Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

41 Responses to Progress from Durban?

1. James Kessler says:

   December 22, 2011 at 11:59 am

   Since we were talking about challenges I have one for Alan. read this:

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

   In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, 1. Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

   How can that be? The question is explored in a new article from Remapping Debate, a public policy e-journal. Its author, Kevin C. Brown, writes that “the salient difference is that, in Germany, the automakers operate within an environment that precludes a race to the bottom; in the U.S., they operate within an environment that encourages such a race.”

   There are “two overlapping sets of institutions” in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they “hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,” according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive. The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for “works councils” in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. Mund says this guarantees cooperation, “where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.”

   Mund points out that this goes against all mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages . . . despite our possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany.

   As Michael Maibach, president and chief executive of the European American Business Council, puts it, union-management relations in the U.S. are “adversarial,” whereas in Germany they’re “collaborative.”

   Does such a happy relationship survive when German automakers set up shop in the U.S.? No. As a historian observes in the article, “BMW is a German company and it has a very German hierarchy and management system in Germany,” yet “when they are operating in Spartanburg [in South Carolina] they have become very, very easily adaptable to Spartanburg business culture.” At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the nonunionized new employees get $14.50 an hour, which rises to $19.50 after three years.

   (Have fun, Alan, accusing Forbes Magazine of being a bastion of liberalism and socialism)

   LikeLike

2. James Kessler says:

   December 22, 2011 at 11:51 am

   Christmas in 2015 will come before Alan responds to the challenge, Ed.

   LikeLike

3. Ed Darrell says:

   December 22, 2011 at 11:35 am

   Still waiting for Alan to provide details.

   Waiting, but not expecting. Not bating breath.

   Alan’s challenge:

   Name one such company, and tell the details. What company Gore has invested in is profitable only because of government subsidy? Which company extorts legitimate businesses? Where has any bribe been paid?

   Christmas will come before such details do. I wish people would keep their fantasy lives separate from their political views.

   LikeLike

4. James Kessler says:

   December 21, 2011 at 12:14 am

   Alan writes:

   Any business can be profitable if it is propped up by the government.

   And yet curiously I have yet to hear you ever kvetch about all the government subsidies that Big Oil and other businesses get that the right wing so loves to protect…..

   Oh and by the way..care to guess who else is investing in wind power and such? Big Oil.

   have fun applying your logic about Gore to them.

   LikeLike

5. Ed Darrell says:

   December 20, 2011 at 11:06 pm

   Global Warming hysteria is supported by only two types of people. Crooks and dufusses. Al Gore is one of the bigger crooks. What’s your story ?

   The evidence of global warming is denied only by crooks, idiots, and advocates of genocide — though a tiny handful of scientists are in the Ernst Mach category. (Atoms? No one has ever seen one, Mach said.)

   My story? I’ve got the facts and I stick to the truth. I bear no grudge to those who are smarter than I am or who work a lot harder than I do, for noble causes. I don’t make stuff up to make them look bad. I’m neither crook nor idiot, so I don’t deny global warming.

   LikeLike

6. Ed Darrell says:

   December 20, 2011 at 10:58 pm

   Any business can be profitable if it is propped up by the government.

   Buggy whip manufacturers? I think, once again, we’ve reached the boundary of your knowledge, and alas this discussion is all outside that boundary.

   These Gore investments are not real businesses. They are merely dishonest schemes for harvesting tax dollars and extorting blackmail from legitimate businesses.

   I’m curious about the business model for Google, too, but Google isn’t getting a dime of government subsidy. Apple doesn’t get any government subsidy, either, and for a while over the past couple of months it was the most valuable corporation in the world.

   What planet are you on, again?

   I said it before, these schemes are worthy of Al Capone. The difference is that Capone only bribed local and state officials. Al Gore bribes federal officials.

   Before we drop you in the pigeon hole for inveterate, incorrigible liars, let’s give you a chance to make your point: Name one such company, and tell the details. What company Gore has invested in is profitable only because of government subsidy? Which company extorts legitimate businesses? Where has any bribe been paid?

   You’re slandering Gore, of course, and because of your malice, you don’t have the protection of Times v. Sullivan. Truth would be a defense, but I’ll wager you can’t provide any evidence to back your claims.

   Does your insurance company know you take such risks?

   LikeLike

7. James Kessler says:

   December 20, 2011 at 9:44 pm

   Alan, let me make it simple for you. I know your right wing brainwashing says that liberals hate capitalism and companies making profit so that’s why you think we’re going to have a problem with Al Gore profitting off something but that’s simply not true.

   We liberals have no problem with capitalism or companies making a profit. We just think that everyone should be getting ahead and companies also acting responsibiliy to its employees, to its customers, to the environment, to the United States as a whole and to the world.

   WHereas you conservatives seem to think that the only ones who should be getting ahead are the ones who are already rich and companies should be allowed to **** over their employees, their customers, the environment, the United States and the rest of the world at whim.

   We liberals understand that with freedom comes responsibility, with power comes responsibility, with wealth comes responsibility.

   You conservatives think that freedom means chaos, power means squashing everyone else, and wealth should be hoarded so arrogant little men can prove that they have the bigger ****’s. In short, you conservatives want to live in a world without any responsibilities, just an hedonistic Ayn Rand inspired “It’s all about me” fest.

   In truth the real dirty hippies,to use the phrase in the manner you mean Alan, is you and yours.

   LikeLike

8. Alan Scott says:

   December 20, 2011 at 5:38 pm

   James Kessler ,

   ” But suddenly you have a change of heart, and you accuse Gore of profiteering, investing in those businesses you said could never be profitable. ”

   Any business can be profitable if it is propped up by the government. These Gore investments are not real businesses. They are merely dishonest schemes for harvesting tax dollars and extorting blackmail from legitimate businesses. I said it before, these schemes are worthy of Al Capone. The difference is that Capone only bribed local and state officials. Al Gore bribes federal officials.

   Take away government mandates and handouts, and most of Gore’s rackets collapse like CCX did.

   Ed Darrell,

   ” it appears, you despise with all your might, as you falsely accuse me. See my post, and video of Gore shutting down Rep. Blackburn here. ”

   Congresswoman Blackburn was way too courteous and nice to Vice Perpetrator Gore. He was the one who was rude. She should have slammed him for the crook he is. I would love to be in a room with that slime ball. I would not let him BS me the way he has you BSed.

   ” But suddenly you have a change of heart, and you accuse Gore of profiteering, investing in those businesses you said could never be profitable. ”

   How many times do I have to say it. Al Gore’s businesses are only profitable because the government gives them money. Even a total idiot like Gore can make money that way . I never had a change of heart. I am consistent.

   Global Warming hysteria is supported by only two types of people. Crooks and dufusses. Al Gore is one of the bigger crooks. What’s your story ?

   LikeLike

9. James Kessler says:

   December 20, 2011 at 12:57 pm

   To quote:
   But suddenly you have a change of heart, and you accuse Gore of profiteering, investing in those businesses you said could never be profitable.

   Oh I just love Alan’s blatantly stupid hypocrisy. Alan you remind me every day why I thank God I’m no longer a republican.

   LikeLike

10. Ed Darrell says:

    December 19, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    Are you that uninformed about Mr. Gore, or are you so blinded by your hatred of American capitalism that you crazy glue your eyes shut ?

    As Al Gore cautioned Rep. Blackburn a few months ago, if you think Gore puts his money into good businesses and good causes out of some ignoble intent, you don’t know Gore — nor, might I add, do you know much about American business which, it appears, you despise with all your might, as you falsely accuse me. See my post, and video of Gore shutting down Rep. Blackburn here.

    Get the facts here: New York Times, 2009, “Gore’s dual role, advocate, investor.”

    Among other points:

    “Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

    In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.

    “I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.”

    Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals.

    He has also given away millions more to finance the nonprofit he founded, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and to another group, the Climate Project, which trains people to present the slide show that was the basis of his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Royalties from his new book on climate change, “Our Choice,” printed on 100 percent recycled paper, will go to the alliance, an aide said.

    Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.

    As a private citizen, Mr. Gore does not have to disclose his income or assets, as he did in his years in Congress and the White House. When he left government in early 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee.

    Since then, his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his movie, and scores of speeches for which he can be paid more than $100,000, although he often speaks at no charge.

    He is a founder of Generation Investment Management, based in London and run by David Blood, a former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (the firm was quickly dubbed Blood and Gore). Mr. Gore earns a partner’s salary at Kleiner Perkins. He has substantial personal finances invested at both firms, officials of the companies said.

    He also serves as an adviser to high-profile technology companies including Apple and Google, relationships that have paid him handsome dividends over the last eight years.

    Mr. Gore’s spokeswoman would not give a figure for his current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund started by his friend Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of eBay.

    Ion Yadigaroglu, a co-founder of Capricorn, said that Mr. Gore does not sit on the fund’s investment committee, but obviously agrees with the partners’ strategy of putting long-term money into promising ventures in energy, technology and health care around the globe.

    “Aspirationally,” said Mr. Yadigaroglu, who holds a doctorate from Stanford in astrophysics, “we’re trying to make more money than others doing the same thing and do it in a way that is superior in ethics and impacts.”

    Mr. Gore has said he invested in partnerships and funds that try to identify and support companies that are advancing cutting-edge green technologies and are paving the way toward a low-carbon economy.

    He has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market and in an array of companies in bio-fuels, sustainable fish farming, electric vehicles and solar power. [Alan now says this has collapsed, no doubt at a great loss to Gore. But somehow, his losses don’t count against the charge of profiteering.]

    Capricorn holds a major stake in Falcon Waterfree Technologies, the world’s leading maker of waterless urinals. Generation has holdings in Ausra, a solar energy company based in California, and Camco, a British firm that develops carbon dioxide emissions reduction projects. Kleiner Perkins has a green ventures fund with nearly $1 billion invested in renewable energy and efficiency concerns.

    Mr. Gore also has substantial interests in technology, media and biotechnology ventures that have no direct tie to his environmental advocacy, an aide said.

    Mr. Gore is not a lobbyist, and he has never asked Congress or the administration for an earmark or policy decision that would directly benefit one of his investments. But he has been a tireless advocate for policies that would move the country away from the use of coal and oil, and he has begun a $300 million campaign to end the use of fossil fuels in electricity production in 10 years.

    But Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who until recently was a top aide to Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said that what he saw as Mr. Gore’s alarmism and occasional exaggerations distorted the debate and also served his personal financial interests.

    Mr. Gore has testified numerous times in support of legislation to address climate change and to revamp the nation’s energy policies.

    He appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April to support an energy and climate change bill that was intended to reduce global warming emissions through a cap-and-trade program for major polluting industries.

    Mr. Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate advocacy, is generally received on Capitol Hill as something of an oracle, at least by Democrats.

    But at the hearing in April, he was challenged by Ms. Blackburn, who echoed some of the criticism of Mr. Gore that has swirled in conservative blogs and radio talk shows. She noted that Mr. Gore is a partner at Kleiner Perkins, which has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in firms that could benefit from any legislation that limits carbon dioxide emissions.

