Cheney warns of new attacks - Page 5

Jiro · 02-07-2009, 11:53 AM

Hear Again · 02-07-2009, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

They still don't give one out for fear mongering.

Hear Again · 02-07-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

So?

what do you mean "so?" being nominated and chosen for the nobel peace prize is quite an accomplishment. would you feel the same way if former president bush won a nobel peace prize?

Reba · 02-07-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

They still don't give one out for fear mongering.

What do you call what Gore did? That's fear mongering of the highest order.

Reba · 02-07-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

what do you mean "so?" being nominated and chosen for the nobel peace prize is quite an accomplishment. would you feel the same way if former president bush won a nobel peace prize?

It used to be.

Hear Again · 02-07-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

What do you call what Gore did? That's fear mongering of the highest order.

gore did not incite fear. advocating in the name of global warming doesn't kill innocent people like war does.

Jiro · 02-07-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

What do you call what Gore did? That's fear mongering of the highest order.

how was it fear-mongering? At least he didn't bombard the public, campaigns, Presidential debates, etc. with dooming consequence of global warming all year-around for past several years.

Hear Again · 02-07-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

how was it fear-mongering? At least he didn't bombard the dooming "reality" to the public, campaigns, Presidential debates, etc. year-around for past several years.

Daredevel7 · 02-07-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

What do you call what Gore did? That's fear mongering of the highest order.

Exaggerate much?

Let's see the worst case of what would happen from the "fear mongering" from each person:

Cheney/Bush: "There's still a LOT of terrorists. We will need to attack before they get to us!"

Worst result: We go and attack others, killing thousands of people, including our own. Spending millions.. no.. billions.. no... trillions of dollars. We live in fear, suspicious of any foreigners.

Gore: "You guys NEED to recycle and be green or else.. WE'LL DIE!!!!!"

Worst result: We recycle in a frenzy!! Look at them turn off their monitors! Gasp.. they are even.... buying energy efficient lightbulbs! The horror!! The horror!

Jiro · 02-07-2009, 12:10 PM

shel90 · 02-07-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Exaggerate much?

Let's see the worst case of what would happen from the "fear mongering" from each person:

Cheney/Bush: "There's still a LOT of terrorists. We will need to attack before they get to us!"

Worst result: We go and attack others, killing thousands of people, including our own. Spending millions.. no.. billions.. no... trillions of dollars. We live in fear, suspicious of any foreigners.

Gore: "You guys NEED to recycle and be green or else.. WE'LL DIE!!!!!"

Worst result: We recycle in a frenzy!! Look at them turn off their monitors! Gasp.. they are even.... buying energy efficient lightbulbs! The horror!! The horror!

I love the way you think!

naisho · 02-07-2009, 01:01 PM

Ok, time to pass the ball.

I'm not ragging down on Gore, but much rather that the so called "statements" during global warming talks are nothing more than fear-instilling remarks to get people to believe in what he is saying.

Why I'm fed up with the global warming debate | Coop's Corner - CNET News
This guy's entry will show you the middle side of people who are simply fed up with the whole issue of global warming.

31,000 scientists reject global warming theory « Nuke’s
This is the side against Gore.
Here is one small, but can testify piece of data that will show you a ton of scientists are not believing in the word of Gore. I think what's going on is they evaluate his propaganda, and measure it using real life science, and deem it impossible to happen.

This is one example that falls in favor of the scientists, that Gore "does not know what the hell he is talking about."

Al's Journal : Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
His statement to Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 28, 2009.

Opening paragraphs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Gore

We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home - Earth - is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.

Going to scroll past the introductions and all that, and get to the specific one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Gore

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.

If you think about it, there's no fact that can back this statement up at all. He's saying that burning the oil will destroy the planet. I don't know if there's a hidden message about buying from the Persian Gulf, if he is referring to that these guys will develop weapons with the money. There's something wrong with that remark - the earth is still standing today after that nuclear attack in 1946 that did some pretty crazy damage, but has been gotten over with.

