Are we supposed to be impressed by this just because the guy says "bet me"? Does the fact that a wager is on the line somehow increase the sincerity level or suddenly swing the balance of knowledge a la' Occam's Razor in favor of one side or another?
The fact that a "bet" has been proposed and declined is somehow significant in the eyes of the Fox News people shows how sensationalized and childish the whole debate has become.
On the other hand... I was more interested in the section talking about PETA.
But now the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is furious that the concerts will feature vendors who sell hamburgers and hot dogs.
PETA says selling meat at an environmental concert is like selling cigarettes at an anti-cancer fundraiser. PETA campaigner Yvonne Taylor says in Life Style Extra ? "There's no such thing as a meat-eating environmentalist. It would be hypocritical to be serving meat at an event for the environment, and if you really cared about the environment, you wouldn't be eating meat in the first place.
You can't be an environmentalist and still eat meat? They might mention this to all the indigenous aboriginal cultures across the world who are always mentioned as examples of how humans can live in harmony with nature. If their complaint is with the factory method of raising stock animals then I can be a bit more sympathetic. It's a pretty ugly life for the food animal. However, agricultural fertilizers and pesticides are just as harmful to waterways and wildlife. Will their campaign against meat eating environmentalists be supplemented by a campaign against vegetarians who don't eat 100% organic foods?
One wonders if both Fox and PETA think their positions all the way through before tossing it out for their separate audiences that they target with their messages.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Too busy to take on any new projects at this time...
Last week we told you about an expert in forecasting who challenged Al Gore to a $10,000 bet over who could more accurately predict global temperature increases.
Professor Scott Armstrong contends that most climate change forecasts use bad methodology, and that global temps will not rise dramatically as Gore predicts.
Now the professor has received his answer from Gore ? thanks, but no thanks.
A Gore representative said the former vice president is too busy to take on any new projects at this time.
Discussion is locked
1 - 30 of 50 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
This was reported by many outlets, in fact, I first saw it reported on CNN. Clearly if Gore had any faith at all in the agenda he is pushing constantly he would take the bet. Or at least respond in some more intelligent fashion.
He seems very reluctant to even debate the issue. "My way or the highway" appears to be his motto and that of the "Greens" in general.
It's news, that's all. Very telling, IMHO.
- Collapse -
What's next as a standard to test a person's resolve?
The infamous Double Dog Dare?
"Oooo... He got Double Dog Dared and wimped out!"
There is a time when adult behavior is telling.
You might notice, I'm not saying Gore is right or wrong in his views. I'm saying that judging him or more importantly the issue of climate change, on whether he takes a wager or not is very childish.
Don't ya hate it when the fish takes the worm and then spits it back out? 
Fire works got rained out on Wednesday so I'm headed out to see them soon. Don't wear yourself out expecting a good tennis match here.
Ciao!
- Collapse -
You can make fun if it all you want. Doesn't make you right, and in fact, I say you are wrong.
I don't see how it's "childish" at all. I think it's obvious that Gore doesn't have the courage of his convictions or can't tolerate ideas that contradict his. Deriding the idea out of hand is what is childish.
I resent the implication that I was baiting, and I could not care less whether you play you usual silly games or not.
- Collapse -
YOUR opinion makes YOU right
You're killin' me
- Collapse -
Strange. Where I live they usually wait until it's dark to shoot off fireworks, which today would be around 8 PM. Go figure.
- Collapse -
... and the fire works were surprisingly good for such a small community event.. Well worth going to.
- Collapse -
...... if not so serious.
Re: "the bet". IMO, neither party will live long enough to know definitively who is right.
I have lived long enough to read that, for the first, time a scientist would make a challenge via a monetary bet.
Re: the Peta story. I consider myself an environmentalist, and I object to cruelty to animals. Yes, I eat meat.
The growing of foodstuffs requires measures that pollute our environment, both air and water. (But there has been good progress made toward not damaging the eco-system in the process.)
Looks like even-steven to me.
Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
- Collapse -
between scientists and economists over the years. Probably the most famous one was probably the Simon-Erlich "copper bet". They are not intended to do any more than illustrate which models or predictions work best.
Seems to me if someone predicts something with as much certainty as Gore has done he should have no problem accepting the wager or explaining in detail why he declines.
- Collapse -
...... that bet had as one of its hinges commodity prices. Both professors wrote and taught extensively on population and resource issues.
Their wager also had a time frame to reach a conclusion.
Mr. Gore's degree is in Law, and his reliance is on scientists. I realize those scientists are not ones with which you agree. IMO, for final conclusions there is no set time frame.
We will have to agree to disagree on this.
Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
- Collapse -
I'm not sure how you are trying to apply the idea called Occam's Razor to this situation. Is an application of it intended to demonstrate some form of scientific validity? And if so, the validity of the existence of "global warming", or after the assumption that it exists, the cause of it? Of course, in the case of existence, assuming it does exist calls into mind what many people say about assumptions when trying to apply what they call Occam's Razor.
- Collapse -
Or would it be an analogy? Similitude? Metaphor?
If I get it wrong I'm sure you will tell me the difference.
- Collapse -
what science is all about. Gore is too busy to test his because he lacks both the knowledge and skill to do so. He also most likely fears that he will lose the bet. Then, what will be base his political career on?
Gore's stuff is not science. Anyone with knowledge of the most rudimentary information knows that.
- Collapse -
and heard some of the talk by performers. It was, IMO, not a good example of conservation of energy. Watching the huge lighting displays and loud music drew my attention to the amount of fuel being used and greenhouse gases being emitted in the many venues where these concerts were taking place. My daughter, who is young and quite conservation minded, was really taken aback by what she saw. I suppose some could call this waste an "investment"....sort of like priming an old pump by pouring water down it in an attempt to bring up even more....but I'd have to think this could be more harmful in other ways than just the wasted energy for a day. I'd have to think many will see this as a sham rather than be serious. Personally, I believe conservation is important. Those who loudly promote it must be the best examples in their actual practice or their efforts are sure to backfire.
- Collapse -
At least we are now "talking" about the "problem". Typical symbolism over substance
- Collapse -
It raises awareness about conserrvation which is good, but lets face it, it probably takes this kind of promotion to grab the attention of the post MTV, video game playing generation. Look at the brain trust you see on Jay Leno's street quiz's. A lot of people are more impressed by flash than thoughtful substance.
Concerts were also held in Washington, Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Shanghai and Sydney.
But critics have said it was hypocritical for performers who fly around the world on tours to push the message of cutting down on carbon emissions.
George Marshall of the Climate Outreach Information Network told the BBC: "Having the richest people in the world saying, 'Hey! We all need to cut back a bit!' is, let's face it, absurd."
In New Jersey, actor Leonardo DiCaprio was among the celebrities introducing the acts.
"Our actions from this day forward will help determine just what sort of future we pass on to our children and to their children," he told the crowd at the Giants Stadium.
Responding to criticism that the event creates even more carbon emissions, organisers have insisted they were keeping the concerts as green as possible, with proceeds being spent on power-efficient light bulbs and other measures to offset the shows' emissions.
"We've booked this show with acts that were touring in the area at the time so we could keep the carbon imprint down," explained producer Kevin Wall.
- Collapse -
And so these touring groups that were already leaving their own carbon footprint are deemed to be good spokespersons for the cause? Sounds weak to me.
And, appealing to the post MTV generation? Are you saying they are largely responsible and need to be specially targeted? And that, even worse, sinking (my word) to that level is appropriate. Ya' know, if flash is what impresses them more than thoughtful substance (your words), giving them more "flash" is like trying to counsel a drunk while pouring him shots of whiskey. That drunk will come to your counseling sessions quite happily...and sign up for a lifetime of therapy. Bad plan, Grim.
- Collapse -
This has much less to do with the environment or global warming than it has to do with building a power base for Gore and his ilk. PT Barnum said it best....
- Collapse -
With all your joyful cynicism you refuse to recognize that everyone does it, IMO.
s' OK, I suppose. Calling someone else a sucker keeps you from having to worry about the clay feet of your own heros.
- Collapse -
Somewhat sucessful at it, but a con nontheless.
For once, I agree with you. However, I don't think Al is smart enough to be a really good con man. He falls far short of people like Barnum.
- Collapse -
Why should my opinion be a revelation to you. It's what I have said about all politicians from my initial post on SE.
If J Vega will forgive my way of putting it... I have never blamed a dog for being a dog. Why others insist on doing so is beyond me.
- Collapse -
is a spineless and invalid excuse, in my opinion. Some are far more egregious than others. Recognizing Gore for what he is is important. The fact that so many are fooled is distressing.
- Collapse -
... about Bush. Yet the old accusation of "Bush Bashing" has always sufficed to defend him when calls for accountability were raised about his ideas and actions.
Why you demand accountability from a bunch of Greenies for their idea's yet ask for understanding and patience for your favorite ideologies is totally understandable. Why you refuse to admit that your side sells their ideas any differently than the other side is beyond me.
I am not fooled by Gore and the liberal side anymore than I am fooled by the conservative propaganda. Spin it one way or the other... it's all obfuscation designed to sell ideology based on catch phrases, jargon, and a dogmatic appeal. Your insistence on emphatically criticizing Gore is just buying into the other brands advertising campaign IMO. I know you believe I am wrong but your comments drip with hate and disgust for Gore and his ideas (tell me I'm wrong on that point). Maybe you're just prone to hyperbole though.
Hey, it's six on one side, half a dozen on the other. "Everybody does it" is not a rationalization... it is an observation.
- Collapse -
President Bush, for example, actually believes that his actions are correct and right. He may be wrong, but he's not a con artist.
Gore cannot say that about himself.
- Collapse -
After reading previous posts I'm still not sure where you got it from.
The fact that Bush may or may not believe what he says is one thing. It doesn't mean that his brain trust in the form of Rove and others haven't employed classic (and sometimes ethically questionable) tactics to persuade others to fall into step behind them. It doesn't mean that Bush hasn't "approved this message" either.
- Collapse -
was one of the biggest cons ever, KP. But hey, this whole thread is drifting into politics, right?
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic