|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 10:55:56 [Permalink]
|
Hittman:
I've made my points, you've made yours, and your dishonesty and ignorance has been abundantly repeated for all to see. |
Who would that all be? Dave may be tough, but he is honest. We have some disagreements, but they come honestly.
Sorry Hittman, but you just got your ass kicked. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 02/05/2009 : 13:47:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Dave, it is finished, as far as I'm concerned. I've made my points, you've made yours, and your dishonesty and ignorance has been abundantly repeated for all to see. |
Hittman, I pretty confident in stating that any objective observer would not reach that conclusion. Dave's right, you're just a wanna-be skeptic who resorts to distractions and insults when you're called to actually defend the positions you have adopted. That's the legacy you've left for all to see. Lots of bluster, no substance.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 14:32:16 [Permalink]
|
Hittman said:
Never said it did. It has everything to do with his hypocrisy, though. He wants you and me and everyone else to reduce our carbon footprint, but he is magically exempt from that requirement because, well, just because he is.
|
Delusional argument from you there.
He has reduced his footprint, and not just from buying offsets. His family home is modernized and uses much less energy that most homes of that size and age.
In what possible way does that make him a hypocrit? Are you suggesting that he should close up his home and build a small underground bunker that runs on only solar and geo power? Would that make his message more credible? Make him a more reliable spokeperson?
If what he has to say is correct (and anthropogenic climate warming is a fact, determined by a massive scientific undertaking that has no input from old Al) then how does his personal lifestyle matter to that message?
If a dumbass celbrity has to do a public service message saying drugs are bad, because they got busted with drugs, does that make the message less real? Same for Gore here. If he owns a private jet, a fleet of SUVs, and 3 mansions that pump out the carbon of a small town... in what way would any of that change the reality of his message?
If you don't like Gore, no big deal. But don't invent false reasons to hate him.
And if you jump on the "Al gore says global warming is real, Al is an idiot and a hypocrit, therefore global warming is a lie/conspiracy to tax" train.... be prepared to be ridiculed.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 17:49:17 [Permalink]
|
Just occurred to me:Originally posted by Hittman
I've made my points, you've made yours... |
This is a bizarre statement to make. My asking for evidence should have been a clue that your points had not been "made." And that has been my point, across four threads with you now. I've asked you repeatedly to make your points (instead of just stating them), and you have steadfastly refused.
But beyond that, your statement implies that this discussion has simply been a recital of "points" on both sides. That may work for politicians on the campaign trail, but I'm not one of them, and this is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 18:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
I'd rather be boring than ignorant.
|
Kinda the opposite of the Dramatic Role Playing system developed by West End Games in their comedic "Paranoia" role playing game.
There, the motto was "be boring and you're dead."
And sometimes, if you were inventive and interesting, you could still be dead.
Like when a bunch of troubleshooters atempted to open a 55 gal barrel of petroleum jelly with laser pistols. (The barrel was mislabled and actually contained jellied petroleum. The resultant fireball was both gratifying and made a real funny sound.)
But anyhoo.
From what I have read of this exchange has seemed to be Hittman making a bunch of claims and not supporting them. Dave has asked for evidence. Hittman has not provided any.
Now.... who's dishonest? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 20:01:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
He has reduced his footprint, and not just from buying offsets. His family home is modernized and uses much less energy that most homes of that size and age.
|
Do you have a source for this? I run into this hypocracy thing all the time. I love that logic - Al Gore speaks for addressing climate change. Al Gore has a big carbon footprint. Therefore climate change should be ignored. Huh?
Also, anyone have a link about his carbon offset company? He's been accused of trumping up global warming so that people will buy offsets so he can get rich. I'd love a good source debunking that. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 20:03:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by chaloobi
I'd rather be boring than ignorant.
|
Kinda the opposite of the Dramatic Role Playing system developed by West End Games in their comedic "Paranoia" role playing game.
There, the motto was "be boring and you're dead."
|
Um, yeah. I was thinking AR. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 22:01:09 [Permalink]
|
Can't find the exact article I read, but here is one from 2007 that has him installing solar capacity and buying power (from the grid) generated by solar and wind sources.
I know I read another article that had him installing all CF lights, and new insulation and insulated windows too. Can't find it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml
He also works from his home, so does his wife. So they run offices and have staff in on a daily basis. That means more power use than a home.
The whole thing is a strawman argument anyway. It is intended as a tactic to distract from the actual debate, force people to defend Al Gore instead of debunking the lies about global warming being untrue.
The idea that he is somehow a hypocrit because he owns a big house, travels, and is a spokesperson for the environment is laughable.
Conservatives just hate him because they have been told by their masters to hate him. If Limpbaugh says it, it must be true afterall!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 23:30:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If Limpbaugh says it, it must be true afterall! |
Nah, it's Steven Milloy and the jerkoffs at the Cato Institute. After all, they sound much more sane, at least acknowledging that climate change maybe, possibly, might be due in some part to human activities. Rush and company finally figured out a couple years ago that their complete denial of climate change in its entirety was getting them nowhere, so they started taking cues from the Libertarians, who are aiming for the same economic goals, but appear to the average observer to be the acme of rationality compared to the Republicans. Unfortunately, they're just as full of crap as any other political party. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 05:28:29 [Permalink]
|
| Even if Gore is a complete and total hypocrite, it doesn't change the truth about climate change a bit. I think they're trying to establish a conflict of interest, show a motive for lying so they can challenge his entire message based on 'he's selling us snake oil to get rich!' Except that Al Gore's only the messenger - the people who'd have to be making up the facts are the vast majority of the scientific community. And that's what has always spooked me about the conservative agenda - painting the scientific community as liars and theives. The end result of a success in that is nothing but ugly. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 02/06/2009 05:33:02 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 10:24:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
I don't mind the warming. In fact, it's 6 degrees F outside right now and I don't like it. That said, the whole acidification of the ocean thing is kinda scary. Everyone seems to be freaking out about that right now. While on the one hand I enjoy snorkeling corral reefs, on the other hand I don't care much for sea food. So if the jellies replace all the tilapia, what's it to me?
|
Are you being serious?
Any serious drop in "seafood" will have serious consequences for humanity.
I'm not a big seafood lover myself but I can't imagine what would happen if there was a big drop off in harvesting (is that the right word here?) food from the oceans. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 11:28:21 [Permalink]
|
I've presented a very clear explanation of how the CRA was the catalyst for the meltdown. The core cause of the meltdown was subprime loans, which were created by banks to comply with the CRA. The CRA didn't cause the meltdown on its own; that was caused by banks and lending institutions going batshit and playing all kinds of games with subprimes. But without the CRA we wouldn't have subprimes and the resultant mess in its wake. It's pretty damn simple.
What kind of proof do you want, the opinion of an economist? I can present economists that say it was the catalyst, you present ones that say it wasn't and then we fight about their qualifications and the organizations they belong to. How exciting. I'm prefer to point out simple facts, which you won't acknowledge, because you like the CRA and so can't even conceive that it was the root cause of this mess we're in.
| Even if Gore is a complete and total hypocrite, it doesn't change the truth about climate change a bit. |
You keep harping on this, and I never said or implied that it did. My point is solely and completely that Al Gore, the person, is an enormous hypocrite, demanding everyone change their lifestyle while he spews more carbon than a small village. It doesn't have anything to do with the reality of GW, it has to do with his hypocrisy.
I am amused by his defenders, who claim all this is necessary because he works out of his home. Do you really need a 20 room, 8 bathroom mansion with a heated pool and a separate guest house to work out of your home? And two other large houses as well?
And it was recently reported that despite his claims of getting more efficient, he's used 10% more electricity last year than the year before.
I found this entertaining:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
How much credibility would Gandhi have had if he wore designer suits, custom made alligator boots and lived in a mansion with a personal chief? I'd guess, though, that he'd still have plenty of defenders, just like those of other religious leaders who preach poverty while living a lavish lifestyle.
