Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
He did indeed INVEST in the web. Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship.
History has now clearly shown that he was a visionary Congressman back then.
There is no maybe about it. Of course that is no indication that he is right or wrong about anything else, but the people ridiculing him for what he did do back then, specially when they are using the technology that he helped push forward, just makes it clear just how stupid they are.
[3 points]2 years ago by ask001ReplyEdited 2 years ago by ask001
First off....its pretty stupid of him to make the claim that he invented the internet (direct quote was "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"). Or to assert that he even helped invent the internet. What he did was understand how useful it could be and helped with some legislation. Wow...he didn't do that all on his own. One congressman can NOT pass legislation on anything. I was on CompuServe back in 1984...did I invent the internet??
Secondly...Hes a "Global Warming Hack". If hes flying around on business jets, driving SUVs, and living in a mansion the size of the size of the Dallas Cowboys new stadium (ok, slight exaggeration there on my part) then he has ZERO business telling me that I need to cut back on anything! Thats like Bill Clinton telling me I shouldn't have extramarital affairs.
And he did take the initiative, even the inventors acknowledge that he did.
You call it a global warming hack, 97% of the scientist involved in the research disagree. I use far less resources then he does, now when I say that global warming will have a negative impact on the world as a whole, does that make it any more credible to you?
I am relying on the experts here, if you went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that you have cancer and should do something about it, would you go with their advise or with the three who didn't? As for me I would go with the consensus, unless I was sick of living.
When I go to church and the preacher says I should give my money to the church and I see him driving a really nice car, living in a really nice house, and his wife is all dolled up in the latest fashions....I feel like the guy is a hypocrite and I look for another church, where people at least attempt to live like they say I should live.
At least in your case you may actually believe what your saying and you may be actually trying to cut down on your "carbon footprint". That does not make you correct in your belief but it does prevent you from being an out and out hypocrite. Kudos to you!
So, when I go to MY 100 doctors and 97 of them tell me that Im dying of cancer and that I need treatment X. I don't automatically get treatment X. I ask the doctor how long will I live and what is my quality of life If I do get the treatment verses if I don't get the treatment. If the doctor tells me that my life expectancy will only be marginally improved while my quality of life will go down, then why would I want the treatment??
[1 point]2 years ago by jondoughReplyEdited 2 years ago by jondough
I agree with you about the preacher thing, I have not seen any myself who are like that though. (I don't listen much to any one telling how I should live my life) but in the case of Al Gore, he is in a no win situation in this regard. If he invests in green technology it is because he wants to make money out of a hoax and if he doesn't he is a hypocrite for not putting his money where his mouth is. As for me I ignore people like him because of the controversy they tend to create, I listen to the message once and then go of to figure out a little more behind the hype. And that brings me to your actions on the doctor thing, of course you'd have to do more, just like what we should do on global warming rather then just dismissing it as a hoax.
1) Is global warming a hoax?? Im really not sure either way.
2) If I was sure it was a fact and not a hoax, what would I do about it? How much difference can I really make? I still have to get to work, I still have to earn money. There are certain things I cant cut back on. Even scientist cant agree on ways to cut back Carbon. Ethanol is by some scientific figures WORSE than gasoline. No real alternative are currently out there.
3)If its not a hoax why am I going to tax myself, spend more of my hard earned money on fuel and a much smaller house and the food I eat and all that when the rest of the world is not? China? You cant make them. Why cut my throat and bleed out while they(and not just them)enjoy even more success in the world? And at the same time AL Gore is jet setting around the world?? Hello....teleconferencing??
2) It doesn't matter if you or I think it is a hoax or not, we can save money on energy by insulating and using more energy efficient products today. (I have and will do more as I get more funds to do so) The savings alone should compensate even more so for the rising prices as we might be running out of oil with the increased demand from China and India and other developing nations.
3) Renewable energy does cost more then coal,(it is cheaper then nuclear) but this cost does mean that there will be skilled and relatively clean jobs available locally rather then supporting dictators in countries like Saudi Arabia.
I have looked at some of the numbers available on wikipedia and to me it seems probable that the doubling of CO2 will have an impact on our climate. To me the numbers seem quite plausible. There are many other factors that would make it hard to make accurate predictions.
1) Where did your number of 97% come from? Just curious.
2) Saving a little money on insulating your house is not going to be enough. Have you not heard of the costs of ofsetting your carbon and some of the idea that have been passed around where you would be alloted a certain number of carbon units and once you ran out you had to purchase unused units from other people who had extra...and crazy crap like that? I mean who isn't trying to save a little energy when they can. I turn my lights off when Im not in a room, I have a programmable thermostat. But buying carbon points?? From China and underdeveloped Asian and African countries?? Im not for that. Nor am I for increasing the tax on gas or mileage. Thats not going to keep the wealthy from using up all the gas they want and it is going to hurt people like me who have to go to work every day.