    “I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it,” Mr. Gore said, adding that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into the Alliance for Climate Protection.

    “And, Congresswoman,” he added, “if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”

    Your claims here about Gore are 180 degrees different from your and others’ earlier claims on this blog that these industries can never be profitable. If so, Gore’s throwing his hard-earned money away, as you’ve argued before solar and wind and conservation cannot pay. But suddenly you have a change of heart, and you accuse Gore of profiteering, investing in those businesses you said could never be profitable.

    Just when I think maybe you’re not hopelessly ignorant of the issues and bereft of honor among debaters, you pop off with this claptrap. My faith in humanity seems misplaced only when I put any of it in so-called conservatives. (How can conservatives oppose conservation? Sheer unmitigated hypocrisy.)

    Once again, however, the problem is not what you don’t know. The problem is all that stuff you know that simply is not so.

    LikeLike

11. Alan Scott says:

    December 19, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Ed Darrell,

    ” But not from alerting people to global warming. Gore’s money comes from his other work. All the profits from the film, the lectures, etc., go back into that foundation or to other groups that fight global warming. You’re trying to suggest that Gore profits from his advocacy for caring for the Earth. That’s false. It’s a crass, and stupid lie. ”

    Are you that uninformed about Mr. Gore, or are you so blinded by your hatred of American capitalism that you crazy glue your eyes shut ? Now look I could not care less about Al Gore making an honest buck investing in real businesses like oil and gas and coal. Those produce real wealth. Besides in those cases I would have a choice whether or not to buy gasoline, natural gas, or coal from Big Al.

    But Gore has perpetrated an extortion scheme worthy of the other Big Al, Al Capone.

    Let me enlighten you. Open your shut eyes so that the light of truth burns your retinas.

    Mr. Gore Chairs the firm of Generation Investment Management. His fellow henchman and CEO is David Blood . The firm has the cute nickname, Blood and Gore . For all of the carnage they tried to inflict on innocent people, that is an amazingly accurate joke.

    I don’t know what Mr. Gore is worth now, but it is a hell of lot more than the $2 million he was worth after the 2000 election . All of that money is from his green extortion rackets, where they extort money from legitimate businesses who pollute with CO2.

    Blood and Gore, aka ( GIM ) owned 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which owned 50% of the European Climate Exchange. But alas, oft times the best laid plans of mice and men go astray. The Chicago Climate Exchange, aka ( CCX ) went belly up about a year ago. Such a damn shame too. CCX had the potential to transform Al Gore from lowly millionaire to a billionaire.

    Now I know that a lefty like you hates Wall Street. Well guess what you do not get more Wall St than Goldman Sachs. And Mr. Blood is ex Goldman Sachs, along with GIM’s Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris.

    But the icing on the cake is this. When Al Gore goes around in a polluting private jet ( not his jet ), or when he cranks up heating and cooling for his ginormous Mansions, he buys carbon credits to offset the damage he does to Mother Earth. He buys them from GIM. So he is buying carbon offsets from himself.

    You got to admit that is freaking funny.

    LikeLike

12. Ed Darrell says:

    December 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Creationalism, Maybe

    See “crank magnetism.”

    LikeLike

13. Ed Darrell says:

    December 18, 2011 at 8:34 am

    “So, you think, somehow, that Gore’s giving away money to fight global warming pushed him over some ethical edge?”

    Again, you do not seem to know what you are talking about, or maybe you deliberately obscure the issue. You really believe Al Gore just gave away money after he lost the 2000 election?

    This was about ‘ making ‘ money. Big money.

    But not from alerting people to global warming. Gore’s money comes from his other work. All the profits from the film, the lectures, etc., go back into that foundation or to other groups that fight global warming. You’re trying to suggest that Gore profits from his advocacy for caring for the Earth. That’s false. It’s a crass, and stupid lie. There’s much more profit in oil, with much higher government subsidies. If one were to go into an issue for profit reasons, it wouldn’t be pilots in Korea and scientists for the Air Force in 1953, against the oil industry — nor would it be at any time since then.

    Do you get a newspaper? Profits do not go to those who warn us we need to save the planet.

    “That’s funny. I’ve found that climate change scoffing tends to go with creationism, history revisionism, racism, and other forms of dishonesty. Do you have any experience in Christianity? Do you know any Christians?”

    Creationalism, Maybe ? The rest is just projectionism on your part.

    In fact I do know one or two Christians. The do not have big chips on their shoulders like Atheists do .But are you and your compadres Atheists? It would splain a lot.

    No, I’m not atheist. Your projecting and making completely ungrounded assumptions explains probably more than you like.

    LikeLike

14. Alan Scott says:

    December 18, 2011 at 7:02 am

    Ed Darrell,

    ” So, you think, somehow, that Gore’s giving away money to fight global warming pushed him over some ethical edge? ”

    Again, you do not seem to know what you are talking about, or maybe you deliberately obscure the issue. You really believe Al Gore just gave away money after he lost the 2000 election?

    This was about ‘ making ‘ money. Big money.

    ” That’s funny. I’ve found that climate change scoffing tends to go with creationism, history revisionism, racism, and other forms of dishonesty. Do you have any experience in Christianity? Do you know any Christians? ”

    Creationalism, Maybe ? The rest is just projectionism on your part.

    In fact I do know one or two Christians. The do not have big chips on their shoulders like Atheists do .But are you and your compadres Atheists? It would splain a lot.

    LikeLike

15. Ed Darrell says:

    December 17, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    I have found that climate change belief and Atheism generally sleep together.

