Do as I say, not as I do....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, the war on terror is quite expensive, he has to save money somewhere.:idea2:

---

Oh dear, carbon offsets for the Iraq war :laugh4: . I guess I know now why they hanged Saddam; he couldn't offset the emissions from all those burning oil wells. :2thumbsup:

In keeping with the rank hypocrisy theme, here's a fella discussing Executive Privilege circa 1998 (sorry it's not about Gore, but I find him uninteresting):

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.

— Tony Snow, Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998

That less like hypocrisy and more like what's good for the goose is good for the gander (given how the tables have turned). Besides, when did Tony Snow become president? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That less like hypocrisy and more like what's good for the goose is good for the gander (given how the tables have turned). Besides, when did Tony Snow become president? :inquisitive:

---

I believe it was right after the time when Hillary Clinton, while President, fired a bunch of U.S. Attorneys....

:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

When George Bush called for a reduction of America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years, did he cut back on his own?

---

Oddly enough, he is very energy efficient.

Quote:

---

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

---

Its funny how the article then goes on to bash Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Oddly enough, he is very energy efficient.

---

So it seems, but I don't care.

Nor do I need to count Al Gore's airline tickets to figure out what to think of his views.

I know character assassination when I see it. And I'm seeing it. It is a serious problem in America, possibly more than anywhere else. Some public relations hitman starts yapping, within twelve hours half the U.S. blogosphere is up in arms over a total non-issue, and the next thing you hear is a giant sucking sound - the sound of substance going out the window.

Agree with ya here, Adrian. Was really annoying hearing people on one of my last trips out to San Fran saying they wouldn't vote for Arnold because he owns four hummers, despite whatever amount of green friendly laws he's helped push for the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

So it seems, but I don't care.

---

I love that response!

I agree with you. The politics of personal attacks has little to do with substance. It can be seen on this very board. When someone doesnt have a strong argument, hit the poster, not his post.

I do, however, think that if a politician is going to make energy consumption and the environment his central focus, using 20 times the national average is very hypocritical. That doesnt change the his argument though, for better or worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The politics of personal attacks has little to do with substance.

---

Indeed. And the climate change debate has been way too politicized. I got to thinking — who is looking at this issue coldly, without a political agenda? Scientists get accused of everything in this country. They're generally suspected of being liberal weenies, so trotting out a scientist doesn't do much. Gore is a dull fellow who's being ridiculed and generally slimed. Our current administration is not exactly addicted to truth-telling.

Finally I hit on it: Insurance companies, especially re-insurers. They're very good at number crunching, and they live in the reality-based community (as in, if they get the reality wrong, they go broke). No fluffery, no BS.

I've just started looking into their reports and predictions, but it looks as though they're taking climate change very seriously, indeed.

Munich Re:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The concentration of climate gases is increasing, and with it the challenges facing the insurance industry. In short, stable reinsurance capacity will not be possible in the future without risk–adequate insurance prices. The solution to this problem may well be risk partnerships between primary insurers and reinsurers and the capital markets.

The subject of climate change is by no means new to scientific research. In fact, it is over 20 years since leading academic institutions started research into the processes that are triggered by an increase in the concentration of climatedamaging trace gases in the atmosphere. Many of these studies were, or rather should have been, of major significance for the insurance industry. However, the results were mostly of a qualitative nature only and involved projections far into the future — too far for some risk carriers to take seriously.

The 2005 watershed

This situation altered dramatically in 2005. Even before the record losses from Hurricane Katrina, studies had been published which analysed the changed hurricane exposure in the North Atlantic and investigated natural as well as man–made influences on the sea surface temperature. The conclusions arrived at in these studies were so specific and definitive that the insurance industry was left in no doubt about the need for quantitative adjustments to its hurricane risk models. Munich Re included elements of these scientific works, such as the changed hurricane frequency, in its risk evaluations for the renewals at 1 January 2006.

