David Roberts shows Your media at work:

People magazine reports that Al Gore’s daughter Sarah just got married, revealing in the course of the article that Chilean sea bass was served at the rehearsal dinner.

In the Daily Telegraph, Australian Humane Society Rebecca Keeble writes that “only one week after Live Earth, Al Gore’s green credentials slipped.” Why? Because Chilean sea bass is endangered.

ABC politics columnist Jake Tapper, smelling the kind of vapid, gimmicky story upon which his profession thrives, asks, “could this be seen as the environmentalist version of Sen. David Vitter’s public sanctimony/private enjoyment of love with a red-lit glow?”

Blogger Digby points out, “Unless somebody at the wedding was schtupping the fish wearing a diaper, I’m not sure I see the analogy.”

Sierra Club’s Pat Joseph traces the fallout:

It doesn’t take long for Tapper’s readers to remind him that: a) the groom’s family throws the rehearsal dinner, not the bride’s; b) while sea bass is indeed a fishery of serious environmental concern, some of the fish are certified by the Marine Stewardship Council; and c) Jake Tapper is a two-bit hack.

Also:

But the fish enjoyed by the Gores were not endangered or illegally caught.

Rather, the restaurant later confirmed, they had come from one of the world’s few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations.

Allow me to connect some dots here. How did the story get from People into an Australian tabloid? And how did it get from there to Jake Tapper?

I did a Factiva search and found that this was the first time that the Daily Telegraph had ever printed an opinion piece from the Humane Society International, so I called Rebecca Keeble and asked her about the genesis of the piece. It seems that the first she heard about the matter was when she was contacted by the Daily Telegraph, told that Gore had served Chilean sea bass, and was invited to write an opinion piece. She didn’t want to tell me who it was who commissioned the piece, but it’s not hard to figure out. You see, the opinion editor of the Daily Telegraph is Gore-hater Tim Blair. He first blogged about the story here. Then he contacted Keeble and put her opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph. Next he put up a post linking to Keeble’s piece. Then it was picked by Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge who can be relied upon to run with any anti-Gore story they come across. Once Drudge had linked it, Tapper knew it was OK for him to run with the story. And that’s how it’s done.

This isn’t the first time that Blair has used his position as opinion editor at the Daily Telegraph to advance his own personal agenda. See this post from Irfan Yusuf, on how Blair told Yusuf that the Telegraph would no longer publish him because Blair felt that he had been criticised on Yusuf’s blog.

Comments

  1. #1 ben
    July 21, 2007

    When was the last time a liberal critic of Bush had to resort to pointing out that he has big ears?

    Having big ears isn’t something a person can help. Being fat is.

    George W Bush says he’s concerned about malnutrition in the third world – is he a hypocrite for not starving himself?

    No, because he’s not fat. If he was gorging himself like fat-body Gore (I actually never thought he was fat, I’m just jumping on the bandwagon), then yes, he’d be a hypocrite.

  2. #2 nanny_govt_sucks
    July 21, 2007

    Generation Investment Management purchases offsets to cover its own emissions and the emissions of all its employees (including Gore) from an independent external company in which they have no investment.

    OK, now the picture is becoming a bit more clear…

    Gore doesn’t purchase any carbon “offsets”.

    His company does this for him, at no expense to Gore.

    In the meantime, Gore is telling the rest of us, and especially the poor who cannot afford to purchase these “offsets”, to sacrifice.

    Do I have it right now?

  3. #3 JC
    July 21, 2007

    Ian

    Do you now think a 10,000 Sq foot home is about equal to a 2000 sq foor home. If Tn people use more power, obviously becasue of the warm clime, it ought to be more of a reason for the big fella to live in smaller quarters that are environmentally sustainable Don’t you think? Or is 10,000 roughly equal to 2000.

    We’re talking about a person deeply concerned about the planet here, right? The big guy said himself that it is possibly the most important moral issue we’re dealing with in our time….

    I don’t quite know if he said this as he was alighting from the Google jet.

    ———————

    Ben

    Lot’s of us don’t quite take fat people that seriously when they’re trying to lecture us thin ones. As for making fun of people, wasn’t it Al Franken who wrote a book calling it “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat liar”. Al of course is so hot as a comedian that he’s looking for a government job in he senate.