    That’s funny. I’ve found that climate change scoffing tends to go with creationism, history revisionism, racism, and other forms of dishonesty. Do you have any experience in Christianity? Do you know any Christians?

    LikeLike

16. Ed Darrell says:

    December 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Later on the Savior Jobs returned and returned Apple to greatness, no pushed it to greater heights than any other American company. You tell me where your boy Gore fit in to that.

    After cultivating a friendship on tech issues with several Apple officials, Gore was elected to the Board of Apple in 2003, and is still there. He left off advising Google when the two companies went into more direct competition with each other a couple of years ago.

    By the way, his board memberships and other work for the private sector have been the sources of Gore’s significant wealth increase since 2000. Not that he was poor before — his father was a millionaire and left him a big chunk of money and land, and business.

    LikeLike

17. Ed Darrell says:

    December 17, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    However, in the years following the 2000 election Gore got heavy into his Global Warming schtick and it was all about the money.

    So, you think, somehow, that Gore’s giving away money to fight global warming pushed him over some ethical edge?

    You really do have a strange, strange view of humanity, and reality. Even Andrew Carnegie thought giving away money makes wealthy people noble and good.

    LikeLike

18. Alan Scott says:

    December 17, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Ed Darrell,

    You are quite the spin meister. Al Gore is what he is. I’m amazed at how your pair of eyes chooses to see the man. My eyes looking at the same man and the same facts see a different picture.

    Actually my negative view of the guy was not that bad until after he lost to Bush in 2000. I always liked his wife Tipper. She gave him a lot of class that he lacked on his own. His hitting on Buddhist Nuns for campaign contributions was classic no class.

    I made a prediction on the liberal boards I haunted back then about him. First I thought he was unfairly tainted by Clinton and his scandals. I really thought given his clout in the Party and the fact he did so well in a close election that it would not take much for him to come back.

    2004 would have been too soon, but I said that if he kept his head down and cultivated the elites , he would have strolled into the White House in 2008 . I saw a parallel with Richard Nixon’s loss in 1960 and his big win in 1968 to Gore’s situation.

    However, in the years following the 2000 election Gore got heavy into his Global Warming schtick and it was all about the money. Then he got fat, and I lost what little sympathy I ever had for him.

    ” Apple isn’t in the business of making big goofs, or padding their payroll. ”

    You really have no idea what you are talking about. Apple made a lot of ” goofs “. I don’t know which years Gore was involved, but leave me give you some knowledge about Apple. In the beginning Steve Jobs created Apple and he saw that it was good. However, later on Jobs left and Apple wandered in the wilderness, going down hill. Later on the Savior Jobs returned and returned Apple to greatness, no pushed it to greater heights than any other American company. You tell me where your boy Gore fit in to that.

    James Kessler ,

    ” Jesus Christ could come down here, Alan, tell you that Global warming is happening and that Al Gore is right and not only would you still oppose anything and everything Gore says you’d also attack Jesus Christ as a “dirty hippy” or worse. ”

    Not true. When Jesus tells me that you and Al Gore are right, I will become the greatest Green idiot you ever saw. In the mean time, I will oppose you . By the way, do you even believe in Christ ? I have found that climate change belief and Atheism generally sleep together.

    LikeLike

19. Ed Darrell says:

    December 17, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    ” How’s that Atari working for you? ”

    Never had the money to buy one. Loved to play them at friends houses.

    No, not then — now. You eschew everything Al Gore, surely you eschew the computing wizardry he champions, yes? How else could anyone be so ill-informed about Gore, his life and achievements, and global warming?

    LikeLike

20. James Kessler says:

    December 17, 2011 at 11:55 am

    To quote:
    I have no respect for Al Gore .

    Jesus Christ could come down here, Alan, tell you that Global warming is happening and that Al Gore is right and not only would you still oppose anything and everything Gore says you’d also attack Jesus Christ as a “dirty hippy” or worse.

    Why? Because you are a brainwashed dolt who has no grasp on reality, no use for reality and you atuomatically dismiss any fact that doesn’t fit into your preconstructed narrative.

    LikeLike

21. Ed Darrell says:

    December 17, 2011 at 12:21 am

    I have no respect for Al Gore .

    I’ve been on the opposite side of the table from him, and on the same side with him. He’s one of the brightest people I’ve ever met, and he has a grand and powerful instinct for making win-win situations work. It’s much better to be on the same side of the table with him: You win more often, and you do a lot more good.

    I imagine you don’t know the guy. I can’t imagine anyone knowing him who doesn’t respect him. My boss at the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors was Victor Ashe, the guy Gore beat to get to the Senate. Victor had a good appreciation for Gore, and counseled me never to underestimate him, especially if Gore was in the right, which was often. If Victor Ashe could work with him, anyone of any bit of sanity and noble intent should be able to do the same.

    LikeLike

22. Ed Darrell says:

    December 16, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    ” typical brownie jealousy? ”

    I am unfamiliar with that term.

    But wallowing in the jealousy all the same. Fact of the matter is the best scientists and, in Gore’s case, the most prescient policy makers, warn that we need to act to reverse the CO2 increases in the air. No one on the pro-pollution side matches the heft of Gore. Few clusters of people on the pro-pollution side, collectively, match Gore alone. No one’s won a Nobel for urging that we play fast and loose with our future with carbon dioxide (nor is it likely they will). With the exception of the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobil, no one on the pro-pollution side has been able to make the money to spend it charitably urging people to pollute more. Those who argue Al Gore “is fat,” or “uses more carbon than his share,” ooze jealousy. It’s about the only green thing about them.

    ” savior of ARPANET, ”

    That”s a bit over the top. He certainly was part of an effort to promote it .