Using the data from a Physics material some time ago, and I posted this a few weeks ago:
http://www.alldeaf.com/general-chat/...uff-topic.html

You'll see that all the nuclear weapons in the world will only produce a 20 on that magnitude scale. The nuclear weapons remaining today should be still around the same, if not moderate amount of around 20-30. We're talking like terajoules to the square of 10 or something, I can't calculate the numbers off the top of my head right now. Either way, it is an insane number, but is nowhere close to EMC squared of the earth.

This is the statement is where physic scientists will disagree Al's talk. A part of this is what I observed during a Physics discussion given by various professors last week. There was a figure and they did the math to show the power of all the nukes in the world, they demonstrated that the world would still be standing after all of them detonated. After this demonstration, they said Al's talk about the world being destroyed is fallacious, because blowing up all the nukes would not even do it.

There's a difference between the two though. Gore seems to be caring on a motive that results in the outcome of the whole world in general, while Cheney is only caring about an issue that pertains to him. The similarities that Reba is stating is that they're both using "fear mongering", but I think I would rather tone it down a little and call it "scare tactics" into goading people to follow what they believe in. This is why from a science perspective, I can see where the opposing side is coming from.

New take on this now?

Hear Again · 02-07-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Exaggerate much?

Let's see the worst case of what would happen from the "fear mongering" from each person:

Cheney/Bush: "There's still a LOT of terrorists. We will need to attack before they get to us!"

Worst result: We go and attack others, killing thousands of people, including our own. Spending millions.. no.. billions.. no... trillions of dollars. We live in fear, suspicious of any foreigners.

Gore: "You guys NEED to recycle and be green or else.. WE'LL DIE!!!!!"

Worst result: We recycle in a frenzy!! Look at them turn off their monitors! Gasp.. they are even.... buying energy efficient lightbulbs! The horror!! The horror!

darkdog · 02-07-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

a very very very poor example of comparison of terrorism and global warming in terms of fear-mongering. Global Warming is NOT a good example of fear-mongering. The only person who would say such thing is the one who does not believe in global warming. global warming is something we can try to fix. BTW - Al Gores of the world would have us trash our economy??? I'm sorry but the last time I remember was that Al Gore was part of administration that resulted in surplus budget and Internet revolution.

However - Terrorism... that is PRECISELY why we pay our taxes and voted the officials so that they can do their jobs to prevent it since we cannot do anything about it. Why constantly remind us of terrorism? Since we cannot do anything about terrorism - it makes us feel fearful and powerless. If they had to resort to fear-mongering tactics on something that we cannot do anything about it, it's because they want you to keep voting for incompetent people that make their employers/shareholders rich. very rich. Ever heard of.... you know.... war profiteering?

Actually, I think global warming is a perfect example of fear-mongering. Just so you know, up until recently, I've been agnostic on the question of man's contribution to global warming. That's because I don't have expertise in the field nor have I read the papers or seen much of the data directly. Only recently have I begun to tilt towards the skeptics because the temperature's actually going down a little bit, and if it's going down, there's no warming to argue about. The AGW advocates now claim the effects of global warming are still there and are currently being masked by a drop in temperatures, but the temperature drop is a possibility they would have rejected just a few years ago. None of their predictions are coming true (unless you manipulate the data).

But even when I was undecided, I saw a blatant attempt to scare scientists and the public into towing the party line. They were claiming the debate was over even though many legitimate scientists had legitimate questions and doubts. They were claiming absolute certainty, even though nothing involving a system as large and complex as the Earth and its climate can be absolutely certain. Dissenting scientists complained about losing funding, not being able to get their papers published, and even having their careers at risk. It was far from the ideal of dispassionate science. It involved group think, politics, and yes, fear-mongering.

As for Al Gore, I can't know all of his intentions, but I do know he's making money from carbon credits. It at least has the appearance of global-warming profiteering. On top of that, add the blatant hypocrisy and I wonder whether he even believes what he's actually preaching. His main home in Tennessee uses 20 times the energy of the average American household, he owns 2 or three other homes, he drives SUVs, flies private jets, and owns a 100 foot house boat. He claims to absolve himself from it all because he buys carbon credits, from which he makes money, and which are bogus. However, he should know that if everyone followed his exampled by using more energy and buying carbon credits, that would only make the "problem" worse.

Furthermore, estimates show that if the world fully embraced and enacted his proposals, it would cost the world economy tens of trillions of dollars. It would do a lot of harm to our own economy, but it would hurt developing third world nations the most. Even some of the AGW advocates are thinking that much is too little, too late.

I'm not surprised he won the Nobel Peace Prize. So did Yasir Arafat. It's meaningless. If I were offered one, I would reject it. Unless I needed the money. Then I would accept it and instead of giving a speech, I would just stand there and laugh for 20 minutes straight.

As for terrorism, there is something we can do about it. We can vote in people who will be strong in fighting it. People that won't be namby pamby about it and send messages of weakness to the enemy. People that understand that you can only deal with evil from a position of strength. People that will be blunt about the dangers that lurk, even if it makes them unpopular and gets them called "fear-mongers". Certainly, war-profiteering isn't the only possible conclusion. Couldn't they actually be sincere? Couldn't Dick Cheney actually be concerned about what's happening given the classified information he knows?

jillio · 02-07-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

how was it fear-mongering? At least he didn't bombard the public, campaigns, Presidential debates, etc. with dooming consequence of global warming all year-around for past several years.

Exactly.

jillio · 02-07-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Exaggerate much?

Let's see the worst case of what would happen from the "fear mongering" from each person:

Cheney/Bush: "There's still a LOT of terrorists. We will need to attack before they get to us!"

Worst result: We go and attack others, killing thousands of people, including our own. Spending millions.. no.. billions.. no... trillions of dollars. We live in fear, suspicious of any foreigners.

Gore: "You guys NEED to recycle and be green or else.. WE'LL DIE!!!!!"

Worst result: We recycle in a frenzy!! Look at them turn off their monitors! Gasp.. they are even.... buying energy efficient lightbulbs! The horror!! The horror!

That's it in a nutshell.

jillio · 02-07-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

Actually, I think global warming is a perfect example of fear-mongering. Just so you know, up until recently, I've been agnostic on the question of man's contribution to global warming. That's because I don't have expertise in the field nor have I read the papers or seen much of the data directly. Only recently have I begun to tilt towards the skeptics because the temperature's actually going down a little bit, and if it's going down, there's no warming to argue about. The AGW advocates now claim the effects of global warming are still there and are currently being masked by a drop in temperatures, but the temperature drop is a possibility they would have rejected just a few years ago. None of their predictions are coming true (unless you manipulate the data).

But even when I was undecided, I saw a blatant attempt to scare scientists and the public into towing the party line. They were claiming the debate was over even though many legitimate scientists had legitimate questions and doubts. They were claiming absolute certainty, even though nothing involving a system as large and complex as the Earth and its climate can be absolutely certain. Dissenting scientists complained about losing funding, not being able to get their papers published, and even having their careers at risk. It was far from the ideal of dispassionate science. It involved group think, politics, and yes, fear-mongering.

As for Al Gore, I can't know all of his intentions, but I do know he's making money from carbon credits. It at least has the appearance of global-warming profiteering. On top of that, add the blatant hypocrisy and I wonder whether he even believes what he's actually preaching. His main home in Tennessee uses 20 times the energy of the average American household, he owns 2 or three other homes, he drives SUVs, flies private jets, and owns a 100 foot house boat. He claims to absolve himself from it all because he buys carbon credits, from which he makes money, and which are bogus. However, he should know that if everyone followed his exampled by using more energy and buying carbon credits, that would only make the "problem" worse.