    Isn’t there someone you guys could support that has good credentials as a greenie other than Algore. Surely Ralph Nader is a person many of us would disagree with but also respect his honesty and integrity as a decent guy. I hate his policies but I sure like him.

  4. #4 SG
    July 21, 2007

    Libertarian definition of hypocisy:

    rich white man advocating market-based measures to solve a serious problem uses those market-based measures in his own approach to that serious problem.

    Libertarian definition of impossible:

    rich people choosing to buy products certified by a free-market process as safe for the environment

    The rest of the world’s definition of a bunch of crackpot idiots who just want a big fat tax cut:

    libertarians

  5. #5 Ian Gould
    July 22, 2007

    I am not defending Gore because he’s a representative for green issues.

    I’m defending him because he’s being unfairly smeared.

    When Dick Cheney was accused of deriving a financial benefit from the Iraqi War because of his deferred compensation from Haliburton I defended him too. Because, the attack was an unfair smear.

    I guess that makes me an apologist for the war in Iraq.

    Criticise Gore because of his shady fund-raising activities back in the 90′s; ask him to justify taking money from Apple and Google while those companies knuckle under to Chinese demands to cesnor their content. Point out the hypocrisy around family’s withdrawal from the tobacco industry. (Al tells a moving story about how he promised his sister as she lay dying of lung cancer that he’d get the family of of this tobacco industry. He doesn’t mention it took him 10 years to do so.)

    Above all, criticise him for losing waht should have been the unloseable 2000 election and letting the current incompetent take power.

    But don’t waste my time with “Al Gore is Fat!”; and nonsensical garbage about sea bass and don’t spread imbecilic lies about offsets trading.

    As others have said, offsets are an economically efficient market-based way to address global warming. They’re exactly what libertarians claim to support but as usual they’ve swallowed Republican talking points whole and just keep parrotting this nonsense.

  6. #6 Ian Gould
    July 22, 2007

    “His company does this for him, at no expense to Gore.

    In the meantime, Gore is telling the rest of us, and especially the poor who cannot afford to purchase these “offsets”, to sacrifice.

    Do I have it right now?”

    No.

    The company which he financed in the first place and for which he works for no salary pays for offsets not just for him but for all its employs, thereby cutting the profit he derives from the company.

    Or maybe you think putting in several million dollars in seed capital and devoting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of his time every year is just a clever wheeze to avoid spending $3-4000 a year on offsets.

  7. #7 Ian Gould
    July 22, 2007

    Let’s all take note of JC’s singular swinish and dishonest behaviour.

    first he claims its impossible to trace the origin of fish and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

    It’s pointed out to him that its actually quite easy to do so.

    He doesn’t apologise for his personal attacks.

    He basically accuses me of lying when I say that energy use in Tennesseee is higher than the US average.

    I prove that he’s talking nonsense, as usual.

    He doesn’t apologise.

    This sort of arrogance and stupidity is exactly why I hold most libertarians (I’ve met exceptions) in such contempt.

    JC is not doing his cause any favors here.

  8. #8 Sortition
    July 22, 2007

    Ian says:

    Yes, global warming is a major problem and the consequences of failing to address it will be disastrous. Fortunately, technology and market-based economics (such as offsets) will allow us to address the problem – provided we act soon.

    What is the basis for this claim? Is there scientific literature on this matter?

    (Also, less importantly but of interest in the present context, would this still be true if the average American increased their home energy consumption 2, 5, 10 or 20-fold?)

  9. #9 Sortition
    July 22, 2007

    Also, Ian, your what is the source for your statement that

    the “average” US household has only 1.33 members

    ?

    According to the [US Statistical Abstract](http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/07statab/pop.pdf “Table 57″) there are 2.57 persons per household.

  10. #10 Ian Gould
    July 22, 2007

    “What is the basis for this claim? Is there scientific literature on this matter?”

    At the risk of getting Tim Curtin involved, read the Stern Report and various other economic analyses which predict that a long term approach to reducing emissions based on market-based economics would reduce economic growth by around 0.1% per annum.

    “(Also, less importantly but of interest in the present context, would this still be true if the average American increased their home energy consumption 2, 5, 10 or 20-fold?)”

    Does the average American have a full-time security detail; several secretaries and a live-in domestic staff living in their house? Are they expecting to host visiting diplomats and Heads of State? Do they sit on the boards of multiple high tech companies? Do they make documentaries and have a home theatre with full editing facilities for this purpose?

    Al Gore is rich. Rich people consume more resources than poor people. No-one except Marxists (and apparently libertarians) has a a problem with that provided they came by their wealth honestly.

  11. #11 Ian Gould
    July 22, 2007

    “Also, Ian, your what is the source for your statement…”

    Ironically I was relying on a statement made on another forum – by a libertarian.

    The actual figure for Tennessee is 2.48 which is actually slightly lower than the national average.

    JC take note: I made a mistake. I admitted it. I didn’t engage in personal abuse, change the subject or compare the person correcting me to Stalin.

  12. #12 ben
    July 22, 2007

    Al Gore is rich. Rich people consume more resources than poor people. No-one except Marxists (and apparently libertarians) has a a problem with that provided they came by their wealth honestly.

    I only have a problem with it because he came by his wealth by being fat.
    :)

    Ian, sounds like you’re winning here, mostly. For me, the honest truth is that I simply don’t like Gore. I don’t like most of his liberal ideals, and I’ll take any and all fair reasons to criticize the guy. I don’t like his stances on Social Security, Health Care, Gun Control, and most others. I used to know where I stood on “global warming,” but I”m not so sure any more. I’m not convinced yet, but I’m open.

  13. #13 dhogaza
    July 22, 2007

    I used to know where I stood on “global warming,” but I”m not so sure any more. I’m not convinced yet, but I’m open.

    How are you doing on the shape of the earth? Flat? Or are you open to the possibility it might be roughly spherical in shape?

    Any other basic science 101 kinda stuff you need help on?

  14. #14 Jc
    July 22, 2007

    Fair enough Ian, we all make mistakes: no issue there.

    I’m with Ben in respect to Gore. I have been observing him since 1988. I also don’t like him. I think he’s a big phoney as he doesn’t live the way he expects others to live. This preach what i say, not how I do only goes so far and Gore has been up to these tricks for almost all his public life.

    I disagree with people like Ralph Nader but I respect his devotion to his ideals. He is an honest person.

    ———————–
    SG says

    “rich white man advocating market-based measures to solve a serious problem uses those market-based measures in his own approach to that serious problem. ”

    Untrue, SG. It’s a dishonest representation of Libertarian beliefs. You may want to answer those questions I left you some time ago before you make silly statements like this that have more to do with impulsive emotions

    SG…. Can you please explain why healthcare would not respond to market forces?

  15. #15 Jc
    July 22, 2007

    Now let’s get back to the butcher block. Ian says:

    “first he claims its impossible to trace the origin of fish and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.”

    Ah not really, Ian. I am saying that it could be a bit difficult to know exactly where they originate, but certainly not impossible. In fact after a little back and forth we know there was endangered fish on the table for tubby AL to feast on.

    ————————

    “It’s pointed out to him that its actually quite easy to do so.”

    See above about difficulty levels. Please note that I also said that chefs (not all) might not even be that interested.

    ———————

    “He doesn’t apologise for his personal attacks.”

    You mean like apologizing for misspelling someone’s name and subsequently getting called an areshole by the same guy, a troll by others etc. Surely you jest, right?

    ———————

    “He basically accuses me of lying when I say that energy use in Tennessee is higher than the US average.”

    No. I tried to point out that he lives in a big house. It’s four times the US average, which if your figures work out would argue that I am right- that he is indeed wasteful seeing he thinks AGW is the moral imperative of our era. I’m only judging him by his own standards.

    ————————

    “I prove that he’s talking nonsense, as usual.”

    Reall?. You still have explained how 10,000 sq feet is about the same as 2400 sq feet.

    —————————–

    He doesn’t apologise.

    What ever for? Because I’m right. Well ok, Sorry that I’m right, Ian.

    ——————————-

    “This sort of arrogance and stupidity is exactly why I hold most libertarians (I’ve met exceptions) in such contempt.”

    Ian, please.

    ————————

    “JC is not doing his cause any favors here.”

    I certainly wouldn’t be using you to judge the argument.

  16. #16 SG
    July 22, 2007

    Jc, it is you and Ben who are dishonestly representing libertarian beliefs, not me, because it is you and Ben who claimed Al Gore is a hypocrite for using in his own life the kind of free market measures which he advocates others use. As for this:

    I am saying that it could be a bit difficult to know exactly where they originate, but certainly not impossible. In fact after a little back and forth we know there was endangered fish on the table for tubby AL to feast on

    You were shown where to look up the methods for doing this, it was pointed out to you that it is done in a wide variety of areas of industry, and it was further observed that this is the sort of market-based program you should like. But you still claim it can’t work. Where is your evidence that it can’t be done, and that and endangered fish was on Al’s table?

    See, when you argue like this – presenting a lie, having the lie refuted with facts, and then claiming it was you who presented facts supporting your own view – you earn yourself the appellation “troll”. Also, “stupid.”

  17. #17 dhogaza
    July 22, 2007

    I am saying that it could be a bit difficult to know exactly where they originate, but certainly not impossible. In fact after a little back and forth we know there was endangered fish on the table for tubby AL to feast on.

    Now we know you’re just lying.

    Is lying for libertarianism more or less vile than lying for jesus, as creationists/IDists do?

  18. #18 SG
    July 22, 2007

    dhogaza, I say more vile. Because libertarians pretend to be the big pure-sighted skeptical movement of the enlightened era, their view of the harsh realities of modern life unclouded by terror of living truly free.

  19. #19 jc
    July 22, 2007

    Sg says:

    “See, when you argue like this – presenting a lie, having the lie refuted with facts, and then claiming it was you who presented facts supporting your own view – you earn yourself the appellation “troll”. Also, “stupid.”"

    It really is like arguing with a pet rock with you isn’t it.

    There is no free market in those endangered fish variety because there is very little segmentation of property rights in the fish catching business. Fishing is a tragedy of the commons writ large. It’s a race to catch the largest number of fish before the other guy gets the last one. So arguing that I am avoiding the issue about free markets in this example is just evidence that I can’t see how it would be possible to explain that you and hope you would understand it. That’s because you can’t and have never shown any desires other than to be a mendacious twerp.

    You’re being silly when you think the free market is helping protect those species listed because of the help of that website or that Americans will eat fewer of that species once they know. That’s tiny part of the story. Those fewer fish not sold to the US market will end up somewhere else… in places where the people don’t give rats. Demand isn’t the problem, loose property rights are.

    Fishing is a tragic case of loose or no property rights combined with government command and control systems….. of limits and other regulations. The further on we continue with this global mess there will be less fish until there won’t be any.

    So don’t think that it is only Chilean Bass that are becoming endangered or those just listed on that silly website. I’ll go further and say the whole bloody lot is. Every single species is endangered while we continue to follow the current path.

    That said.

    Do you now have an answer as to why you think Healthcare cannot respond to market forces or are running away from that too?

  20. #20 SG
    July 22, 2007

    Jc, you weren’t asked to explain the tragedy of the commons, you were asked to explain how Al Gore was being a hypocrite. You now admit that he did eat a sustainably farmed fish, and your only complaint appears to be that he didn’t simultaneously demand libertarian property rights. But no-one’s listening, Jc, because he advocates a free market solution for global warming and you hate him for it.

    Jc, I’m leaving healthcare discussion for the other thread. You taking too many amphetamines?

  21. #21 jc
    July 22, 2007

    “Jc, you weren’t asked to explain the tragedy of the commons, you were asked to explain how Al Gore was being a hypocrite”

    Really? Actually this was the comment/question in your last comment.

    “You were shown where to look up the methods for doing this, it was pointed out to you that it is done in a wide variety of areas of industry, and it was further observed that this is the sort of market-based program you should like. But you still claim it can’t work. Where is your evidence that it can’t be done, and that and endangered fish was on Al’s table?”

    “You now admit that he did eat a sustainably farmed fish,”

    No. I didn’t admit to anything in the past comment as I said I was highlighting your obvious lack of understanding the issues.

    “and your only complaint appears to be that he didn’t simultaneously demand libertarian property rights.”

    Well actually it’s not a complaint. Your lack of comprehension skills is obvious. I calmly explained why, without properly constituted property rights, we should consider every edible fish species endangered. You seemed to miss that.

    ——————-

    “But no-one’s listening, Jc, because he advocates a free market solution for global warming and you hate him for it.”

    See? Here we are talking about Algore, Fish and a Wedding ( no, not the movie SG) and you tangentially go off talking about AGW and how Al’s support for Kyoto is somehow a free market solution to global warming. (note it’s not a global warming thread)

    ————————

    “Jc, I’m leaving healthcare discussion for the other thread. You taking too many amphetamines?”

    Don’t be silly. All I’m doing is replying to your incoherent comment.

    Seriously do you even know how the market process works. Don’t be scared now. Markets shouldn’t acare you SG.

  22. #22 Davis
    July 22, 2007

    In fact after a little back and forth we know there was endangered fish on the table for tubby AL to feast on.

    Okay, I’m going to stop lurking this thread to wonder where this gem of absurdity came from. It’s clear from the discussion at this point that (a) Chilean sea bass is not endangered, (b) Gore’s fish was sustainably caught, and (c) you’re an idiot.

  23. #23 Hank Roberts
    July 22, 2007

    You flatter him. He’s a troll.
    Dang, I just fed him, too.

  24. #24 dhogaza
    July 22, 2007

    Those fewer fish not sold to the US market will end up somewhere else… in places where the people don’t give rats.

    Sustainable fisheries are controlled by limiting the catch, not sales, dumfkuss.

  25. #25 ben
    July 22, 2007

    How are you doing on the shape of the earth? Flat? Or are you open to the possibility it might be roughly spherical in shape?

    The science of the shape of the earth isn’t 90% certain.

    Besides, dhogaza, I didn’t say what aspect of climate change I wasn’t convinced about. It’s not that I’m convinced it isn’t happening, it’s that I’m not convinced that there will be dyer consequences for it.

    Try not to be such a dick next time.

  26. #26 Sortition
    July 22, 2007

    Ian – Ok, thanks – I’ll have a look at the review.

    As for:

    Does the average American have a full-time security detail; several secretaries and a live-in domestic staff living in their house? Are they expecting to host visiting diplomats and Heads of State? Do they sit on the boards of multiple high tech companies? Do they make documentaries and have a home theatre with full editing facilities for this purpose?

    Al Gore is rich. Rich people consume more resources than poor people. No-one except Marxists (and apparently libertarians) has a a problem with that provided they came by their wealth honestly.

    I have several issues with that.

    First, if there are many people in your household, that will be reflected in the household’s energy consumption, rich or not. Let Gore make that point, disclosing roughly how many people spend how much time in the house (since there are many non-secret service people there, that shouldn’t be a security breach, even if you buy that hush-hush storyline, which I don’t), and what equipment in the house consumes unusually large quantities of energy.

    Secondly, I don’t see why visiting diplomats should consume more energy than the average visiting guest, so that should be part of the disclosure above.

    Thirdly, I am not a Marxist and I do have a problem with Gore or any other rich guy emitting more than the average person. This point actually undermines the rest of your argument – this is exactly the point of his critics. It is one thing to claim that because of his activities, which are beneficial to society, he naturally emits more. It is another thing to claim that just because he is rich he can legitimately emit more.

    Fourthly, “came by their wealth honestly”? I see nothing particularly honest about inheriting your wealth. I wonder what is the moral principle which you would use to justify the honesty of inherited privilege.

  27. #27 nanny_govt_sucks
    July 22, 2007

    The company which he financed in the first place and for which he works for no salary pays for offsets not just for him but for all its employs, thereby cutting the profit he derives from the company.

    Where’s your source for this statement, Ian? It is my understanding that Gore does not reveal his personal financial information.

    And just how are these “offsets” purchased by GIM quantified? My understanding is that many of the “offsets” are “educational” – informing more and more people about Gore’s apocalypic AGW vision, thereby drawing more and more people to the stocks that GIM invests in, thereby benefiting Gore’s company! What a scam!

  28. #28 Boris
    July 22, 2007

    My understanding is that many of the “offsets” are “educational” – informing more and more people about Gore’s apocalypic AGW vision…What a scam!

    Apparently you have concluded it’s a scam without doing any kind of investigation whatsoever. GIM buys offsets from CarbonNeutral. CarbonNeutral invests the money in sustainable energy projects like wind power in India and hydroelectric in Bulgaria. They also engage in projects such as methane capture from agriculture in Germany and methane capture from Gateway Coal Mine in Pennsylvania.

    The more you know….

  29. #29 jc
    July 22, 2007

    Here we have Hank and Dohaza showing why it’s always best to not post silly comments as they could be around for a long time.

    Hank

    Proves that a horse can be led to water but won’t necessarily take a drink.

    Err, Hank go read your link again. It actually warns the seriousness of Bass depletion as a result of illegal fishing despite controls etc.. In other words it kind of backs up an earlier link that people should lay off eating bass because we simply don’t know what has happened to those stocks.

    Here’s Hogaza making another startling observation:

    “Sustainable fisheries are controlled by limiting the catch, not sales, dumfkuss”

    Which are not properly constituted property rights and will still continue to result in global fish depletion. It’s a good reason why we don’t run short of cattle but are doing so with sea food at a scary rate.

    Here’s my prediction: Global fish stocks will continue to deplete at a faster rate than anyone thought possible= despite even more stringent government induced controls. This will happen even if the big Fella goes off seafood.

  30. #30 dhogaza
    July 23, 2007

    In which JC compounds his ignorance …

    “Sustainable fisheries are controlled by limiting the catch, not sales, dumfkuss”

    Which are not properly constituted property rights and will still continue to result in global fish depletion.

    Actually, many sustainable fisheries are managed by licensing rights to fish. That license and the right to catch fish associated asoociated with that license are property of the boat owner.

    Fisheries managed in this way do quite well if government chooses to manage them sustainably (the halibut fishery in alaska’s a good example, which is also managed to provide a steady supply of live fish to the market, which sells for a higher price than frozen fish).

    It’s a good reason why we don’t run short of cattle but are doing so with sea food at a scary rate.

    Pelagic fisheries suffer because there is no way to control fishing in them. They lie outside controlled waters, and thus far there has been no success in cobbling together effective treaties to so manage such fisheries.

    Here’s my prediction: Global fish stocks will continue to deplete at a faster rate than anyone thought possible= despite even more stringent government induced controls.

    You’ll lose because you’re basing your prediction on a non-existing precondition. There are no “stringent government-induced controls” on pelagic fisheries in international waters, that’s the problem. Regulation – combined with enforcement, could solve that problem.

    On the other hand, sustainable fisheries are possible, as has been shown with one chilean sea bass fishery (most aren’t run sustainably, but Al ate one from the the one fishery which is well-managed), with halibut, with Pacific salmon (wild salmon problems are due to habitat issues, not the fishery, which is strictly controlled but which is reactionary, not proactive, because of said habitat issues), etc.

    Since you don’t know the first thing about fisheries, fish biology, conservation biology, etc and since this ignorance of all things relating to conservation biology appears to be endemic within the libertarian camp, why the hell would anyone with even a smidgeon of knowledge support your party?

    Oh, and since Fat Al and Fat Michael (Moore) are smart, is it OK to point out that you’re stupid because you’re skinny?

    Not enough nutrients flowing to the brain, obviously.

    Have fun demonstrating your ignorance to the world this week. I’m going on a road trip to northern spain, sans internet, but with binoculars and camera to enjoy some of that natural world biology shit that you so clearly know absolutely nothing about.

  31. #31 dhogaza
    July 23, 2007

    In which JC exhibits his reading comprehension problem (absent which there’s no way he’d be a libertarian):

    Hogaza

    Ahem. Twice now you’ve not gotten my handle right. It’s not that hard. There are only seven letters in it.

    Err, Hank go read your link again. It actually warns the seriousness of Bass depletion as a result of illegal fishing despite controls etc.. In other words it kind of backs up an earlier link that people should lay off eating bass because we simply don’t know what has happened to those stocks.

    Well, it wasn’t Hank’s link, it was linked by someone else (another example of your reading comprehension problem).

    And I’ve just read it, and you’re misrepresenting it because the problems you mention are qualified with the word “SOME”.

    SOME Chilean sea bass fisheries are well-managed, SOME – but not ALL, as you wrongly suggest – have issues with illegal catch.

    The report does not recommend avoiding consumption of Chilean sea bass, but simply recommends being sure that it’s properly documented and it points out that The Biggest Evil In History In Your Eyes: Government insists that all Chilean sea bass imported into the United States be so certified.

    So Big Al and the restaurant didn’t actually have to assure that it was legally caught in the first place, the US Government does so.

    Here’s Hogaza making another startling observation:

    “Sustainable fisheries are controlled by limiting the catch, not sales, dumfkuss

    Didn’t point out previously that while this observation might be startling to you, that doesn’t mean that it’s startling to the rest of humanity. Your own admission of limited knowledge and imagination says much about you, but doesn’t shed light on anything else.

  32. #32 dhogaza
    July 23, 2007

    ben sez:

    The science of the shape of the earth isn’t 90% certain.

    Sigh. Obviously we have some work to do, then. How certain is it? 25%? 50%? More? What can we, those who know something of science and technology, do to convince you that the earth is not flat, ben?

  33. #33 Ian gould
    July 23, 2007

    “GIM buys offsets from CarbonNeutral. CarbonNeutral invests the money in sustainable energy projects like wind power in India and hydroelectric in Bulgaria. They also engage in projects such as methane capture from agriculture in Germany and methane capture from Gateway Coal Mine in Pennsylvania.”

    Ah, but that’s just a front for the massive underground operation smuggling endangered animals to the Us so Al can eat them.

  34. #34 Ian Gould
    July 23, 2007

    “There is no free market in those endangered fish variety because there is very little segmentation of property rights in the fish catching business. Fishing is a tragedy of the commons writ large. It’s a race to catch the largest number of fish before the other guy gets the last one.”

    This is a wildly inaccurate misstatement of the situation.

    In a number of jurisdictions – including south Georgia where the toothfish in question came from – the catch is regulated and subject to sustainable quotes.

    Owning the right to take part of that sustainable yield is a property right.

  35. #35 ben
    July 23, 2007

    Sigh. Obviously we have some work to do, then. How certain is it? 25%? 50%? More? What can we, those who know something of science and technology, do to convince you that the earth is not flat, ben?

    ??? I hope you’re just being silly here. Just in case you aren’t, dhogaza, I’ll spill the beans: it is nearly 100% certain that the earth is not flat. Glad I could clear that up.

  36. #36 ben
    July 23, 2007

    WHoops, dang it. The previous comment is not supposed to be double blockquoted like that. Argh!

  37. #37 Hank Roberts
    July 26, 2007

    > How is Chilean sea bass legally caught …?

    > Mostly by hooks attached to long-lines ….

    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/trade/chile.pdf

    That’s good trolling.

  38. #38 Marion Delgado
    July 28, 2007

    I’ve posted this on Eli Rabbett’s blog too. Pretty damn good, WWN!

    This just in in the PRINT edition of the Weekly World News:

    It isn’t a Clear Day, It’s
    INVISIBLE CLOUDS

         HEMET, Calif. — Manure farmer and amateur meteorolgist Randy Thor has put forth a revolutionary theory about the weather — one which he says is the real cause of global warming..

         ”I did the math,”said the fifty–year-old. “There’s no way that burnig fossil fuels has produced the amount of climate change we’re seeing. So I started to wonder what else could be the cause. The answer was obvious:

    “Invisible clouds.” …

    more

  39. #39 Kilo
    July 28, 2007

    But the fish enjoyed by the Gores were not endangered or illegally caught.

    Well yeah they are endangered. Which makes this…

    Rather, the restaurant later confirmed, they had come from one of the world’s few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations.

    … sound a lot like “my dried tiger penis comes only from sustainably managed stocks”.

    These fish aren’t endangered because they’re prone to liver disease.
    They’re endangered because demand for them from people like those mentioned here is high enough to see poachers risking the deck guns of the Australian navy in Antarctic waters to poach them illegally and fish them to the point of extinction.