosphere, and seen the average world temperatures of the past few years...I’m not saying that they are 100% irrefutably connected, but should it not lend itself to at least consider a causal relationship?  Or at least a healthy debate?

DeuceSoliloquy on May 27, 2007 at 08:16 am

Sometimes I amaze even myself.

Modesty is your finest quality!


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 08:17 am

Except carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator of world wide heat waves.

What happens is that the Earth warms up and that heat drives C02 out of the oceans.

Another thing to worry about is why is it that the other planets are warming up the same as the Earth?

Martian SUV’s?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 27, 2007 at 08:19 am

I’m not saying that they are 100% irrefutably connected, but should it not lend itself to at least consider a causal relationship?  Or at least a healthy debate?

In order to have a debate, some things have to be quantifiable, and climatological models have not yet reached that stage.  The debate right now is about the possibility that humans might have some contribution to world climate.  Even if that is established, the amount of that contribution must be determined, then the outcome of that amount must be calculated, and even after all that, the question of whether or not we can or even should do something about it must be decided.  Then, how that should be done is open to question and debate.  I don’t agree that totalitarian govt intervention is desirable in any way.  It might be a “cure” that is worse than the disease.  Al Gore is trying to hustle us.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 27, 2007 at 08:21 am

consider a causal relationship?  Or at least a healthy debate?

Consider? No problem! Take draconian steps to the economy to try to minimally alter unproven conditions? That requires proof, not speculation. The Gorebots are calling for drastic change based on unproven science, with the rallying cry of, “We can’t wait until it’s proven, by then it will be too late!”
Rational debate, however, would be welcome. I’m willing to admit the planet may be warming, but what portion of it is man-made and what portion is solar hasn’t been proven. (There is warming on other planetary bodies in our system).
Even if the warming were man-made, there is debate as to whether CO2 is a leading or following indicator of warming.
Let’s get the science right first, then we can deal with policies. We don’t need a Goracle to lead us with emotional propaganda to the Promised Land of Carbon Offsets!


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 08:29 am

The Whistler ...

Another thing to worry about is why is it that the other planets are warming up the same as the Earth?

Last I heard, everything is Rob’s fault sooo… we could just blame him and ignore the real issue.


flag002.gif washC.gif

Anna on May 27, 2007 at 08:55 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

I don’t necessarily think that Gore is trying to “hustle” us...I always try to teach my son to look at the intent behind someone’s actions, and from my perspective and in my opinion I think the man’s intent is as pure as a politician’s can get.  (Just as I concede W’s intent is pure, at least pertaining to our current strategy in Iraq, but I totally disagree with his actions)...I will say that I’m not sure if “carbon credits” are the way to deal with the problem (hey, what do I know, I dropped out of Econ 102)..but I know enough that if we as a nation were to act upon this issue, it would take some sort of sacrifice from all of us in the country, whether these steps could be perceived as draconian or not, I guess would be up to the individual.
I started watching the video and reading the comments in a link that Whistler gave me on the last time this subject was broached.  (Thanks again!!!) and I did a quick google of the two named recources that the convenient fiction? video was funded by: The Pacific Research Institute and the American Enterprise Institute.  I came across a page that said it actually WAS Exxon who had funded these two institutes to the tune of $300,000+, (and it gave links to Exxon’s home page for their financial disclosures).  Now I’m still not saying there is a direct correlation to any mis-information that may or may not have been presented by this video, but doesn’t the funding source make you want to step back and think about this issue for yourself?  I am not advocating for either side of this issue necessarily, but I think before we drink ANYBODY’S kool-aid, we better make damn sure what’s in the cup.
The last point I have time to throw in right now would be the perceived hypocrisy of Gore, whether it be his electric bills or his concert.  He does pay extra for getting all of his electricity from renewable resources, and he lives in an older house (or mansion) that he is in the process of renovating to make more energy efficient.  (I consider myself pretty ecologically aware, but right now I have a $300 even monthly payment to my electric company because my house is over 100 years old… I don’t think that makes me a hypocrite)....As far as the concert, let’s be honest...is flying everyone and their gear to seven continents going to greatly impact the total carbon emissions for that particular day?  I think (or I would at least hope) that it entered Gore’s mind, but it was probably countered with what he thought was bringing to light an issue that is clearly very important to him.  It was probably a trade-off (this is pure speculation) between the perceived benefits of 7 (or 77) less jets in the sky that day, compared to the perceived benefits of getting that many more people to start talking about this particular subject. So while I see the connection between Gore’s actions and what some might construe as his “hypocrisy”, I would try not to let that cloud my judgment while listening to ALL the facts.  Clearly, there are many dissenting opinions,(some of which, when I researched, seemed shady at best, but take a look yourself), so we have to start sorting out each one and viewing them with what I would hope would be “their intent” in mind.

