Gore's Own Inconvenient Truths....

Some data on Gores Evil Oil Company:

In 2003,Oxy was honored with the Aquarium of the Pacific’s prestigious Award for Excellence for Environmental Stewardship

In late 2005, Occidental received the Conservation Leadership Award for best environmental practices in Texas

During 2002, total waste generation declined by 43 percent, contributing to the 63-percent decline achieved since 1997

efforts focused on improving energy efficiency have yielded an eight-percent improvement since 1996.

Energy use per pound of production in OxyChem has decreased by more than 40 percent

The new power plant ... limit the emissions of nitrogen oxides, or NO2, to just 2.5 parts per million, a reduction of more than 90 percent versus older technology units.

- These guys have won awards for organising the clear-up of old industrial sites. Clearly not environmental bad guys.
 
Paradigne said:
I invented the internet... 'nuff said


He didn't claim to invent the internet, he said he encouraged the development of the internet.
 
Paradigne said:
I invented the internet... 'nuff said

If you mean to use this as a way to entirely dismiss Gore's political views, you lose 10 respect points.
 
Chairman Meow said:
Ah, politics... when all else fails, drag out the ad-hominems...

Don't worry! It's not an ad hominem! Because the article never actually says directly that his message should be distrusted because of his actions! I mean, so what if the implication is so thick you could slice it with a knife? Jeeze, how dare you say it's ad hominem!?

:rolleyes:
 
You learnt your lesson, North King. The article never actually says that his message should be distrusted because of his actions, what it says is that his message and his actions don't match. :goodjob:
 
Paradigne said:
I invented the internet... 'nuff said

Wow I wonder howed you would react to some of the Bush's comments.

"I'm the Commander, see... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President... don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
- President George W. Bush
 
Urederra said:
You learnt your lesson, North King. The article never actually says that his message should be distrusted because of his actions, what it says is that his message and his actions don't match. :goodjob:

Oops, sorry about that alarm that just went off, my sarcasm radar must have blown a fuse or something.
 
El_Machinae said:
So you DO see hypocrisy in owning oil shares!
When him and the Democratic Party constantly chastize the oil companies, why shouldn't he be seen as a hypocrite? If I criticize people that eat fast food, do you think I should own shares of Burger King?

El_Machinae said:
Maybe you can explain how owning oil shares contributes to Global Warming?
If global warming was more than a fairy tale, I could.

North King said:
New code-phrases for "he agrees with my opinion"... I mean, do you actually need to maintain the facade? Why not just say outright that you think he's cool because he agrees with you?
Honestly, King. Nitpicking over my choice of words? Would you rather have me act like some kind of vocabulary neanderthal? Unh! MobBoss right. Oogah.

He's not "cool" because he agrees with me, he's right. It's as simple as that.

brennan said:
Yeah, and even the most fanatical environment nazi around is going to have a more polluting lifestyle than a caveman; what's your point: that anyone who espouses a green lifestyle has to get back in the trees?
If they're going to try and force their lifestyle on us, why shouldn't they?

You would have gone far in the USSR. After all, the Central Committee needs a dacha, a big salary, and a Mercedes, because they represent what is best for the people! :rolleyes:
 
rmsharpe said:
He's not "cool" because he agrees with me, he's right. It's as simple as that.

Eh, I won't disillusion you. I'll just vote against you. Deal?
 
North King said:
Oops, sorry about that alarm that just went off, my sarcasm radar must have blown a fuse or something.


No, it was detected and a battery of counter-sarcasm sentences were ejected into the forum. ;)
 
Urederra said:
No, it was detected and a battery of counter-sarcasm sentences were ejected into the forum. ;)

*sigh* You just had to ruin the humor of the situation, didn't you? :p
 
When him and the Democratic Party constantly chastize the oil companies, why shouldn't he be seen as a hypocrite? If I criticize people that eat fast food, do you think I should own shares of Burger King?

While your analogy is remarkably strong (criticising and owning shares) - it does nothing to explain how it's hypocritical. It's restating the fact that you find it hypocritical.

Y'all seem so convinced that it's hypocritical to own shares of companies that are expected to be top performers in the near term. Exactly how does holding these shares contribute to (since you've hand waved my earlier question while avoiding the intent) preventing regulation of fossil fuel consumption?

OR

How does holding the shares increase the amount of CO2 we put out? How does holding them slow the rate at which we take proactive steps to reduce CO2 output?

Man, I'm not being nitpicky or argumentative - I'm just asking that a statement made (and co-signed) in the thread be backed up with a TAD of reasoning behind it. Or is the bias so strong against either Al Gore or the concept of Global Warming that you just suffer a knee-jerk emotion of disgust when they're mentioned?
 
I think the truth has come out already El'M: There is no such thing as global warming and anything Al Gore says is utter B******* and also probably a heinous lie likely to get him sent straight to hell. We had all better ridicule him quick and join the Republicans.

I had a look at the company's website, they look very environment friendly to me. They have an award winning subsidiary company that goes around clearing up old industrial wastelands. Maybe that is why Gore owns shares in them.
 
I like how you shorten my name Brn'n! :) You won't get as much practice with the underscore key, but at least it's aesthetically pleasing.

I'm hesitant to believe all the awards they get; awards are too easily generated to really mean anything. They might, they might not, but only the people giving them really know.

A quick look for Oxychem holdings among the more famous 'green mutual funds' turned up nothing, but I wasn't being very thorough. If multiple respectable green mutual funds held positions, I'd be sold with regards to this company's long-term morality.

I'm just sad because the hypocrisy was stated with such vehemence that I thought the people stating their position had solid reasoning behind it. Like I said way back, I know almost nothing of Gore, so I'm not working on assumptions about him.
 
Corporate awards are basically a sham and the result mostly of nepotism and other backscatching endevours (unlike entertainment industry awards... :mischief: ), and of course whether or not a company is listed as green means even less really.

What counts is what the companies actions have been and what polices they have made effort to keep, as well as what action Al Gore as a stockholder has taken to influence the company in a green direction.

I know very little about this company or Gore's actions related to it, but all in all to say that Gore owns stock in "oil companies" is definitely not a complete story in istelf and hardly serves as the basis for judgment on whether or not he is hypocritcal in relation to the positions he presents.
 
sysyphus said:
Anthropogenic Climate Change does not exist because Al Gore regularly rides in an aeroplane. Got it.

It doesn't exist because I drive an SUV either. In fact it probably doesn't exist at all.
 
Norlamand said:
It doesn't exist because I drive an SUV either. In fact it probably doesn't exist at all.

Perhaps, but I'd rather not stake a planet on it.
 
Back
Top Bottom