Furthermore, estimates show that if the world fully embraced and enacted his proposals, it would cost the world economy tens of trillions of dollars. It would do a lot of harm to our own economy, but it would hurt developing third world nations the most. Even some of the AGW advocates are thinking that much is too little, too late.

I'm not surprised he won the Nobel Peace Prize. So did Yasir Arafat. It's meaningless. If I were offered one, I would reject it. Unless I needed the money. Then I would accept it and instead of giving a speech, I would just stand there and laugh for 20 minutes straight.

As for terrorism, there is something we can do about it. We can vote in people who will be strong in fighting it. People that won't be namby pamby about it and send messages of weakness to the enemy. People that understand that you can only deal with evil from a position of strength. People that will be blunt about the dangers that lurk, even if it makes them unpopular and gets them called "fear-mongers". Certainly, war-profiteering isn't the only possible conclusion. Couldn't they actually be sincere? Couldn't Dick Cheney actually be concerned about what's happening given the classified information he knows?

The Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless only to those that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being nominated for one.

darkdog · 02-07-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Exaggerate much?

Let's see the worst case of what would happen from the "fear mongering" from each person:

Cheney/Bush: "There's still a LOT of terrorists. We will need to attack before they get to us!"

Worst result: We go and attack others, killing thousands of people, including our own. Spending millions.. no.. billions.. no... trillions of dollars. We live in fear, suspicious of any foreigners.

Gore: "You guys NEED to recycle and be green or else.. WE'LL DIE!!!!!"

Worst result: We recycle in a frenzy!! Look at them turn off their monitors! Gasp.. they are even.... buying energy efficient lightbulbs! The horror!! The horror!

Oh, he's talking about far more than just recycling and buying those twisty lightbulbs.

Hear Again · 02-07-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless only to those that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being nominated for one.

darkdog · 02-07-2009, 01:29 PM

These days, I think Chamberlain would have gotten the prize and Churchill would be called a fear-monger.

In the unlikely event that I did get the Nobel Peace Prize, I would take it as a strong sign that I really screwed something up.

jillio · 02-07-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

These days, I think Chamberlain would have gotten the prize and Churchill would be called a fear-monger.

In the unlikely event that I did get the Nobel Peace Prize, I would take it as a strong sign that I really screwed something up.

Like I said.........

Daredevel7 · 02-07-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

Oh, he's talking about far more than just recycling and buying those twisty lightbulbs.

Oh yea and buying hybrid cars. yes thank you. That one is a big one. Scary stuff!!!

Seriously, folks, what's the worst case that results from Gore's "fear mongering"?

darkdog · 02-07-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Like I said.........

So what you're saying is you think I have a snowball's chance in hell of screwing up enough to get a Nobel Peace Prize? I didn't really expect to hear that, but I appreciate the compliment.

Hear Again · 02-07-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Like I said.........

naisho · 02-07-2009, 01:39 PM

I'm not against Gore in this sense of his global warming speeches, as he is doing something that seems to show that he cares more than Cheney if we were to compare the two, which we are right now right? The only point I'm trying to get across is that he needs to choose examples or words that will actually represent what he is saying, instead of saying stuff like "death of the planet", "end of the earth", "brink of destruction" etc. These are scare-tactic words to me that influences someone else's thinking if they dunno physics/science/math, or don't utilize their brains in general.

Well, I did post a week or two ago about the hybrid stuff, to jillio and someone else I forgot.. But basically you don't really save any $$ from buying a hybrid until the ~10th year of owning it or so, which means profit for the mfg. company.

Daredevel7 · 02-07-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

Well, I did post a week or two ago about the hybrid stuff, to jillio and someone else I forgot.. But basically you don't really save any $$ from buying a hybrid until the ~10th year of owning it or so, which means profit for the mfg. company.

Sigh.. kinda sad when people buy hybrid cars purely for an attempt to save money.....