3) I already use solar, but it doesn't power my car does it? Give me an alternative.
2) Oh I have added insulation, changed my heater, air conditioner and light bulbs. And I am the first to agree that it is not nearly enough. But it has reduced my bills significantly and I expect to have saved enough on my bills to pay for it in less then 7 years (including the interest I could have earned if I had put the money in a bank) Carbon trading is the proposed option. The U.S. along with the industrialized world would do quite well out of it as the proposals stand today -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
3) Solar already powers your car, it uses the energy saved in fossil fuel ;) But seriously there are alternatives, like hydrogen, battery, both of them would require far more electrical power being generated.
I would like to add that I do expect that fuel prices will rise and that electric/hydrogen cars will become an attractive alternative. A smart government would develop the infrastructure needed together with industry today. Look at the cost for oil now, while we are in a recession, what will the price be when we get out of it? (if we ever do)
If these alternative were so realistic and affordable then you would not have to shove it down peoples throats. People would clamber all over themselves to get it if it were as easy and reliable and affordable as you seem to imply.
I suggest you have look at what the emission trading does, the aim is to reduce greenhouse gases, a nice thing for the U.S. (and the free world) is that it would rob dictators from their source of income.
Please explain to me how buying "carbon points" from 3rd world underdeveloped countries helps keep the money in the US?
It seems to me that it is a tax of sorts where as industrialized countries such as the US will have to pay say Sudan or Zimbabwe money for their unused "carbon points". I dont see how that keeps the money in the US.
The carbon point are awarded based on current levels, the U.S. (and Canada) use far more right now then the rest of the world. Those countries who produce more can more easily reduce their emissions then countries who start with a lower share. The U.S. (and Canada) can then be selling those carbon points rather then buying them. (But only if we reduce our emissions rather then increase them)
And our industries will move to countries that have carbon points that are not using them, that would be one way for the US to cut carbon emissions right? Then if people lose their jobs they wont have to drive to work, further cutting carbon emissions? If they dont have a job they probably cant afford that nice house, or even pay their electrical bills which will eventually give us extra carbon points that individuals can sell for food maybe?? That sounds like a great system...unrealistic but great....I hope I never live to see it!
Maybe, but the U.S. can easier make savings then a country that does not have heavy industry. So rather then moving it is more likely that those industries will be just as concentrated in the industrialized world, making it harder for the developing world.
Now if a company shifting their operations from the U.S. to another country might get to keep their points, and their only benefit would then be the cheap labor in those countries, so there would be no difference there. (we can't compete with 2 dollar a day wages as it is)
If they do not get to keep those points it would free those points up to other companies, reducing the cost for the other companies, while increasing the cost for the country they go to.
I am not an expert, but to me it seems that the loser in carbon trading is the developing world as they are not given an equal share of points to begin with.
You and jon are doing a fine job here, but I have to point out here that we have lots of oil in the US to use if we chose to. The Only reason we don't use it is because of the Al Gores of the country. It costs only $25.00 to $45.00 per barrel in direct costs to get oil to a refinery, but taxes add 6% to 60% depending on the state and worst of all, legal costs from Greens lawsuits can run as high as $40.00 per barrel. (assumes the oil company wins every suit.) So, what the Al Gores couldn't shut down by government action, they shut down with trial lawyers. After they made it too expensive to drill in the US, (and ruined Canada's oil industry in the process) they try to tell us that there is an oil shortage. They are liars and thieves that have let their personal greed overwhelm any good they may have ever done.
[0 points]2 years ago by JWBrothersReplyEdited 2 years ago by JWBrothers
Not many people are as smart or rich as Al Gore. Your (subconscious?) aim was to ridicule. That is why you got the -1.
Now you might think that extracting oil from the tar sands is great and that we should pollute at will, I do strongly disagree, but I would not vote you down for that.
While it's true that Al Gore is an easy target, I was making the point that I believe he and his ilk are a destructive force. And I was deadly serious.
Extracting oil from tar sands is not the same as polluting at will. And extracting oil from the shark infested waters off Florida is not the same as polluting at will. In fact, extracting oil from anywhere is not the same as polluting at will. Don't lump them together. That kind of thing is why about half the people in most surveys think wackos goes with environmentalists. There are plenty of environmental standards that are legitimate needs. We weaken our case by demonizing certain industries.
United States
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI posted this question after my last two about Gore were deleted.
Would fine it hard to believe that he ever run again. He did invest the web. We can thank him for that. :)
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyHe did indeed INVEST in the web. Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship.
History has now clearly shown that he was a visionary Congressman back then.
Uhhh....yea.....maybe back then....