    No, he wasn’t part of an effort. He was the only one who stepped up to make the case. He alone stood Reagan and the Congress down on the issue, keeping it alive and becoming the midwife of the modern internet. It was work of sheer genius, great skill and enormous effort. He did it himself.

    Gore has led America, and led America right and well, for more than 30 years on issues of science and technology. He’s been right more often that his critics have had opinions, and for a longer period of time.

    ” board member (because he sees the future) of Google and Apple and advisor to Steve Jobs, ”

    Having government friends is always a good idea for big business. I really doubt Anyone at Google or Apple needed technical advice from Gore.

    Gore’s not in government. If Apple didn’t need to have Gore on the payroll, it was illegal for them to do it. No one sued in this suit-happy world. Gore’s advice was sought after because he’s bright, and he sees the future clearly. Apple isn’t in the business of making big goofs, or padding their payroll. Neither is Google. Whose judgment should I trust on this one, Steve Jobs’s, or Alan Scott’s? Which one has the better track record on technical issues and seeing and building a better future?

    Any sane human would love to have Al Gore’s track record. It’s a sign of insanity that those who criticize him, do so, almost always in error, and always with a tinge of jealousy that they cannot equal his track record.

    All great achievers have their critics. The rabid screeching against Gore lacks merit, but overflows with vitriol brewed in envy.

    ” winner of the Nobel Prize and an Academy Award isn’t taken seriously? ”

    Those awards have been seriously diminished because of that. It’s like putting military medals for bravery onto a Jackass.

    More envy. That’s total hooey. The Nobel Peace Prizes and the Academy Awards are both grown more popular since Gore’s award. The documentaries segment of the Academy Awards is big stuff now.

    It’s such big stuff that even stealing e-mails from the scientists who do the heavy lifting makes headlines these days — the only thing keeping the “skeptic” group in the news, because, as God knows, there isn’t any scientific research being done to contradict Gore’s film.

    LikeLike

23. Alan Scott says:

    December 16, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    Ed Darrell,

    ” typical brownie jealousy? ”

    I am unfamiliar with that term.

    ” savior of ARPANET, ”

    That”s a bit over the top. He certainly was part of an effort to promote it .

    ” board member (because he sees the future) of Google and Apple and advisor to Steve Jobs, ”

    Having government friends is always a good idea for big business. I really doubt Anyone at Google or Apple needed technical advice from Gore.

    ” winner of the Nobel Prize and an Academy Award isn’t taken seriously? ”

    Those awards have been seriously diminished because of that. It’s like putting military medals for bravery onto a Jackass.

    ” You’re selling bridges between San Francisco and Oakland, too, right? ”

    Of course, but the big money is getting guilt ridden morons to buy carbon credits and telling them that planting trees in Mongolia will offset their Carbon sins.

    ” How’s that Atari working for you? ”

    Never had the money to buy one. Loved to play them at friends houses.

    LikeLike

24. Ed Darrell says:

    December 16, 2011 at 7:25 am

    Do I sense a bit of the typical brownie jealousy? You claim the Harvard grad, author of the Superfund, Organ Transplant Act, Orphan Drug Act, savior of ARPANET, former Vice President, board member (because he sees the future) of Google and Apple and advisor to Steve Jobs, winner of the Nobel Prize and an Academy Award isn’t taken seriously?

    You’re selling bridges between San Francisco and Oakland, too, right? How’s that Atari working for you?

    LikeLike

25. Alan Scott says:

    December 16, 2011 at 7:08 am

    Ed Darrell,

    Al Gore is only taken seriously by folks such as you. If you can’t lead by example, you are a hypocrite . You are an apologist.

    Back in the middle ages rich people could buy their way into heaven from the Catholic Church. It was one of the things that Martin Luther went ballistic over. Al Gore with his Carbon credits is doing the same thing.

    There are plenty of people I believe are nuts. But if they live what they speak, I have to respect them . I have no respect for Al Gore .

    LikeLike

26. Ed Darrell says:

    December 15, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    My experience with Gore is that he flies commercial jets most of the time. Give me the circumstances on use of a private jet, and I can better make a judgment on whether it was not justified at that time and that place.

    Don’t make the error of thinking Gore advocates going back to the Stone Age. As you’ve indicated in a post I haven’t had time to answer, there were some awfully destructive practices in the past.

    Gore is very much in the 21st century. Jet travel is a big part of economic and political life. Where are you trying to go,when, and why wouldn’t you take a commercial jet, or why wouldn’t you take a private jet, for that function?

    If the alternative to “spewing out CO2” by flying a private jet is to allow global warming to continue, then Gore’s made the right choice, regardless how much CO2 that jet emits. Fighting stupid and anti-human/anti-Earth with CO2 is fully justified.

    Also, don’t fall into the trap of saying you’d never fight fire with fire. If I am in charge of rescuing a forest, I want to have all tools available. Fighting fire with fire is, all too often in a warming climate, the best way.

    We all profit from a carbon-rich life, except our children and their potential descendants. You want to make a case that Gore is a hypocrite? That’s absolutely false if, as you argue, we don’t need to worry about global warming. So if you concede that Gore is correct that we DO need to worry about global warming, we can begin to talk about how we can, as a planet, save the planet. With you working to frustrate the necessary changes, there is nothing Al Gore could possibly do that would do more damage than your disparaging of his position, no matter how hypocritical it might seem to the jaundiced eye.

    LikeLike

27. Alan Scott says:

    December 15, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Al Gore doesn’t own a private jet. ”

    You got me, Vice President Gore does not own a Private Jet. But it is beside the point, he does fly in them. It matters not who owns them, he is still spewing out unnecessary CO2. Do you deny that?