My distaste for Al came from reading "Earth In The Balance." It gets obvious facts wrong, but the real problem is how he'd force everyone to drastically change their lives, their societies, and civilization itself. Everyone, except for him, of course.
Here's my review of EitB: http://www.davehitt.com/aug00/alagorey.html
And here's a test to see if you can tell the difference between Al's Manifesto and the Unabomber's Manifesto. http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
Yes, this is a side issue and doesn't address the real issue of how much it's happening and what measures should be taken. But I find it a pretty interesting and important side issue, because Al and his ilk want to force us to live "correctly," while doing whatever they damn well please.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 14:21:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
What kind of proof do you want, the opinion of an economist? |
No, I want you to cite the CRA, or anyone from 1995 saying that subprimes were invented in order to comply with the CRA.
Clinton didn't tinker with the CRA until 1995. You claim he "put it on steroids" whereas all I can see is that he made it easier for banks to comply with it.
But the important part is that subprime loans were first written in 1993. There was already an "exploding" market for them the year before Clinton touched the CRA.
Your claims are these: that Clinton put the CRA "on steroids." (You haven't even deigned to state what you really mean by that in any regulatory or legislative sense.) And you state that banks created subprime loans in order to comply with the CRA.
While you do have a "very clear explanation," I haven't been asking for an explanation (much less the same one repeated four times now), I've been asking for evidence which supports that explanation. What convinced you that what you're saying is factual?
And that evidence must (of course) correspond to reality, and the reality is that CRA-regulated banks are not hotbeds of subprime lending, most of the subprime lending has come from non-CRA-regulated mortgage brokers (Countrywide, for example). Given what is written in the CRA and the regulations that came from it, subprimes would not help banks comply with the CRA, because risky lending would give a bank a lower score, not a higher one (the CRA mandates that banks offer credit within safe banking practices).| I can present economists that say it was the catalyst, you present ones that say it wasn't and then we fight about their qualifications and the organizations they belong to. How exciting. |
Right, I'm not interested in that, either, because it's just dumb.| I'm prefer to point out simple facts, which you won't acknowledge... |
I would acknowledge them as facts if (A) if you could provide some evidence beyond your say-so, and (B) your claims did not conflict with appears to be reality. I have looked - I really have - for the evidence on my own, and I cannot find it. All I can find are right-wing bloviators like Limbaugh and evidence-free articles from libertarians. I can find other conservative economists explaining why the CRA has nothing to do with the current crisis, but I can find nobody who makes the claims that you do who actually lays out the evidence against the CRA. And that sort of "common knowledge" (where people "know" something is true but nobody can say why it's true) is often wrong.| ...because you like the CRA and so can't even conceive that it was the root cause of this mess we're in. |
I never paid much attention to the CRA until that other thread, contrary to your assumptions. I don't "like" it or "love" it, I just can't find the truth behind your claims. All that me being correct would mean is that you're wrong, not that the CRA is a good thing (the value or alleged benefits of the CRA have nothing to do with my position). And it seems as though that sort of rash, strawman personalization is part of the problem with all of the arguments you've spent more than two seconds on around here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 14:49:22 [Permalink]
|
| What kind of proof do you want, the opinion of an economist? I can present economists that say it was the catalyst, you present ones that say it wasn't and then we fight about their qualifications and the organizations they belong to. How exciting. |
The more I read Hittman's posts, the more it seems he has no clue what evidence is. He seems to think evidence is the equivalent of opinion, and offers (or offers to offer) nothing beyond personal anecdotes or the bloviation of talking heads. How can someone completely ignorant of the concept of evidence consider himself a skeptic?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 15:30:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
You keep harping on this, and I never said or implied that it did. My point is solely and completely that Al Gore, the person, is an enormous hypocrite, demanding everyone change their lifestyle while he spews more carbon than a small village. It doesn't have anything to do with the reality of GW, it has to do with his hypocrisy. |
Then why bring up Al Gore in the first place, except for offering him up as a Red Herring?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global warming deniers