DeuceSoliloquy on May 27, 2007 at 06:07 pm

if we as a nation were to act upon this issue, it would take some sort of sacrifice from all of us in the country

Hmmm! Maybe those “leaders” who believe there is a problem might,oh, I don’t know, set an example? Sorry, let me be more specific...set a good example!

flying everyone and their gear to seven continents going to greatly impact the total carbon emissions for that particular day?

So we can do whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please as long as we only do it one day at a time? I’m jiggy with that!


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 06:17 pm

Deuce, thanks for the thoughtful comment.

You’ve been misled on the American Enterprise Institute.  We’ve covered that in two different posts, one by Carrick and one by myself. 
Bottom line is that Exxon funds AEI less than 1% of their funding.

This is classic attack the messenger tactics.  The left can’t dispute the facts presented so they find some reason to discredit the study.

So are you surprised to realize how little Exxon had to do with the funding?  Another thing from those posts is that AEI paid 10,000 honorariums for people that had already done their work to come to their symposium.  Exactly how would that effect their positions?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 27, 2007 at 06:21 pm

Speaking of attacking the messenger does it concern you that Algore stands to benefit handsomely from his ownership position in a carbon credit company?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 27, 2007 at 06:26 pm

all of his electricity from renewable resources,

All? I don’t think so. Do you have a source on that?

the perceived hypocrisy of Gore

This isn’t a court of law. Unless you want me to say that I perceive you to be a Gore apologist… We can just call ‘em as we see ‘em!


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 06:28 pm

All? According to About.com:

Through a spokesperson, Gore has responded to criticism of his bloated electric bill by arguing that his lifestyle is actually “carbon neutral” because he offsets 100% of the environmental impact of his power consumption by purchasing “green energy” and investing in projects that promote renewable resources and reduce overall consumption. This strategy, known as carbon offsetting

.
And, of course, he gets his “carbon offsets” as a “bennie” from his own company, so his “self sacrifice” is Zero.
In summary, 100% of the “impact” is green, according to the Gorester and his Gorebots, not 100% “green energy”. What was that somebody said about Gore “hustling” us?

Al Gore’s Energy Usage Exceeds U.S. Average



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 06:57 pm

DeuceSoliloquy: I will not pretend to have Whistler’s expertise on the Human Caused Global Warming science, or lack therefof; but I think come common senses is called for and we cannot bow down at the Altar of science as having all the answers, even about scientific matters.

1. Virtually no scientist can get published unless they adhere to the idea that human activity has caused the current global warming trend, if such a trend even exists at all. So, we must seriously question the scientific and academic community for not allowing contrary opinions to even be considered and that in peer-reviewed scientific publications.
2. No scientist seriously considering the global warming data dares submit contrary work for peer review as any evidence that contradicts Human Caused Global Warming will absolutely kill their academic careers. Again, why is the academic and scientific community so afraid of contrary data and open debate? If their data was that solid, why would they fear those contradicting their conclusions?
3. While it is impossible to know the true heart motives of anyone, Al Gore is a career politician, he has demonstrated an unstable mind on occasion, he is not a scientist or as the Congress calls him - a prophet. He never - ever considers any anti-Human Caused Global Warming data and he loudly, rudely and hatefully questions the motives of anyyone, even scietists not supporting his political agenda on this issue. As to his carbon footprint and his hypocrisy, no matter how you might defend him, he is using much more energy than most of us; and, if he is right about Human Caused global warming, he is contributing more to that problem than the average citizen. His wealth, his old house or his need to fly private jets notwithstanding, he is not living the lifestyle he demands of average people. It is the old do as I say not as I do, I am a part of the ruling political elite and we have a right to our extra luxuries and energy consuming dachas, as we are simply superior human beings and we deserve more in this life than the proletariat.

If Human Caused Global Warming is a fact and if it is killing our planet, we would be morons not to take positive, even draconian measures for the future generations. However, if the expanding ozone and global warming trends are all part of a normal, approximately 1500 year cycle; and it is actually beneficial to our planet, then we should not be asked to enroll in some Leftist plan to reverse this trend. The answer is to open up the debate to the light of day, to look at all the data honestly and let the facts dictate our future actions. If Gore is not open to that simple idea and honest approach, he has some evil motives and they need to be exposed.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on May 27, 2007 at 07:00 pm

BTW, There’s a “Is Al Gore a Hypocrite” Poll there. The article is a puff piece, giving the Goreacle every benifit of the doubt. Still, 59% of those who voted (over 6,000) say, “Yes, Algore is a hypocrite.

If you like, take the poll yourself!



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 07:03 pm

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore’s office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

-USA Today

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, “Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence.” The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has “tried to move people to act.” Yet, astoundingly, Gore’s persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green.


if Al Gore is the world’s role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 27, 2007 at 07:14 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

[The answer is to open up the debate to the light of day, to look at all the data honestly and let the facts dictate our future actions. If Gore is not open to that simple idea and honest approach, he has some evil motives and they need to be exposed.

Yep, I totally agree....I generally don’t trust ANY politician, and I am not at all sure about his ownership in a carbon credits company or if that is even the approach that would need to be taken if the time comes (I’ve said it before, me and Econ, not a good mix).....It just seems to me in light of the history of some of our corporations such as Phillip Morris purposely distorting the debate on cigarette smoking, we should follow ALL money trails....I did check out the % of funding that Exxon contributed to AEI, and yep, the percentages check out...but I will leave for now with this....How many different institutes, think tanks and scientific research groups have Exxon funded?  What is their total $ contributed?...and again, like I try to teach my son, what is their intent?

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 07:17 am

Deuce I think it’s better to focus on the merits of the argument rather than attacking the messenger.

For example let’s wait until they come up with an explanation of why Mars is warming at much the same rate as the Earth.  That leads me to believe that there’s something deep in the center of the solar system that’s causing both planets to warm up.

One thing that should be very troubling is the fact that global warming skeptics get next to no federal funding.  An honest system would encourage different views as that’s the best way to come to the actual truth.

I think that Algore’s behavior is somewhat different.  If he really believed what he says then wouldn’t he change his behavior?

I really don’t know that much about the science but Carrick who is a frequent contributer here has posted some very informational stuff on the subject.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 28, 2007 at 07:31 am

I am not at all sure about his ownership in a carbon credits company

”not at all sure”? You could start here:
Al Gore runs an investment firm that speculates on environmentally friendly businesses
or here:
How Gore’s massive energy consumption saves the world
or here:
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 28, 2007 at 07:32 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

let’s wait until they come up with an explanation of why Mars is warming at much the same rate as the Earth.  That leads me to believe that there’s something deep in the center of the solar system that’s causing both planets to warm up

Yes Whistler, the little bit that I know on the scientific theory and cause and effect, that would lend itself to some serious discussion for sure...I’m having trouble tracking that statistic down from a reliable source...do you have any links?

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 08:53 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

I think it’s better to focus on the merits of the argument rather than attacking the messenger.

OK, my only problem here is that along with a total lack of any economic background, I really don’t have the science credits necessary to really weigh-in on the subject with any authority....All I have is my life experiences, a relatively sensible mid-western upbringing, and the semi-suspicious nature that comes from coming of age in this era big money/government allegiances.  If viewing it with intent, I really do think questioning, not attacking the motives of the messenger (and yes, that would also apply to Gore and his carbon credits company, Cheney and Halliburton, etc...) is probably what I am the most qualified to do…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 09:22 am

I’m having trouble tracking that statistic down from a reliable source

Deuce: Not to be mean spirited or anything, but have you ever heard of Google?
I Googled “Mars warming” and this was the first of many links:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar Warming
The links I gave you on Gore’s company were not, surprisingly enough, from memory, but a simple web search. Are you a serious inquirer or do you merely wish to play devil’s advocate?



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 28, 2007 at 09:25 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Are you a serious inquirer or do you merely wish to play devil’s advocate?

A little bit of both I guess if I was honest, I googled those also, but what I was looking for was a voice that could be interpreted as honest and authoritative, without either side of the debate questioning the motives of the author...plus I had to leave to hear my kid in the parade, so I guess I did want some other people to do the heavy lifting in my absence, for that I apologize....
DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 09:42 am

...what I was looking for was a voice that
could be interpreted as honest and authoritative, without either side of the debate questioning the motives of the author…

(emphasis mine)

Interesting.  Have you subjected Al Gore’s claim of human-caused global warming to the same standard of proof?  You have said that you have little knowledge of science, and yet Al Gore’s claim is supposedly based on science.  As I pointed out before, you still have the position that Al Gore needs to be disproved, rather than the usual scientific approach that any new position must provide its own proof before it even needs to be debated.  As far as I can see, all Al Gore has done is to make an unsupported claim, and with the help of the MSM, is attempting to hustle us into believing him, absent proof.  Whether you know it or not, you are supporting Al Gore.  Hardly objective.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 10:02 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

I am not at all sure about his ownership in a carbon credits company

Oh, and I guess I need some clarification on that quote: I’m not at all sure how I FEEL about his ownership, I was never questioning the authenticity of it.....Yes, most definitely a question that needs to also come into the debate is Al’s financial incentives...(much like Cheney’s and our current administration’s decisions on Iraq) but I think I could say that he’s no Johnny-come-lately to the ecology debate, so....is he exercising capitalism and creating a product where he sees a demand, or is he drumming alarmist fears with hopes to cash in? (also applicable questions to the current administration)....I honestly don’t know, but I think we should all start talking openly and honestly about it..

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 10:12 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Whether you know it or not, you are supporting Al Gore.  Hardly objective.

OK, I thought I stated early on in my debate which side I’m leaning closer to:

I guess at the end of the day on the whole global warming debate, I think “well, if it turns out that global warming was false, we were put through some undue economic hardships”….but, damn, what if the other guys were right?

That is my leaning right now, but I think my motives for wanting to have a rational discussion on the topic I think are sincere, and I definitely have been one to say if I’m wrong in my lifetime....I don’t think anybody here is going to be able to inconclusively prove to the other which side of the debate is factual....that was not what I interpreted this sights benefits as....rather, I took it as a place to gather, exchange ideas, and get involved as citizens to further along the national conversation, not to play “gotcha” or intellectual one upsmanship, or gang up and attack (not that I personally have experienced any of that here)...Just to read others opinions, engage if we want, and have a healthy discussion...At this stage of our country’s existence, I don’t want Al Franken OR Ann Coulter being the only ones talking while too many of our other citizens are surfing the web for Britney beaver shots…

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 10:49 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

you still have the position that Al Gore needs to be disproved, rather than the usual scientific approach that any new position must provide its own proof before it even needs to be debated

OK, I guess what I mean here is that I am tending to believe the ICC report, which last stated they were 90% percent chance that global warming is caused by human activity...The source of the funding is clear, and I believe their intent...trying to track down all the other dissenting opinions, when Exxon is funding millions to disprove it, is a bit tricky...I’ll keep trying and I’ll report back if and when I have anything intelligent to add...but, as I was filling up my 11 gallon tank this morning and writing a check for $38.00 (gas and my morning soda) it’s kinda hard not to wonder if Exxon would have any incentive to discredit the findings of the ICC....
DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 10:57 am

...I don’t think anybody here is going to be able to inconclusively prove to the other which side of the debate is factual....

Once again, your position is that this is a debate between two equal sides; it’s not.  The Globalwarmingists haven’t proven their hypothesis.  The Earth is quite habitable, and so far, since the last Ice Age, the warming of the globe has been beneficial to humans.  There is no evidence that something is now wrong with global warming, no matter what the cause.  Al Gore is hustling you into an irrational alarmist consciousness.  It is a strategy to gain power and control.  Al Gore doesn’t practice what he preaches; he isn’t leading the way to the lifestyle he advocates for everyone else.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 11:05 am

Deuce: Your two nonsequiturs about Iraq in your last comment give you away.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 11:08 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Once again, your position is that this is a debate between two equal sides; it’s not.

Well, I beg to differ, I believe there are ALWAYS, at a minimum, two sides to a debate (usually it’s closer to three: yours, mine, and the truth)

It is a strategy to gain power and control.

Yes, there has been a long documented history of control of information, mixed with psychology and advertising, to influence and persuade citizens to bend in ways that is not to their collective benefit...is Al Gore guilty of that? I don’t know, I’ve said before, I love to debate, I hate to argue...but could Exxon also be fastened to this type of accusation? In my mind, it’s worth asking....like I said before:

before we drink ANYBODY’S kool-aid, we better make damn sure what’s in the cup.

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 11:19 am

Deuce: It would be functionally insane for the energy industry not to counter the lies told by those who would destroy that energy industry in their quest for power and control over all of us.  It’s self-defense.
The fact that the globalwarmingists are attacking our very way of life brings forth the need to defend our way of life.  Duh.  Trying to demonize those who defend their way of life is a very shabby tactic.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 11:21 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

give you away.

As what? someone who might share an ideology that differs from yours so I should be discounted?  I’m sorry, but I think that is what is totally wrong with politics in our country today....
DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 11:26 am

Deuce: Your contention that there are automatically two sides to every issue is flawed.  In the case of claimed “catastrophic climate change”, it is an hypothesis.  The fact is that our climate is quite life-friendly.  Anyone claiming otherwise should be armed with considerable evidence of that, and such is not the case.  The energy industry was created by us, in our desire for personal freedom.  No “Kool-Aid” is involved.  On the other hand, Al Gore and his sycophants are definitely pushing the Kool-Aid of global destruction.

Your nonsequiturs about Iraq gave you away as someone with a hidden agenda.  We are discussing the climate, not Iraq.
The energy industry is giving us what we want, and the globalwarmingists are trying to sell us on the idea that we shouldn’t want what we want.  Ultimately, they would forbid us to do what we want.  You figure it out.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 11:39 am
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

It would be functionally insane for the energy industry not to counter the lies told by those who would destroy that energy industry

.  Yes, I do agree with you that it would be in my opinion, economically insane for the energy industry not to counter the ICC report....I just think the jury is out still as to what constitutes “lies”....If it worked for Phillip Morris Corp for all those years, is it INCONCEIVABLE to you that it might be the same strategy?  I’m not saying for sure that it is, but why do either of us have to permanently draw a line and stand on either side of it today? What’s wrong with discussion and debate?
DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 11:39 am

Deuce: You’re not debating; you’re advocating.  Your attempt to make an equivalence between the tobacco industry and the oil industry also gives you away.  There was never a time when I didn’t know that smoking was unhealthy, no matter what the tobacco industry said, so the position that the people didn’t know is completely ridiculous.  If your position is that the oil industry has always known about the “dangers” of their product in relationship to global warming, and is just trying to cover it up, that would require a mountain of proof, as it is ridiculous on its face.
We use gasoline and petroleum products in our daily lives, and we use them very productively.  You are trying to generate a smokescreen to cover up the fact that the globalwarmingists are mounting a totalitarian attack on our prosperous lifestyle.
I will agree with you on one thing, though: There are multiple sides to every story.  One side is true, and all the other ones are false.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 11:49 am

Yes, I do agree with you that it would be in my
opinion, economically insane for the energy industry not to counter the ICC report....

Once again, you give yourself away; it would be economically insane for all of us to allow the totalitarian globalwarmingists to destroy our economic system.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

We are discussing the climate, not Iraq.


OK, I really don’t think we are going to reach any type of an agreement here, and it seems to me that you are getting angry, which was never my intent, If I’m wrong, I apologize in advance....I gotta go and get some other things done right now, I’ll be back later if you want to continue this topic or not...but I will leave with one last point for thought: If the center of the climate debate is about whether or not burning fossil fuels is a contributing factor to climate change, and if you could concede that we as a nation have at least some interest in Iraq’s oil, aren’t the two issues at least distantly related? Not a total non-senquiter? But, at the end of the day, you gotta call them like you see them.  As far as “giving us what we want”...All I want is to be able to heat my home, run my appliances, and drive my car...If, we could somehow work out a way for our country to be able to do this without being dependent upon countries that are not in our best interests for national security, it really wouldn’t bother me...if the corporation that posted the largest quarterly profit in history (while I’m paying $3.50 a gallon) had to...I don’t know, maybe only be in the top twenty, or top hundred, of earnings corporations, I’ll be honest, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings…

If your position is that the oil industry has always known about the “dangers” of their product in relationship to global warming, and is just trying to cover it up

I’m not saying that they had knowledge prior to the ICC’s report, but both of us agree that they have a vested interested in trying to dissuade the findings, and their IS proof of Exxons financial contributions for just that matter...just something to think about…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 12:02 pm

...it seems to me that you are getting angry…

Ahh!  The ad hominem tactic of debate; usually sign of no facts.

We all have a vested interest in defending our way of life from those who would destroy it, whether they be totalitarian globalwarmingists or fanatical jihadist terrorists.  There’s your parallel.
If you really want US energy independence(which I doubt), then support the elimination of the regulations that prohibit us from building more refineries and generating facilities, prohibit the advance of nuclear technology for energy production, and prohibit us from developing our domestic oil reserves.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Deuce: If you want to talk about “profits”, consider this: the profit margin of the oil companies on a gallon of gas has stayed at around 9% for decades.  The “profit margin” of gas taxes is 100%, since the govt has no expenses to speak of; they do nothing to get the gas to us, they just skim off the top, right out of our pockets on every gallon sold.  At today’s prices, the oil companies get around 30 cents a gallon profit, and the govt takes anywhere from 30-60 cents a gallon, depending upon which state you’re in.  Why aren’t you protesting govt “profits” from gas?


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Ahh!  The ad hominem tactic of debate; usually sign of no facts.

Well, I’ll admit, sometimes it is, but sometimes is also means that the person truly doesn’t want the other person to get angry, because that was never his intent....I have a healthy love for debate, a true desire for a rational, national conversation, and a self-perceived ability to get my 2-bits worth in..but in this case, I also have a life, and I gotta go take care of business with my son now, but we can certainly continue at another time if you would like...I just want a conversation that’s healthy, not something that deteriorates into something not productive…

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Why aren’t you protesting govt “profits” from gas?

Well, I guess that would depend if you are talking at the federal or state level, but my off the cuff response would be: I realize that as a member of our country, one of my obligations is to pay tax (the amount of which would have to open for a whole ‘nother debate, so let’s keep our topic relatively focused)...but at a purely financial level, when the deficit is already at how many trillion? Compared to Exxon’s record breaking profits, I just thought they were the more logical choice in which to direct my indignation…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Deuce: The whole “anger” thing is entirely your own creation.  If you need a break, just take one; don’t try to make me responsible for your emotional state.  I don’t hold you responsible for mine.  For me, this is about ideas.  Your feelings are your business, and have no place in a real debate.  That was my point.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 12:51 pm

...I just thought they were the more logical choice in which to direct my indignation…

You have already said that you don’t know much about economics, so I will tell you that if the profit margin remains the same(which it has), an increase in profits is due to an increase in sales.  BTW, there is nothing in the Constitution about us being obligated to pay any particular amount of taxes.
The “deficit” has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate.  Yet another nonsequitur from you.  The deficit is caused by govt overspending.  Profits in the private sector are not related to that.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Yet another nonsequitur from you.

OK, I think if we have to go with the definition of the word, (I profess my lack of formal training in economics, I could ask for yours, by the way) but I do have a pretty healthy grasp of the English language so I offer this:

1.  Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2.  a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

You asked for my reasoning about the fuel tax, and I gave you my response, so I would think your labeling my response a nonsequitur (sp) would be a mis-nomer by the first definition and your perceptions by the second.  But hey, we didn’t come here for a syntactical pissing match, did we? I will apologize for the anger remark, that was a mistake through my perception, and I’ll remember in the future not to make that mistake with you again.  But, I’ll ask this, is there anything I can offer today that would make you consider any of the points I’m making, or anything you can offer that make see to your thoughts more clearly? (on the original premise of the debate: the science behind the global warming debate?

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 01:17 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

or anything you can offer that make see to your thoughts more clearly?

OK, going with the syntactical pissing match crack probably wasn’t a good place for a typo:  anything you can offer me that would make me see to your thoughts more clear....damn, great timing, I’ll concede on that…
DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 01:22 pm

Deuce: I thought it was clear that I was referring to your mention of the deficit as a nonsequitur in a discussion of oil company profits.  It’s simply not germane.  As I already explained, the deficit is where the govt spends more than it takes in.  This has no relationship at all to how much profit oil companies make, which as I have also explained, has remained constant as a percentage of the amount sold.  All increases in oil company profits, then, is a matter of selling more product and the effects of our inability to develop our own domestic resources, as I also explained.
Now, as far as the “science” behind the global warming hypothesis; as I have clearly stated a number of times, I don’t think there is much, which is why it’s still an hypothesis…
Al Gore is trying to hustle his enviro agenda with unproven claims.  The climate is fine, and not much different from what it was before 1950.  In fact, the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period.  They were growing wine grapes in Great Britain and growing wheat in Greenland.  This was before the Industrial Revolution, which the enviros claim is responsible for all the ills of the world.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 01:35 pm

Deuce: In Latin, non sequitur means “does not follow”, and refers to anything that is outside the thread of the ongoing discussion.  Thus, your mention of the deficit was outside the thread of our discussion of oil company profits, and thus a nonsequitur(the English version).


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 02:04 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

OK, let’s take Al out of the equation...Let’s just look at what the ICC report is saying, that there is a 90% chance that “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever you want to call it, is caused by human activity.  Think of the population of the earth before the industrial revolution, and the earth’s population now...and how many more in the world are now consuming fossil fuels, now look at the data out right now that correlates CO2 collections and average earth temperatures for the last however many years....could there be a CHANCE, that they might be correct? I HONESTLY am not in favor of saying with any certainty right now yes or no, but I also AM concerned if some groups with an economic interest are going to totally discredit the findings, call it “pseudo-science” and then fund dissenting opinions.  I don’t think the jury is in on EITHER side of the debate, and I think we as citizens shouldn’t be so quick to choose sides right now ON EITHER side.  If someone told you that you had a 90% chance at winning the lottery, would you buy a ticket? (not sure if you’re a betting man or not) Gore HAS been following this issue for many years, but he is not (at least in anything that I can find) connected to the ICC’s report, but he most certainly is advocating it’s findings, sometimes, perhaps, abrasively so...(I don’t doubt the man’s intent, but I will question his people skills).....You accuse me of advocacy of Gore, to which I can tell you, at least in my opinion, that I am not....But I also do not want to have the national conversation totally dismissive of the ICC’s claims because their are some also questionably funded sources calling it into question...Let’s get ALL the facts, which is tough to do in this professionally spun, information heavy world.  Since you cannot recall the whole Phillip Morris debacle, do you at least remember the furor over Al’s alleged claim “I invented the internet?”....that was pretty much professionally spun to a level of distortion in this country, and we all (myself included at the time) ate it up, hook, line and sinker....I have come of age during a time that I think the overwhelming message I’ve learned is “don’t believe the hype"… And I’m fearful that we, as a country, are too quick TO believe the hype, on either side, and we’ve let it influence our political discourse (on BOTH SIDES) for far too long…

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 02:06 pm
Avatar for DeuceSoliloquy

Ahhhh, man, we really gotta do the sytax thing? OK, I’ll throw back...

Deuce: In Latin, non sequitur means “does not follow”, and refers to anything that is outside the thread of the ongoing discussion.

At least in my opinion, (and trust me, I do have a little bit of knowledge and training in this subject) it could be construed that my going into the deficit was in response to your asking me about the fuel tax, so....kinda a chicken and the egg thing, is it not? I really shouldn’t have played the syntactical pissing match card, I will concede that you are very articulate, and I don’t doubt your convictions.....but in my professional opinion, I think you gotta let me have at least that one....

DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 02:13 pm

I don’t necessarily think that Gore is trying to “hustle” us...I always try to teach my son to look at the intent behind someone’s actions,

Deuce: The origin of this thread was based on a high schooler having to sit through Gore’s propaganda opus four times, shown by four teachers. If we were to look at the intent behind the teachers’ actions what would we see? Any attempt to present a contrasting point of view?  At what point does instruction turn into an attempt at indoctrination?

BTW, r108: Deuce has a lot of gall in correcting your spelling.

Not a total non-senquiter? -DeuceSoliloquy on May 28, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Since he was a newbie, I was going to let it slide…


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 28, 2007 at 02:16 pm

Deuces: I appreciate your fervor in advocating your position.  To me, reality is that the Earth is not imploding in a climate crisis.  Those that push that agenda have an obligation to prove their case.  They are not doing that; instead, they are trying to drown out/censor those who call them on their advocacy and their agenda of power and control.  As I have said many times, the burden of proof is on the globalwarmingists, and consensus is not proof.  If you have proof, consensus is unnecessary.
As far as the 90% figure is concerned, there is no proof of that, either; it’s simply speculation.
At the same time, imagine living in an earthquake zone, and having a 90% probability that a 7+ quake was coming; what would you do?  After all the chaos, destruction and death of evacuation, the earthquake doesn’t happen.  What has happened?  The speculation has caused roughly equal damage to what the earthquake would have caused, had it occurred.  This is my contention about the scareology of the globalwarmingists: their “cure” is worse than the possibility of their claimed “disease”, and it’s not happening at this time.  They are trying to sell us on fear of the future.  It’s a hustle.
“Give us all your freedom and prosperity, and we will save you from the big bad climate crisis.” That’s what they’re saying.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 02:16 pm

...it could be construed that my going into the deficit was in response to your asking me about the fuel tax, so....

That is exactly the way I took it, but that doesn’t make you right in doing so.  It is incorrect to assume that one can “balance the budget” by increasing taxes.  The only way to balance the budget is to establish and economically healthy tax rate(half or less of our present one, IMO), and then use that as an indicator of how much the govt has to spend.  Thus, the govt has to support economic growth to get more money.  The reality of the oil companies is that they pay much more in taxes to a confiscatory govt than the oil companies make in profits.  Why that doesn’t bother you, I don’t know.  Private companies have to give us something in return for our money, or we don’t give them our business.  Govt just takes it, and most of us don’t get much in return.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on May 28, 2007 at 02:23 pm