A look at the loss years 2004 and 2005 raises the following question: Were climate researchers in fact not forthright enough in the predictions they made? To find out, let us go back 16 years to an article on climate change in a Munich Re publication on windstorms, which offered a detailed summary of the state of knowledge on this subject at this time.

Munich Re's special publication "Windstorm" from 1990

"A warmer atmosphere and warmer seas result in greater exchange of energy and add momentum to the vertical exchange processes so crucial to the development of tropical cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms and hailstorms. Accordingly, such natural hazards will increase not only in frequency and intensity, but also in duration and the size of the areas at risk. This applies above all to tropical cyclones, which will penetrate moderate latitudes and thus also affect areas so far not exposed to this risk. Hence, risk conditions are not only growing worse in the population centres and industrial regions along the north–east coasts of the USA, Australia and New Zealand or in the whole of Japan already exposed to such hazards in the past, but possibly also along the coasts of Western Europe, which [...] might even be reached by a full–fledged hurricane. [...] Last but certainly not least, water temperatures in some parts of the South Atlantic will reach the critical threshold of 27°C already mentioned, opening up the door for the development of tropical cyclones so far not encountered in that part of the world. It goes without saying that such cyclones would then present a tremendous hazard along the coast of Brazil."

I doubt this will change anybody's opinion, but it makes me happy to find a neutral party that's doing serious thinking and planning on the subject. When I find more interesting stuff, I'll post it.

P.S.: Vladimir, in our nation our President is very busy, so he uses a another person to speak to the press. This position is called the White House Press Secretary. His statements are meant to reflect the current administration's positions.

[edit]

Swiss Re:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Today, global warming is a fact. Since the beginning of industrialisation and the rapid growth of world population, man’s activities – along with natural variability – have contributed to a change of climate manifesting itself as a considerable increase in global temperature. Climate change has the potential to develop into our planet’s greatest environmental challenge of the 21st century.

Current and expected changes in the natural environment are causing the business and political environments to react and change – even more so because climate change is intertwined with numerous other challenging issues such as water availability and energy security. As an enabler of change, the financial services industry can help guide society towards an effective response. However, the industry can only be effective in this role if the regulatory and legislative framework sets the right incentives for emissions reduction and adaptation on a global scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I doubt this will change anybody's opinion, but it makes me happy to find a neutral party that's doing serious thinking and planning on the subject.

---

Kudos to the Lemur for trying. Alas, there is a snag. These insurance companies are not planning for actual hurricane-force winds. They are planning for hurricane-force financial windfalls by scaring Floridians and others out of their coastal wits with global warming threats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

These insurance companies are not planning for actual hurricane-force winds. They are planning for hurricane-force financial windfalls by scaring Floridians and others out of their coastal wits with global warming threats.

---

Insurers who peddle their products to the public, yes. Reinsurance is a different ball of bees. They're the guys who insure the insurers, so they're trying to take into account the real losses insurers will suffer. Allstate may try to get away with all kinds of sleaziness in the aftermath of Katrina, for instance, but it's up the the reinsurer to have a good grip on how much Allstate will really have to pay out.

Likewise, Allstate may use all sorts of scare tactics to jack up rates in Florida, but its reinsurers need to be far more reality-based. There's nobody as cold-blooded and practical as a reinsurer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Insurers who peddle their products to the public, yes. Reinsurance is a different ball of bees.

---

Point taken. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Agree with ya here, Adrian. Was really annoying hearing people on one of my last trips out to San Fran saying they wouldn't vote for Arnold because he owns four hummers, despite whatever amount of green friendly laws he's helped push for the state.

---

Exactly the sentiment of this jaded old Pope, Madam. If I were a Californian I wouldn't care if Ah-nuld drove around in a renovated Sherman tank with a whirpool inside. Whatever floats his rubber duck.

Interesting article about reinsurers and global warming. Key quote:

In a 2006 position paper published by the CRO Forum, which is run by a consortium of 13 European insurance companies, the conclusion of the study states: “Natural climate variability and the superimposed effects of human-induced climate change have taken center stage in the reevaluation of current hurricane models.” And Andreas Spiegel of Swiss Re states: “In our view, climate change has the potential to develop into the greatest global environmental challenge in the 21 st century. Increasingly, experts find evidence that climate change is happening (and) that global society and economy are likely to be affected significantly during the next decades.” Indeed, according to Spiegel, climate change was identified by Swiss Re as an emerging risk over a decade ago. The concern has since evolved into an important component of the company’s long-term risk management strategy. Indeed, as Gary Venter of the leading reinsurance broker, Guy Carpenter, recently told me, “The reinsurance industry takes global warming very seriously. For example Swiss Re is really vocal about it.” He then added that “Much of the reinsurance industry is concerned.” One can conclude that not only does the reinsurance industry take the idea of global climate change seriously, but they also back up their beliefs with money and risk strategies.

Two thoughts, based on my initial peek at the whole reinsurance angle:

• There does not seem to be any debate about whether or not they should be concerned about climate change.
• As reinsurers, they don't give a flying whoop about why the climate is changing, so their perspective is not useful for the question of whether the weather is anthropogenic.
• They classify global warming as an "emerging" threat. Make of that what you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Reinsurance is a different ball of bees. They're the guys who insure the insurers, so they're trying to take into account the real losses insurers will suffer.

---

Hold on, I must have been temporarily blind there.

My friend, the same mechanism applies to both insurers and reinsurers. Reinsurers are paid premiums by insurance companies, just as those insurers raise premiums from private citizens.

What the reinsurers are trying to accomplish is raise their premiums from insurance companies on the basis of dire predictions.

Says University of Colorado researcher Pielke:

The reinsurance industry makes money, by and large, through income that it earns on its investments, and not through the differences between what it collects in premiums and pays out for disasters. But its premiums are important from the standpoint of not just being able to pay out when disasters strike, but crucially for creating a reserve of funds that can be invested and thus generate income for shareholders. The greater the reserve, then the greater the potential income. It seems like pointing out the obvious that the reinsurance industry has a powerful vested interest in charging the highest rates that the market will bear for its products. And the prospect of more disasters means a basis for charging higher rates.

Locus Araneae

I wonder if the rest of the world should view America in its intirety as hypocryte when it was financially supporting Saddam Husein in the 80's, selling weapons to Saddam and brokering deals through Donald Rumsfeld.

Common please, this way of trying to stomp public support for the proposed solutions is a cheap shot at best.

Trying to point out that someone's proposals are not valid by pointing out that the person making them is ugly is a rhetoric for children.

Are the Americal People Children?

Politicians are nor Saints nor Meshias, they dont know everything and should not be expected to either. Politicians are people like everyone else, just like you and me.

Just because someone works at the marketing department of Coca Cola, yet that person prefers to Drink Pepsi does not make them a Hypocrite.

What imports is if they do their job right or wrong. And instead of trying to discredit a man's work through childish maneuvers, which implies that the audiance is also childish, bring up valid counter-arguments based on your own studdy that demonstrates opposite results and conclusion using the same means as the him.

If it were me, it is the guy who brough up the childish argument I would be taking a good look at this Senator James Inhofe and wonder if they actually merit the position they are occupying.

But I digress, I dont live in the US, it is your country and your choice of representatives, I am but a neigboring Canadian just giving my 2 cents.

Here's a video of the event:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/gore-boxer-inhofe/

Watch Inhofe try to cut off gore when gore is refuting the points he made :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

My friend, the same mechanism applies to both insurers and reinsurers. Reinsurers are paid premiums by insurance companies, just as those insurers raise premiums from private citizens.

What the reinsurers are trying to accomplish is raise their premiums from insurance companies on the basis of dire predictions.

---

Well slap me upside the head and call me spanky. I guess I'll just have to keep looking for an unimpeachably honest broker on this issue. Nice blog there, though. A climatologist who can write? Yowza.