Dudes.... do you NOT get the point of hybrid cars?

naisho · 02-07-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Sigh.. kinda sad when people buy hybrid cars purely for an attempt to save money.....

Dudes.... do you NOT get the point of hybrid cars?

I do, the point is obviously to go green.

But what I am saying is that not everyone chooses to go green, some are doing it for the so called "money" over green. The same people that are getting scared by Gore's propaganda statements. The commercial advertisement of "saving MPG" is the false way of doing it. I respect the ones that show tags of "scenery, and green earth". Please understand my take on t]hat.

You've also backed up my statement as well..
Think about this, if you were to ask every person who got a hybrid car, "Why did you buy one?"

I'm pretty confident that a good majority would say:
"FOR THE MPG and trips baby!................... oh and yeah to go green" (but they didn't really mean it)

While the ones who really bought it are like:
"I love the earth. We need more greenery. Global warming is bad.

"

Why are we talking about hybrid cars again?

Daredevel7 · 02-07-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

I do, the point is obviously to go green.

But what I am saying is that not everyone chooses to go green, some are doing it for the so called "money" over green. The same people that are getting scared by Gore's propaganda statements. The commercial advertisement of "saving MPG" is the false way of doing it. I respect the ones that show tags of "scenery, and green earth". Please understand my take on that.

I understand. I find something wrong with society when people respond to the ads of "saving MPG" more than "Green earth".

Sometimes I wonder if Al Gore, during his global warming campaign, realized that using the "scare tactic" method is the only method that works for the public. I am sure people go into politics being naive, having hope for "the people", trusting that they would do the "right thing", only to realize that informing the nation isn't as simple as you'd think.

Daredevel7 · 02-07-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naisho

You've also backed up my statement as well..
Think about this, if you were to ask every person who got a hybrid car, "Why did you buy one?"

I'm pretty confident that a good majority would say:
"FOR THE MPG and trips baby!................... oh and yeah to go green" (but they didn't really mean it)

While the ones who really bought it are like:
"I love the earth. We need more greenery. Global warming is bad. "

Why are we talking about hybrid cars again?

You also backed up my previous statement. Seems like only 2 things work: false advertising or scare tactics..... sigh...so can you blame Gore? One would argue that Cheney is using the same tactic, however his tactics have catastrophic results.. therein lies the difference.

jillio · 02-07-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

So what you're saying is you think I have a snowball's chance in hell of screwing up enough to get a Nobel Peace Prize? I didn't really expect to hear that, but I appreciate the compliment.

Nope, but nice attempt at twisting my words.

Didn't work, though.

02-07-2009, 11:53 AM	#121 (permalink)
Jiro YOU DOMESTIC DISSENT! Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Sopranos State Posts: 22,952	__________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

02-07-2009, 12:10 PM	#130 (permalink)
Jiro YOU DOMESTIC DISSENT! Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Sopranos State Posts: 22,952	__________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

02-07-2009, 01:29 PM	#140 (permalink)
darkdog aka dorkdog Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 668	These days, I think Chamberlain would have gotten the prize and Churchill would be called a fear-monger. In the unlikely event that I did get the Nobel Peace Prize, I would take it as a strong sign that I really screwed something up. __________________ Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

02-07-2009, 01:39 PM	#145 (permalink)
naisho Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,007	I'm not against Gore in this sense of his global warming speeches, as he is doing something that seems to show that he cares more than Cheney if we were to compare the two, which we are right now right? The only point I'm trying to get across is that he needs to choose examples or words that will actually represent what he is saying, instead of saying stuff like "death of the planet", "end of the earth", "brink of destruction" etc. These are scare-tactic words to me that influences someone else's thinking if they dunno physics/science/math, or don't utilize their brains in general. Well, I did post a week or two ago about the hybrid stuff, to jillio and someone else I forgot.. But basically you don't really save any $$ from buying a hybrid until the ~10th year of owning it or so, which means profit for the mfg. company. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com