    At my work, the trucks all of us use are referred to as ” my truck “, even though none of us own them . And then there are all of his mansions. The man lives a Carbon rich life style while telling us commoners to watch our emissions . And do not get me into his stupid carbon credits.

    LikeLike

28. Ed Darrell says:

    December 13, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    Or are you like Gore who spews CO2 from his private jet while he tells his green peons to lower their standard of living?

    Al Gore doesn’t own a private jet. In fact, last time I met him on a jet, from Chicago to Des Moines in 1988, he was flying coach and carrying his own bag.

    Typical brownie clap-trap. You don’t look at the progress that could be made — the way Al Gore has retrofitted the places he lives, etc. — but you look for what you think might be a bit of hypocrisy, and then you tout that, even if its false.

    Finding evidence to back your point is so difficult?

    LikeLike

29. Alan Scott says:

    December 13, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Ed Darrell,

    ” Progress from the 19th century, in the U.S., was based on killing more Americans than died in all our wars, in industrial accidents. Safety would be too expensive, the factory owners argued. And yet, clothing manufacturing continued in New York after the architectural additions required to prevent future ”

    Nice try, shifting the focus of the argument. I am fast on the uptake and will not let you do it. Safety is a real issue, but it is not the issue we were discussing. And you do realize that safety and environmental issues were far worse in your worker’s paradises of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War than in the evil capitalist USA.

    And you also realize that besides fueling prosperity oil and coal had huge environmental benefits to the entire world. Or perhaps you do not. First coal. Before King Coal a lot of America was in danger of being deforested. America consumed a lot of firewood. Even worse, there were large charcoal operations that fed the iron industry. Around what is now State College Pa they used one acre of trees per day

    What about oil you say, well I am sure you saw Gregory Peck in the movie Moby Dick. Whale numbers were severely reduced during the 19th century . Petroleum helped save the whales from extinction.

    Now to jump to something you said earlier. ” There is not a scintilla of evidence that cleaning pollution is fiscally impossible, nor even fiscally difficult. ”

    That could only be written by someone with zero knowledge and zero experience working in heavy industry. In the 1970s and 80s I actually worked in an old smoke stack industry. I was a mud foreman in a really old plant. It was our livelihood and we desperately fought to keep the place going. We lost. Pollution equipment is very expensive to buy and maintain . I bet you don’t teach your students about that.

    ” Frankly, it’s too expensive to risk NOT doing something.”

    Whenever people say, well we have to do something, really bad and expensive mistakes are sure to follow. Again you have got to prove that your green solutions will actually matter, and you have not done that.

    I can prove that you are wrong about the cost and sustainability of your green economics. Cut the subsidies and your green industries fold like a bad poker hand.

    So tell me, since you believe this horse $h*t, just how green are you ? Take a horse and buggy to work? Power your home with total wind and solar? Or are you like Gore who spews CO2 from his private jet while he tells his green peons to lower their standard of living ?

    LikeLike

30. Ed Darrell says:

    December 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    I asked Alan to back his claim: “How could cleaner air cause economic ruin? That’s fatuous, and it makes absolutely zero sense. Is London worse off for not having killer fogs anymore? ”

    Alan said:

    I would call you the King of false arguments, but it would be insult to you, it wouldn’t do you justice.

    Nor would it defend your claim. You claim that cleanliness is not next to godliness, but is instead next to bankruptcy. It’s a completely fatuous argument, as I said. There is not a scintilla of evidence that cleaning pollution is fiscally impossible, nor even fiscally difficult. I think you probably understand your argument isn’t sound, and so threaten to try to label me — but you don’t offer any evidence to suggest cleaning the air would cost inordinately.

    In the real world, we must ignore the economic costs of pollution to support your claim — and that is very costly. In the past it has cost us in disease, immediate deaths, long-term premature deaths, crop losses, etc., etc.

    We’ve heard it before. The power generators argued they could not possibly compete if they had to add stack scrubbers. Yet today in the U.S. every coal-fired power plant has those pollution controls, new plants are routinely designed with the pollution control devices built in, and we still get most of our energy from coal, with only marginal increases in costs in some places (and decreases in other places)

    History and economics suggest your claim is in error. Calling me King of anything won’t change the economics of pollution. Pollution costs. It’s cheaper to prevent the pollution in the first place. CO2 pollution may cost us the ability to produce wheat in the U.S., may cost us livability in Texas and California. Frankly, it’s too expensive to risk NOT doing something.

    You are the Emperor of phony arguments. Regulating conventional energy out of existence certainly will ruin the world economy.

    No one proposes to regulate conventional energy out of existence. If we stopped living in the industrial world, there would be costs. Your plan is to run like hell into that brick wall that suddenly ruins all energy production and much other industry, because you fear that it will cost too much to save the world.

    What was it that radio guy said when the Hindenburg crashed? “Oh, the humanity!”

    I think, I believe, and my experience is, the human race is worth saving. It’s cheaper to start the rescue earlier rather than later, and I hate to waste money in hundreds of billions of dollar increments.

    Progress from the 19th century on was based on cheap, abundant energy. Green energy ain’t cheap or abundant. I keep splainin it to you, green just ain’t cost effective, Period.

    Progress from the 19th century, in the U.S., was based on killing more Americans than died in all our wars, in industrial accidents. Safety would be too expensive, the factory owners argued. And yet, clothing manufacturing continued in New York after the architectural additions required to prevent future Triangle Shirtwaist disasters. Coal mining continues after abating methane and coal dust and piping in fresh air. Steel manufacturing continues after added safety.

    Adding pollution controls costs money, but it’s money generally recovered in other areas, and it isn’t that much. To reduce CO2, we don’t need to rein in all development in undeveloped countries, but we do need to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from the largest polluting nations, the U.S. and China, and from the largest polluting industries. We don’t need to stop third world growth; we need to reduce pollution from the first world.

    So your cost arguments are miscast, misapplied, and inaccurate.

    History tells us that tough pollution controls tend to beget new technologies that far surpass predicted pollution control capacities, and cost much less than cynics predict, sometimes by orders of magnitudes.

    It’s not cost effective to sacrifice the planet and all the humans on it. (The planet would recover nicely without us, after a while.) Humans wouldn’t be missed in the long run. I don’t think we should eliminate humanity as you suggest, however, just to avoid spending money now. I’d like my children and grandchildren to have a better future.

    LikeLike

31. Alan Scott says:

    December 12, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Ed Darrell,

    ” You cannot prove that stopping the bleeding will save the life of the shooting victim, either. We should therefore fail to even try? ”

    Very bad analogy, because yes you generally can prove that stopping the bleeding will save many shooting victims.

    ” Green development can help reverse climate change, ”

    You can’t prove it. You would have to have two earths, and follow a different path for each one and then look at the result. No matter what the weather , you will interpret it to fit your beliefs.

    ” How could cleaner air cause economic ruin? That’s fatuous, and it makes absolutely zero sense. Is London worse off for not having killer fogs anymore? ”

    I would call you the King of false arguments, but it would be insult to you, it wouldn’t do you justice. You are the Emperor of phony arguments. Regulating conventional energy out of existence certainly will ruin the world economy. Progress from the 19th century on was based on cheap, abundant energy. Green energy ain’t cheap or abundant. I keep splainin it to you, green just ain’t cost effective, Period.

    James Kessler,

    ” Whereas what you advocate will definitly cause economic ruin and poverty while making totally dishonest clowns like BP and Texaco into trillionaires. ”

    And you base that on what real world experience ? And here is a clue. Texaco and BP are not single persons, Al Gore is. You can buy stock in an oil company and become an evil rich guy. Then finally you can hate yourself. Al Gore would be a bad investment .

    LikeLike

32. James Kessler says:

    December 12, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    Alan writes:
    I know that what you advocate will definitely cause economic ruin and poverty while making totally dishonest clowns like Vice President Al Gore into Billionaires.

    Whereas what you advocate will definitly cause economic ruin and poverty while making totally dishonest clowns like BP and Texaco into trillionaires.

    Oh wait…we already have that thanks to what you’re advocating and the rest of your right wing nonsense.

    I have no idea how you think giving the United States a new technology base to develop and manufacture will somehow lead to economic ruin. Either we lead, Alan, or we get left behind.

    And you are advocating we get left behind. It is you that is seeking economic ruin of this country.

    Global warming is occuring whether you want to admit it or not. And the oil is goign to run out..whether you want to admit it or not. And if it was such a fraud as you claim that’s funny considering that quite a few oil companies are very quickly spending a lot of cash developing alternative power sources.

    Gee..I wonder what they’re scared of…

    LikeLike

33. Ed Darrell says:

    December 12, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Alan said:

    I know that what you advocate will definitely cause economic ruin and poverty while making totally dishonest clowns like Vice President Al Gore into Billionaires.

    How could cleaner air cause economic ruin? That’s fatuous, and it makes absolutely zero sense. Is London worse off for not having killer fogs anymore? Is New Jersey worse off for having cleaner beaches and rivers? Is the Chesapeake worse off for having less pollution? How does Pittsburgh sell itself now that the smokestacks don’t smoke?

    When we got the lead out of gasoline, the collective IQ of the nation measurably rose. Did we go broke? No. When we cleaned up Los Angeles air, it became an even bigger Mecca for business. Did it go broke due to clean air? No.

    It’s silly to claim, as the power companies and automobile companies once claimed, that clean air will ruin our economy. It does just the opposite.

    Al Gore? He’s gotten rich as a board member advising Google and Apple. He invested much of his takings in setting up a venture capital firm that tries to fund green industries. There is nothing illegal or unsavory about that, but instead, we should admire his intellect and obvious far-sightedness, and his willingness to gamble his money on a cleaner environment. Clean air makes Al Gore rich only if there is dirty air to clean up. Good on him.

    Once again, it appears to me you know a lot that simply is not so. That kind of knowledge gets us into trouble.

    You believe I am just a useful idiot of the oil companies.

    I don’t think you have any tie to any oil company, and I don’t have much use for your views.

    Perhaps. I just remember the 1970s and all of the green lies. Nothing has changed . but the names and the faces.

    What nation did you live in during the 1970s? Here in the U.S. we had much dirtier air and much dirtier water. Lake Erie was essentially dead — it’s close to being clean enough for commercial fishing now. The Potomac River gave up fish that sickened anyone who ate them. Alas, residual pollution seems to be killing off some of the fish, but some are edible. In 1969 the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire and burned three bridges. Today it’s the recreational centerpiece for the revival of the city.

    In the 1970s, birds were being wiped out by DDT poisoning. So were bats and a number of other animals. The fish kill along Texas’s Colorado River in Austin is still a problem. But we banned agricultural use of DDT, and today at least four great bird populations have made dramatic recoveries — eagles, peregrine falcons, osprey, and brown pelicans.

    We had massive air pollution problems — SO2, NOx, sulfates and other aerosols, and particulates. Those problems have been cleaned up greatly. The air is much cleaner in several dozen U.S. cities. Lead came out of gasoline, and lead deposits from those fumes have been greatly reduced, improving the brain development of every child living within three miles of a major road.

    You remember green lies? You must have had some powerful hallucinogenics, or again, you simply remember things that never were.

    Stick to reality, stick to the facts. It makes life simpler, and the answers to life’s toughest questions, much easier.

    LikeLike

34. Ed Darrell says:

    December 12, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Alan said:

    You claim that Green development works. You claim that green development will reverse climate change.

    Green development can help reverse climate change, and it is good for our economy and mental health. “Sustainable” is good for our children and grandchildren. Much better than the alternatives.

    Green development can help reverse the CO2 levels and levels of other greenhouse gases that cause our present peril.

    I claim you cannot prove that climate change will reverse if we follow your path. What if we do what you say and Mother Earth continues to over heat? Then you will resort to Obama logic and say, it would have been so much worse if not for what we did.

    You cannot prove that stopping the bleeding will save the life of the shooting victim, either. We should therefore fail to even try?

    Because we are so far past the anticipated climate tipping point, about the best we can hope for is mitigation of the damage. But, just out of curiosity, do you think atmospheric physics is a one-way street? Why would warming not cease if we stop the cause of the warming? If you pose a different cause, make the case for it, and tell why the past disproofs of that case are invalid.

    LikeLike

35. Ed Darrell says:

    December 12, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Are you saying that skeptics financed Berkely Earth ? I am not familiar with them . I followed your link to them and I want to know who they really are.

    Yes. Among other skeptics, the Koch brothers put money into the project. If you check back a year or two on Anthony Watts’ blog you’ll see his singing of praise for the BEST group because the leader at Berkeley is a guy known to be skeptical of warming. Watts put all his data on weather station placement there, and all his marbles there, too. The analysis of the weather station data showed no skew from the locations, global warming reported across the board at almost every station, and other findings contrary to Watts’ claims. He has now disowned the project, saying they must have done something wrong with the data.

    BEST found that the claims of warming are valid.

    Don’t take my word for it. Read Fred Singer’s description of the BEST project and its personnel at Anthony Watts’s blog, Before The Fall Report.

    LikeLike

36. Alan Scott says:

    December 12, 2011 at 7:33 am

    Ed Darrell,

    Are you saying that skeptics financed Berkely Earth ? I am not familiar with them . I followed your link to them and I want to know who they really are.

    ” Alan, can you give a rational answer to the late Stephen Schneider (of Stanford)? If you’re right, and global warming is not a big deal yet, if I’m wrong, but we act to stop climate change, we get a huge investment in clean air and sustainable growth development. ”

    I love the word games you play. Clean air and sustainable growth . Who could possibly be against clean air ? Who could possibly be against sustainable growth?

    Let us put aside the whole question of whether there is man made Global Warming. You claim to have the answer. You claim that Green development works. You claim that green development will reverse climate change.

    I claim you cannot prove that climate change will reverse if we follow your path . What if we do what you say and Mother Earth continues to over heat ? Then you will resort to Obama logic and say, it would have been so much worse if not for what we did.

    I know that what you advocate will definitely cause economic ruin and poverty while making totally dishonest clowns like Vice President Al Gore into Billionaires.

    You believe I am just a useful idiot of the oil companies. Perhaps. I just remember the 1970s and all of the green lies. Nothing has changed . but the names and the faces.

    LikeLike

37. Ed Darrell says:

    December 12, 2011 at 2:31 am

    Alan, can you give a rational answer to the late Stephen Schneider (of Stanford)? If you’re right, and global warming is not a big deal yet, if I’m wrong, but we act to stop climate change, we get a huge investment in clean air and sustainable growth development.

    If you’re wrong, and if we fail to act, in reliance on your claims, we get disaster.

    Which result is best for our children?

    LikeLike

38. Jim says:

    December 11, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Alan,

    Who stands to reap the biggest profits? The climate change denialists or those sounding the warning?

    Curious,

    Jim

    LikeLike

39. James Kessler says:

    December 11, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    So lets see your side be transparent and put their evidence and “theories” up to skeptical review, Alan.

    Come on Alan, surely you have no problem with them putting their money where your mouth is, yes?

    LikeLike

40. Ed Darrell says:

    December 11, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    If you haven’t read the studies and/or don’t understand them — or worse, deny them — you have no ground to complain that the authors are not “totally transparent.”

    What evidence have the skeptics denialists produced in the past 24 months? Nothing but two releases of e-mails stolen from a university server, which show nothing but scientists at work, transparency in that work, and frustration at the secretive campaign financed by oil interests and ne’er-do-wells and lunatics (Hello, Christopher Monckton) to confuse the issue in the mind of the public.

    In the meantime, one group of “skeptic”-financed and sympathetic scientists actually did study the concerns of those who say global warming is not occurring and/or is not aggravated by human actions, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study — and found that even the data hoped to disprove warming, confirm it instead.

    When does your side start being transparent, Alan? It took Anthony Watts more than five years cough up his data to BEST, which proved him in error. All the data relied on for the IPCC report are published in the past 30 years.

    Real transparency: Who stole the e-mails?

    “Warming skeptics” foul up science discussions about as badly as creationists do, with the sole exception that in 30 years climate science deniers have actually run one study and published it. It denies their claims.

    Got a library?

    LikeLike

41. Alan Scott says:

    December 11, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    If scientists who believe man made Global Warming is real are truly non political and have no ulterior motives, why are they not totally transparent with their data and communications ? Any non proprietary scientific discovery always invites skeptical review to test the underlying theories.

    LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.