There is no maybe about it. Of course that is no indication that he is right or wrong about anything else, but the people ridiculing him for what he did do back then, specially when they are using the technology that he helped push forward, just makes it clear just how stupid they are.
First off....its pretty stupid of him to make the claim that he invented the internet (direct quote was "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"). Or to assert that he even helped invent the internet. What he did was understand how useful it could be and helped with some legislation. Wow...he didn't do that all on his own. One congressman can NOT pass legislation on anything. I was on CompuServe back in 1984...did I invent the internet??
Secondly...Hes a "Global Warming Hack". If hes flying around on business jets, driving SUVs, and living in a mansion the size of the size of the Dallas Cowboys new stadium (ok, slight exaggeration there on my part) then he has ZERO business telling me that I need to cut back on anything! Thats like Bill Clinton telling me I shouldn't have extramarital affairs.
And he did take the initiative, even the inventors acknowledge that he did.
You call it a global warming hack, 97% of the scientist involved in the research disagree. I use far less resources then he does, now when I say that global warming will have a negative impact on the world as a whole, does that make it any more credible to you?
I am relying on the experts here, if you went to 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that you have cancer and should do something about it, would you go with their advise or with the three who didn't? As for me I would go with the consensus, unless I was sick of living.
When I go to church and the preacher says I should give my money to the church and I see him driving a really nice car, living in a really nice house, and his wife is all dolled up in the latest fashions....I feel like the guy is a hypocrite and I look for another church, where people at least attempt to live like they say I should live.
At least in your case you may actually believe what your saying and you may be actually trying to cut down on your "carbon footprint". That does not make you correct in your belief but it does prevent you from being an out and out hypocrite. Kudos to you!
So, when I go to MY 100 doctors and 97 of them tell me that Im dying of cancer and that I need treatment X. I don't automatically get treatment X. I ask the doctor how long will I live and what is my quality of life If I do get the treatment verses if I don't get the treatment. If the doctor tells me that my life expectancy will only be marginally improved while my quality of life will go down, then why would I want the treatment??
I agree with you about the preacher thing, I have not seen any myself who are like that though. (I don't listen much to any one telling how I should live my life) but in the case of Al Gore, he is in a no win situation in this regard. If he invests in green technology it is because he wants to make money out of a hoax and if he doesn't he is a hypocrite for not putting his money where his mouth is. As for me I ignore people like him because of the controversy they tend to create, I listen to the message once and then go of to figure out a little more behind the hype. And that brings me to your actions on the doctor thing, of course you'd have to do more, just like what we should do on global warming rather then just dismissing it as a hoax.
1) Is global warming a hoax?? Im really not sure either way.
2) If I was sure it was a fact and not a hoax, what would I do about it? How much difference can I really make? I still have to get to work, I still have to earn money. There are certain things I cant cut back on. Even scientist cant agree on ways to cut back Carbon. Ethanol is by some scientific figures WORSE than gasoline. No real alternative are currently out there.
3)If its not a hoax why am I going to tax myself, spend more of my hard earned money on fuel and a much smaller house and the food I eat and all that when the rest of the world is not? China? You cant make them. Why cut my throat and bleed out while they(and not just them)enjoy even more success in the world? And at the same time AL Gore is jet setting around the world?? Hello....teleconferencing??
1) 97% of the experts think it is not a hoax.
2) It doesn't matter if you or I think it is a hoax or not, we can save money on energy by insulating and using more energy efficient products today. (I have and will do more as I get more funds to do so) The savings alone should compensate even more so for the rising prices as we might be running out of oil with the increased demand from China and India and other developing nations.
3) Renewable energy does cost more then coal,(it is cheaper then nuclear) but this cost does mean that there will be skilled and relatively clean jobs available locally rather then supporting dictators in countries like Saudi Arabia.
I have looked at some of the numbers available on wikipedia and to me it seems probable that the doubling of CO2 will have an impact on our climate. To me the numbers seem quite plausible. There are many other factors that would make it hard to make accurate predictions.
1) Where did your number of 97% come from? Just curious.
2) Saving a little money on insulating your house is not going to be enough. Have you not heard of the costs of ofsetting your carbon and some of the idea that have been passed around where you would be alloted a certain number of carbon units and once you ran out you had to purchase unused units from other people who had extra...and crazy crap like that? I mean who isn't trying to save a little energy when they can. I turn my lights off when Im not in a room, I have a programmable thermostat. But buying carbon points?? From China and underdeveloped Asian and African countries?? Im not for that. Nor am I for increasing the tax on gas or mileage. Thats not going to keep the wealthy from using up all the gas they want and it is going to hurt people like me who have to go to work every day.
3) I already use solar, but it doesn't power my car does it? Give me an alternative.
The 97% came from wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
2) Oh I have added insulation, changed my heater, air conditioner and light bulbs. And I am the first to agree that it is not nearly enough. But it has reduced my bills significantly and I expect to have saved enough on my bills to pay for it in less then 7 years (including the interest I could have earned if I had put the money in a bank) Carbon trading is the proposed option. The U.S. along with the industrialized world would do quite well out of it as the proposals stand today -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
3) Solar already powers your car, it uses the energy saved in fossil fuel ;) But seriously there are alternatives, like hydrogen, battery, both of them would require far more electrical power being generated.
I would like to add that I do expect that fuel prices will rise and that electric/hydrogen cars will become an attractive alternative. A smart government would develop the infrastructure needed together with industry today. Look at the cost for oil now, while we are in a recession, what will the price be when we get out of it? (if we ever do)
If these alternative were so realistic and affordable then you would not have to shove it down peoples throats. People would clamber all over themselves to get it if it were as easy and reliable and affordable as you seem to imply.
I suggest you have look at what the emission trading does, the aim is to reduce greenhouse gases, a nice thing for the U.S. (and the free world) is that it would rob dictators from their source of income.
And just how do you think it is going to help the US??
It will help you by keeping the money in the U.S. instead of sending the money it to dictators. (or to socialist countries like Canada)
Please explain to me how buying "carbon points" from 3rd world underdeveloped countries helps keep the money in the US?
It seems to me that it is a tax of sorts where as industrialized countries such as the US will have to pay say Sudan or Zimbabwe money for their unused "carbon points". I dont see how that keeps the money in the US.
The carbon point are awarded based on current levels, the U.S. (and Canada) use far more right now then the rest of the world. Those countries who produce more can more easily reduce their emissions then countries who start with a lower share. The U.S. (and Canada) can then be selling those carbon points rather then buying them. (But only if we reduce our emissions rather then increase them)
And our industries will move to countries that have carbon points that are not using them, that would be one way for the US to cut carbon emissions right? Then if people lose their jobs they wont have to drive to work, further cutting carbon emissions? If they dont have a job they probably cant afford that nice house, or even pay their electrical bills which will eventually give us extra carbon points that individuals can sell for food maybe?? That sounds like a great system...unrealistic but great....I hope I never live to see it!
Maybe, but the U.S. can easier make savings then a country that does not have heavy industry. So rather then moving it is more likely that those industries will be just as concentrated in the industrialized world, making it harder for the developing world.
Now if a company shifting their operations from the U.S. to another country might get to keep their points, and their only benefit would then be the cheap labor in those countries, so there would be no difference there. (we can't compete with 2 dollar a day wages as it is)
If they do not get to keep those points it would free those points up to other companies, reducing the cost for the other companies, while increasing the cost for the country they go to.
I am not an expert, but to me it seems that the loser in carbon trading is the developing world as they are not given an equal share of points to begin with.
You and jon are doing a fine job here, but I have to point out here that we have lots of oil in the US to use if we chose to. The Only reason we don't use it is because of the Al Gores of the country. It costs only $25.00 to $45.00 per barrel in direct costs to get oil to a refinery, but taxes add 6% to 60% depending on the state and worst of all, legal costs from Greens lawsuits can run as high as $40.00 per barrel. (assumes the oil company wins every suit.) So, what the Al Gores couldn't shut down by government action, they shut down with trial lawyers. After they made it too expensive to drill in the US, (and ruined Canada's oil industry in the process) they try to tell us that there is an oil shortage. They are liars and thieves that have let their personal greed overwhelm any good they may have ever done.
-1
Why do you say that? You generally want to be well informed.
Because you use emotional terms like the "all gores of the country"
That was "Al Gores of the country".
It means those that think and act like Al Gore; a significant number, but not all rich environmentalists.
Not many people are as smart or rich as Al Gore. Your (subconscious?) aim was to ridicule. That is why you got the -1.
Now you might think that extracting oil from the tar sands is great and that we should pollute at will, I do strongly disagree, but I would not vote you down for that.
While it's true that Al Gore is an easy target, I was making the point that I believe he and his ilk are a destructive force. And I was deadly serious.
Extracting oil from tar sands is not the same as polluting at will. And extracting oil from the shark infested waters off Florida is not the same as polluting at will. In fact, extracting oil from anywhere is not the same as polluting at will. Don't lump them together. That kind of thing is why about half the people in most surveys think wackos goes with environmentalists. There are plenty of environmental standards that are legitimate needs. We weaken our case by demonizing certain industries.
Yes, why shouldn't he or any one else for that matter?
Should he? No...he has no chance.
Would I care if he did? No...he has no chance.
I said no as he should run the United Nations instead. Only he has the vision and clout to stop global warming....