I'm saddened by the way that climate change has become yet another political football. There's something so ugly and coarse about the way the debate has gone, something factional and angry, and not at all oriented toward getting at that rare and endangered beast, the truth.

This means the lemur will once again bow out of the climate change debate. You can all go back to making fat jokes about Al Gore again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Here's a video of the event:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/gore-boxer-inhofe/

Watch Inhofe try to cut off gore when gore is refuting the points he made :laugh4:

---

wow...

I'll just leave it at that and at your own discression friends.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my initial post, Lemur and Adrian. I'm not disputing that global warming is an observable phenomenon. I'm not disputing that weaning ourselves off of the addiction we have to fossil fuels wouldn't be in our best interest on many levels. Heck, I actually am glad gas prices keep going up. It means that alternative fuel sources are that much closer.

My point is this. In attempting to implement policy, do we really want to give Al Gore, a man who is completely ignoring the decrees he's trying to force unto the rest of us, carte blanche?

As for his flying habits, that's not where that 20X number comes from. From what I understand, it was a simple apples to apples comparison of the power bills from his mansion in Tennessee to what the average American household pays for power.

If they're running his jet fuel up against him, that would be quite unfair and devious, granted, though I would argue he should be taking first class on carrier jets, not taking his own jet around.

Do we need to do something? Yes! Do we need to do whatever a hypocrite that doesn't follow his own decrees is saying we should do? Maybe no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Do we need to do something? Yes! Do we need to do whatever a hypocrite that doesn't follow his own decrees is saying we should do? Maybe no.

---

I didn't realize you were electing a dictator here...

Here him out, if what he syas makes sense, it doesn't matter what he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

My point is this. In attempting to implement policy, do we really want to give Al Gore, a man who is completely ignoring the decrees he's trying to force unto the rest of us, carte blanche?

---

Well, that's an easy one. No. Al Gore holds no office and is not in any elected position of power. He's just a cheerleader, an advocate. A ... very ... dull ... advocate ...

It's okay, though. I finally found a reliable source on the issue. Sixth graders have decided that global warming is not anthropogenic. Counter that if you can, Adrian.

Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.

“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, that's an easy one. No. Al Gore holds no office and is not in any elected position of power. He's just a cheerleader, an advocate. A ... very ... dull ... advocate ...

It's okay, though. I finally found a reliable source on the issue. Sixth graders have decided that global warming is not anthropogenic. Counter that if you can, Adrian.

Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.

“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.

---

Who wants to bet Inhofe will cite it in his next speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning. “It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.

---

They said it made for fun learning, too. Awwww..... https://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4655/liloneud2.gif

I've gotta hand it to you, Lemur. I'll bet there is a lesson for adults in there somewhere. What could it be? Let's see...

'Both sides made good points.'

Could that be the lesson? https://img123.imageshack.us/img123/...ufiufiuob1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Hold on, I must have been temporarily blind there.

My friend, the same mechanism applies to both insurers and reinsurers. Reinsurers are paid premiums by insurance companies, just as those insurers raise premiums from private citizens.

What the reinsurers are trying to accomplish is raise their premiums from insurance companies on the basis of dire predictions.

Says University of Colorado researcher Pielke:

The reinsurance industry makes money, by and large, through income that it earns on its investments, and not through the differences between what it collects in premiums and pays out for disasters. But its premiums are important from the standpoint of not just being able to pay out when disasters strike, but crucially for creating a reserve of funds that can be invested and thus generate income for shareholders. The greater the reserve, then the greater the potential income. It seems like pointing out the obvious that the reinsurance industry has a powerful vested interest in charging the highest rates that the market will bear for its products. And the prospect of more disasters means a basis for charging higher rates.

Locus Araneae

---

Nice, saved me from having to type it. :bow:
I tend to doubt that you can find anyone in the debate that doesn't have some sort of bias- or at least is accused by someone of having one.

Thanks for dropping by the thread to declare proxy victory, Xiahou! ~:wave: